Darius11 12 #1 December 1, 2006 QuoteWASHINGTON — The first Muslim elected to Congress hasn't been sworn into office yet, but his act of allegiance has already been criticized by a conservative commentator. In a column posted Tuesday on the conservative website Townhall.com, Dennis Prager blasted Minnesota Democrat Keith Ellison's decision to take the oath of office Jan. 4 with his hand on a Quran, the Muslim holy book. "He should not be allowed to do so," Prager wrote, "not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American culture." He said Ellison, a convert from Catholicism, should swear on a Christian Bible — which "America holds as its holiest book. … If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress." The post generated nearly 800 comments on Townhall.com and sparked a tempest in the conservative blogosphere. Many who posted comments called the United States a Christian country and said Muslims are beginning to gain too much influence. Others wrote about the separation of church and state and said the Constitution protects all religions. Dave Colling, Ellison's spokesman, said he was unavailable for comment. Earlier, Ellison told the online Minnesota Monitor, "The Constitution guarantees for everyone to take the oath of office on whichever book they prefer. And that's what the freedom of religion is all about." Colling said Ellison's office has received hundreds of "very bigoted and racist" e-mails and phone calls since Prager's column appeared. "The vast majority said, 'You should resign from office if you're not willing to use the book our country was founded on,' " Colling said. "Requiring somebody to take an oath of office on a religious text that's not his" violates the Constitution, said Kevin Hasson, president of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Members of the House of Representatives traditionally raise their right hands and are sworn in together on the floor of the chamber. The ritual sometimes seen as the swearing-in is actually a ceremonial photo op with the speaker of the House that usually involves a Bible. "They can bring in whatever they want," says Fred Beuttler, deputy historian of the House. Prager, who is Jewish, wrote that no Mormon elected official has "demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon." But Republican Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon, carried a volume of Mormon scriptures that included the Bible and the Book of Mormon at his swearing-in ceremony in 1997. Prager, who hosts a radio talk show, could not be reached for comment. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-12-01-muslim-lawmaker_x.htm I think he should be allowed to place his hand on the Qhoran (Koran) as that is his holy book. I find it ridicules that this is even an issue. This is a country that the main freedom and the reason that it was created was freedom of Religion. Wouldn’t you want him to place his hand on the Koran? I mean you want the guy to swear on what has the most meaning to him right?I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #2 December 1, 2006 QuoteDave Colling, Ellison's spokesman, said he was unavailable for comment. Earlier, Ellison told the online Minnesota Monitor, "The Constitution guarantees for everyone to take the oath of office on whichever book they prefer. And that's what the freedom of religion is all about." Can I take my oath of office on "Green Eggs and Ham"? PS: With the seperation of church and state why do officials take an oath that involves religion at all?"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #3 December 1, 2006 It's not ridiculous for this to be an issue considering todays conflicts in the Middle East - would you really expect anything less? However, the conflicts themselves are beyond ridiculous. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #4 December 1, 2006 PS: With the seperation of church and state why do officials take an oath that involves religion at all?Quote Well you have the right to belive in a religon as much as you have the right to not belive in any religon. But you should have the choice.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Butters 0 #5 December 1, 2006 QuotePS: With the seperation of church and state why do officials take an oath that involves religion at all?Quote Well you have the right to belive in a religon as much as you have the right to not belive in any religon. But you should have the choice. I understand people have the choice to believe or not believe in any religion but why does their belief have to be part of their oath?"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #6 December 1, 2006 QuoteI understand people have the choice to believe or not believe in any religion but why does their belief have to be part of their oath? It seems ideal to ask someone to take an oath on a book they find most sacred / important. If I'm ever elected to an office, I'll probably want to take my oath on a Science book.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #7 December 1, 2006 Sounds like this Prager guy is a complete moron who knows nothing about the Constitution. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Darius11 12 #8 December 1, 2006 QuoteQuotePS: With the seperation of church and state why do officials take an oath that involves religion at all?Quote Well you have the right to belive in a religon as much as you have the right to not belive in any religon. But you should have the choice. I understand people have the choice to believe or not believe in any religion but why does their belief have to be part of their oath? I don’t know the reason as to why. Other then the obvious one of being truthful by swearing on what is holy to you. Kind of funny thinking about politicians and honesty in the same sentence.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,009 #9 December 1, 2006 So let me get this straight: The swearing-in has nothing to do with a bible. Prager is outraged because Ellison wants to do a PHOTO OP with a Koran? Methinks people should take this guy about as seriously as they take, say, Ann Coulter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #10 December 1, 2006 Prager is right up there with http://jeffgannon.com The man is an American... the man is a muslim.. he needs to use the Koran for his ceremony. The people who ELECTED him KNEW he is a muslim. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vortexring 0 #11 December 1, 2006 In the UK a number of years ago(pre September the 11th) there was a bit of a ding dong debate regarding a Pakistan Muslim polititician argueing that there should be far more Muslim politicians in the UK, and a positive step to achieve this should be made. It opened a can of worms in regards to how fellow politicians could argue against him, in regards to racism and what have you. Ultimately the Muslim politician soon lost his wind and publicity. When in a country different to your ethnicity you primarily 'conform to it's system.' It's simply a case of respect. If they don't respect the system, it's laws and rules, then, to speak simplistically, you can fuck off. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #12 December 1, 2006 QuoteIn the UK a number of years ago(pre September the 11th) there was a bit of a ding dong debate regarding a Pakistan Muslim polititician argueing that there should be far more Muslim politicians in the UK, and a positive step to achieve this should be made. It opened a can of worms in regards to how fellow politicians could argue against him, in regards to racism and what have you. Ultimately the Muslim politician soon lost his wind and publicity. When in a country different to your ethnicity you primarily 'conform to it's system.' It's simply a case of respect. If they don't respect the system, it's laws and rules, then, to speak simplistically, you can fuck off. America's culture is imported cultures. It always has been (at least since our genocide of the Native Americans) and likely always will be.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #13 December 1, 2006 QuoteMethinks people should take this guy about as seriously as they take, say, Ann Coulter. Which one? Prager, Ellison, or both. I vote both. Bunch of PR grandstanding. But likely (right or wrong) this will not endear Ellison to his constituents. A good politician picks his battles, in this case, he's just creating one for press. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites seedy 0 #14 December 1, 2006 Maybe they all should put their hand on a copy of the Constitution since that is what they are swearing to uphold. I intend to live forever -- so far, so good. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vortexring 0 #15 December 1, 2006 I know that and seriously believe it to be the way to end international conflicts - to be the so called melting pot where different ethnicities break down to unite as one. I don't believe in nationalism. It delays the pre-mentioned. But the US is not quite there yet. So why not conform to it's system if you live there??? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites downwardspiral 0 #16 December 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteDave Colling, Ellison's spokesman, said he was unavailable for comment. Earlier, Ellison told the online Minnesota Monitor, "The Constitution guarantees for everyone to take the oath of office on whichever book they prefer. And that's what the freedom of religion is all about." Can I take my oath of office on "Green Eggs and Ham"? PS: With the seperation of church and state why do officials take an oath that involves religion at all? You sure could. Probably not the smartest political move though. I admire Ellison for swearing in upon the Koran. Afterall, what kind of person would forsake said person's religion for the sake of popular votes?.... A poor politician.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,009 #17 December 1, 2006 >Bunch of PR grandstanding. "Ellison's spokesman said he was unavailable for comment." Now THAT'S a grandstanding politician! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #18 December 1, 2006 QuoteThe swearing-in has nothing to do with a bible. Prager is outraged because Ellison wants to do a PHOTO OP with a Koran? Is this one of those "fill in the blanks to suit your particular outrage" fabrications? I ask because I just read Prager's column and saw nothing that would back your statement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #19 December 1, 2006 Quote>Bunch of PR grandstanding. "Ellison's spokesman said he was unavailable for comment." Now THAT'S a grandstanding politician! It's what he did beforehand that was the grandstanding. Sorry that point was lost on some. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,009 #20 December 1, 2006 >I ask because I just read Prager's column and saw nothing that >would back your statement. Ah. So you read a radio talk show host's article and therefore missed what's actually going on - fair enough. Members of the House DO NOT SWEAR IN ON A BIBLE. (Bolded, since you missed it before.) They swear in by raising their right hand and repeating an oath. No bibles or korans involved. Often, members of the House do a photo-op with the Speaker of the House that involves putting their hand on a bible. It has nothing to do with their jobs; it's a chance to get their faces in front of a camera, which all politicians like. This is where the (non)controversy is centered. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #21 December 1, 2006 QuoteWouldn’t you want him to place his hand on the Koran? I mean you want the guy to swear on what has the most meaning to him right? That depends upon how he interprets the Koran, and whether or not he intends to uphold and defend American values and laws. For example, if a newly elected congressman wanted to swear-in with his hand on Mein Kampf, then we'd have a problem... Likewise, if this Muslim congressman intends to try and implement Muslim Sharia law in place of American law, then we'd have a problem... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vortexring 0 #22 December 1, 2006 Yeah simplistically your right John - even more simplistically you can read what I mentioned earlier and see how simple I am in regards to all this, haha! Hope your well. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #23 December 1, 2006 Quote>I ask because I just read Prager's column and saw nothing that >would back your statement. Ah. So you read a radio talk show host's article and therefore missed what's actually going on - fair enough. Members of the House DO NOT SWEAR IN ON A BIBLE. (Bolded, since you missed it before.) They swear in by raising their right hand and repeating an oath. No bibles or korans involved. Often, members of the House do a photo-op with the Speaker of the House that involves putting their hand on a bible. It has nothing to do with their jobs; it's a chance to get their faces in front of a camera, which all politicians like. This is where the (non)controversy is centered. This is what Prager is bothered by? What specifically did he say that led you to this "truth"? I do love how so many jump to unsupported conclusions around here. It is amusing. Back in early '03 I wrote a little piece on why I opposed the invasion of Iran. It had nothing the to do with the talking points of the left. Nevertheless, a number of people had me pegged as an anti-American, bleeding-heart pacifist. Can you imagine? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #24 December 2, 2006 QuoteNevertheless, a number of people had me pegged as an anti-American, bleeding-heart pacifist. Can you imagine? It happens all the time.....the right is GOOD at doing that to ANYONE who disagrees with THEIR agenda. MORE WAR.. Less actual serving America and what the Constitution is supposed to be about.l Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,009 #25 December 2, 2006 >What specifically did he (Prager) say that led you to this "truth"? "Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran. He should not be allowed to do so." >I do love how so many jump to unsupported conclusions around here. It is amusing. Yes it is! Imagine how boring it would be if people actually read the stuff they were posting about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Butters 0 #5 December 1, 2006 QuotePS: With the seperation of church and state why do officials take an oath that involves religion at all?Quote Well you have the right to belive in a religon as much as you have the right to not belive in any religon. But you should have the choice. I understand people have the choice to believe or not believe in any religion but why does their belief have to be part of their oath?"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #6 December 1, 2006 QuoteI understand people have the choice to believe or not believe in any religion but why does their belief have to be part of their oath? It seems ideal to ask someone to take an oath on a book they find most sacred / important. If I'm ever elected to an office, I'll probably want to take my oath on a Science book.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #7 December 1, 2006 Sounds like this Prager guy is a complete moron who knows nothing about the Constitution. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Darius11 12 #8 December 1, 2006 QuoteQuotePS: With the seperation of church and state why do officials take an oath that involves religion at all?Quote Well you have the right to belive in a religon as much as you have the right to not belive in any religon. But you should have the choice. I understand people have the choice to believe or not believe in any religion but why does their belief have to be part of their oath? I don’t know the reason as to why. Other then the obvious one of being truthful by swearing on what is holy to you. Kind of funny thinking about politicians and honesty in the same sentence.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,009 #9 December 1, 2006 So let me get this straight: The swearing-in has nothing to do with a bible. Prager is outraged because Ellison wants to do a PHOTO OP with a Koran? Methinks people should take this guy about as seriously as they take, say, Ann Coulter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #10 December 1, 2006 Prager is right up there with http://jeffgannon.com The man is an American... the man is a muslim.. he needs to use the Koran for his ceremony. The people who ELECTED him KNEW he is a muslim. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vortexring 0 #11 December 1, 2006 In the UK a number of years ago(pre September the 11th) there was a bit of a ding dong debate regarding a Pakistan Muslim polititician argueing that there should be far more Muslim politicians in the UK, and a positive step to achieve this should be made. It opened a can of worms in regards to how fellow politicians could argue against him, in regards to racism and what have you. Ultimately the Muslim politician soon lost his wind and publicity. When in a country different to your ethnicity you primarily 'conform to it's system.' It's simply a case of respect. If they don't respect the system, it's laws and rules, then, to speak simplistically, you can fuck off. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #12 December 1, 2006 QuoteIn the UK a number of years ago(pre September the 11th) there was a bit of a ding dong debate regarding a Pakistan Muslim polititician argueing that there should be far more Muslim politicians in the UK, and a positive step to achieve this should be made. It opened a can of worms in regards to how fellow politicians could argue against him, in regards to racism and what have you. Ultimately the Muslim politician soon lost his wind and publicity. When in a country different to your ethnicity you primarily 'conform to it's system.' It's simply a case of respect. If they don't respect the system, it's laws and rules, then, to speak simplistically, you can fuck off. America's culture is imported cultures. It always has been (at least since our genocide of the Native Americans) and likely always will be.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #13 December 1, 2006 QuoteMethinks people should take this guy about as seriously as they take, say, Ann Coulter. Which one? Prager, Ellison, or both. I vote both. Bunch of PR grandstanding. But likely (right or wrong) this will not endear Ellison to his constituents. A good politician picks his battles, in this case, he's just creating one for press. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites seedy 0 #14 December 1, 2006 Maybe they all should put their hand on a copy of the Constitution since that is what they are swearing to uphold. I intend to live forever -- so far, so good. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vortexring 0 #15 December 1, 2006 I know that and seriously believe it to be the way to end international conflicts - to be the so called melting pot where different ethnicities break down to unite as one. I don't believe in nationalism. It delays the pre-mentioned. But the US is not quite there yet. So why not conform to it's system if you live there??? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites downwardspiral 0 #16 December 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteDave Colling, Ellison's spokesman, said he was unavailable for comment. Earlier, Ellison told the online Minnesota Monitor, "The Constitution guarantees for everyone to take the oath of office on whichever book they prefer. And that's what the freedom of religion is all about." Can I take my oath of office on "Green Eggs and Ham"? PS: With the seperation of church and state why do officials take an oath that involves religion at all? You sure could. Probably not the smartest political move though. I admire Ellison for swearing in upon the Koran. Afterall, what kind of person would forsake said person's religion for the sake of popular votes?.... A poor politician.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,009 #17 December 1, 2006 >Bunch of PR grandstanding. "Ellison's spokesman said he was unavailable for comment." Now THAT'S a grandstanding politician! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #18 December 1, 2006 QuoteThe swearing-in has nothing to do with a bible. Prager is outraged because Ellison wants to do a PHOTO OP with a Koran? Is this one of those "fill in the blanks to suit your particular outrage" fabrications? I ask because I just read Prager's column and saw nothing that would back your statement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #19 December 1, 2006 Quote>Bunch of PR grandstanding. "Ellison's spokesman said he was unavailable for comment." Now THAT'S a grandstanding politician! It's what he did beforehand that was the grandstanding. Sorry that point was lost on some. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,009 #20 December 1, 2006 >I ask because I just read Prager's column and saw nothing that >would back your statement. Ah. So you read a radio talk show host's article and therefore missed what's actually going on - fair enough. Members of the House DO NOT SWEAR IN ON A BIBLE. (Bolded, since you missed it before.) They swear in by raising their right hand and repeating an oath. No bibles or korans involved. Often, members of the House do a photo-op with the Speaker of the House that involves putting their hand on a bible. It has nothing to do with their jobs; it's a chance to get their faces in front of a camera, which all politicians like. This is where the (non)controversy is centered. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #21 December 1, 2006 QuoteWouldn’t you want him to place his hand on the Koran? I mean you want the guy to swear on what has the most meaning to him right? That depends upon how he interprets the Koran, and whether or not he intends to uphold and defend American values and laws. For example, if a newly elected congressman wanted to swear-in with his hand on Mein Kampf, then we'd have a problem... Likewise, if this Muslim congressman intends to try and implement Muslim Sharia law in place of American law, then we'd have a problem... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vortexring 0 #22 December 1, 2006 Yeah simplistically your right John - even more simplistically you can read what I mentioned earlier and see how simple I am in regards to all this, haha! Hope your well. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #23 December 1, 2006 Quote>I ask because I just read Prager's column and saw nothing that >would back your statement. Ah. So you read a radio talk show host's article and therefore missed what's actually going on - fair enough. Members of the House DO NOT SWEAR IN ON A BIBLE. (Bolded, since you missed it before.) They swear in by raising their right hand and repeating an oath. No bibles or korans involved. Often, members of the House do a photo-op with the Speaker of the House that involves putting their hand on a bible. It has nothing to do with their jobs; it's a chance to get their faces in front of a camera, which all politicians like. This is where the (non)controversy is centered. This is what Prager is bothered by? What specifically did he say that led you to this "truth"? I do love how so many jump to unsupported conclusions around here. It is amusing. Back in early '03 I wrote a little piece on why I opposed the invasion of Iran. It had nothing the to do with the talking points of the left. Nevertheless, a number of people had me pegged as an anti-American, bleeding-heart pacifist. Can you imagine? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #24 December 2, 2006 QuoteNevertheless, a number of people had me pegged as an anti-American, bleeding-heart pacifist. Can you imagine? It happens all the time.....the right is GOOD at doing that to ANYONE who disagrees with THEIR agenda. MORE WAR.. Less actual serving America and what the Constitution is supposed to be about.l Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,009 #25 December 2, 2006 >What specifically did he (Prager) say that led you to this "truth"? "Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran. He should not be allowed to do so." >I do love how so many jump to unsupported conclusions around here. It is amusing. Yes it is! Imagine how boring it would be if people actually read the stuff they were posting about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
jcd11235 0 #6 December 1, 2006 QuoteI understand people have the choice to believe or not believe in any religion but why does their belief have to be part of their oath? It seems ideal to ask someone to take an oath on a book they find most sacred / important. If I'm ever elected to an office, I'll probably want to take my oath on a Science book.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #7 December 1, 2006 Sounds like this Prager guy is a complete moron who knows nothing about the Constitution. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #8 December 1, 2006 QuoteQuotePS: With the seperation of church and state why do officials take an oath that involves religion at all?Quote Well you have the right to belive in a religon as much as you have the right to not belive in any religon. But you should have the choice. I understand people have the choice to believe or not believe in any religion but why does their belief have to be part of their oath? I don’t know the reason as to why. Other then the obvious one of being truthful by swearing on what is holy to you. Kind of funny thinking about politicians and honesty in the same sentence.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,009 #9 December 1, 2006 So let me get this straight: The swearing-in has nothing to do with a bible. Prager is outraged because Ellison wants to do a PHOTO OP with a Koran? Methinks people should take this guy about as seriously as they take, say, Ann Coulter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #10 December 1, 2006 Prager is right up there with http://jeffgannon.com The man is an American... the man is a muslim.. he needs to use the Koran for his ceremony. The people who ELECTED him KNEW he is a muslim. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vortexring 0 #11 December 1, 2006 In the UK a number of years ago(pre September the 11th) there was a bit of a ding dong debate regarding a Pakistan Muslim polititician argueing that there should be far more Muslim politicians in the UK, and a positive step to achieve this should be made. It opened a can of worms in regards to how fellow politicians could argue against him, in regards to racism and what have you. Ultimately the Muslim politician soon lost his wind and publicity. When in a country different to your ethnicity you primarily 'conform to it's system.' It's simply a case of respect. If they don't respect the system, it's laws and rules, then, to speak simplistically, you can fuck off. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #12 December 1, 2006 QuoteIn the UK a number of years ago(pre September the 11th) there was a bit of a ding dong debate regarding a Pakistan Muslim polititician argueing that there should be far more Muslim politicians in the UK, and a positive step to achieve this should be made. It opened a can of worms in regards to how fellow politicians could argue against him, in regards to racism and what have you. Ultimately the Muslim politician soon lost his wind and publicity. When in a country different to your ethnicity you primarily 'conform to it's system.' It's simply a case of respect. If they don't respect the system, it's laws and rules, then, to speak simplistically, you can fuck off. America's culture is imported cultures. It always has been (at least since our genocide of the Native Americans) and likely always will be.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #13 December 1, 2006 QuoteMethinks people should take this guy about as seriously as they take, say, Ann Coulter. Which one? Prager, Ellison, or both. I vote both. Bunch of PR grandstanding. But likely (right or wrong) this will not endear Ellison to his constituents. A good politician picks his battles, in this case, he's just creating one for press. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites seedy 0 #14 December 1, 2006 Maybe they all should put their hand on a copy of the Constitution since that is what they are swearing to uphold. I intend to live forever -- so far, so good. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vortexring 0 #15 December 1, 2006 I know that and seriously believe it to be the way to end international conflicts - to be the so called melting pot where different ethnicities break down to unite as one. I don't believe in nationalism. It delays the pre-mentioned. But the US is not quite there yet. So why not conform to it's system if you live there??? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites downwardspiral 0 #16 December 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteDave Colling, Ellison's spokesman, said he was unavailable for comment. Earlier, Ellison told the online Minnesota Monitor, "The Constitution guarantees for everyone to take the oath of office on whichever book they prefer. And that's what the freedom of religion is all about." Can I take my oath of office on "Green Eggs and Ham"? PS: With the seperation of church and state why do officials take an oath that involves religion at all? You sure could. Probably not the smartest political move though. I admire Ellison for swearing in upon the Koran. Afterall, what kind of person would forsake said person's religion for the sake of popular votes?.... A poor politician.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,009 #17 December 1, 2006 >Bunch of PR grandstanding. "Ellison's spokesman said he was unavailable for comment." Now THAT'S a grandstanding politician! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #18 December 1, 2006 QuoteThe swearing-in has nothing to do with a bible. Prager is outraged because Ellison wants to do a PHOTO OP with a Koran? Is this one of those "fill in the blanks to suit your particular outrage" fabrications? I ask because I just read Prager's column and saw nothing that would back your statement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #19 December 1, 2006 Quote>Bunch of PR grandstanding. "Ellison's spokesman said he was unavailable for comment." Now THAT'S a grandstanding politician! It's what he did beforehand that was the grandstanding. Sorry that point was lost on some. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,009 #20 December 1, 2006 >I ask because I just read Prager's column and saw nothing that >would back your statement. Ah. So you read a radio talk show host's article and therefore missed what's actually going on - fair enough. Members of the House DO NOT SWEAR IN ON A BIBLE. (Bolded, since you missed it before.) They swear in by raising their right hand and repeating an oath. No bibles or korans involved. Often, members of the House do a photo-op with the Speaker of the House that involves putting their hand on a bible. It has nothing to do with their jobs; it's a chance to get their faces in front of a camera, which all politicians like. This is where the (non)controversy is centered. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #21 December 1, 2006 QuoteWouldn’t you want him to place his hand on the Koran? I mean you want the guy to swear on what has the most meaning to him right? That depends upon how he interprets the Koran, and whether or not he intends to uphold and defend American values and laws. For example, if a newly elected congressman wanted to swear-in with his hand on Mein Kampf, then we'd have a problem... Likewise, if this Muslim congressman intends to try and implement Muslim Sharia law in place of American law, then we'd have a problem... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vortexring 0 #22 December 1, 2006 Yeah simplistically your right John - even more simplistically you can read what I mentioned earlier and see how simple I am in regards to all this, haha! Hope your well. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #23 December 1, 2006 Quote>I ask because I just read Prager's column and saw nothing that >would back your statement. Ah. So you read a radio talk show host's article and therefore missed what's actually going on - fair enough. Members of the House DO NOT SWEAR IN ON A BIBLE. (Bolded, since you missed it before.) They swear in by raising their right hand and repeating an oath. No bibles or korans involved. Often, members of the House do a photo-op with the Speaker of the House that involves putting their hand on a bible. It has nothing to do with their jobs; it's a chance to get their faces in front of a camera, which all politicians like. This is where the (non)controversy is centered. This is what Prager is bothered by? What specifically did he say that led you to this "truth"? I do love how so many jump to unsupported conclusions around here. It is amusing. Back in early '03 I wrote a little piece on why I opposed the invasion of Iran. It had nothing the to do with the talking points of the left. Nevertheless, a number of people had me pegged as an anti-American, bleeding-heart pacifist. Can you imagine? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #24 December 2, 2006 QuoteNevertheless, a number of people had me pegged as an anti-American, bleeding-heart pacifist. Can you imagine? It happens all the time.....the right is GOOD at doing that to ANYONE who disagrees with THEIR agenda. MORE WAR.. Less actual serving America and what the Constitution is supposed to be about.l Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,009 #25 December 2, 2006 >What specifically did he (Prager) say that led you to this "truth"? "Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran. He should not be allowed to do so." >I do love how so many jump to unsupported conclusions around here. It is amusing. Yes it is! Imagine how boring it would be if people actually read the stuff they were posting about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
billvon 3,009 #9 December 1, 2006 So let me get this straight: The swearing-in has nothing to do with a bible. Prager is outraged because Ellison wants to do a PHOTO OP with a Koran? Methinks people should take this guy about as seriously as they take, say, Ann Coulter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #10 December 1, 2006 Prager is right up there with http://jeffgannon.com The man is an American... the man is a muslim.. he needs to use the Koran for his ceremony. The people who ELECTED him KNEW he is a muslim. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #11 December 1, 2006 In the UK a number of years ago(pre September the 11th) there was a bit of a ding dong debate regarding a Pakistan Muslim polititician argueing that there should be far more Muslim politicians in the UK, and a positive step to achieve this should be made. It opened a can of worms in regards to how fellow politicians could argue against him, in regards to racism and what have you. Ultimately the Muslim politician soon lost his wind and publicity. When in a country different to your ethnicity you primarily 'conform to it's system.' It's simply a case of respect. If they don't respect the system, it's laws and rules, then, to speak simplistically, you can fuck off. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #12 December 1, 2006 QuoteIn the UK a number of years ago(pre September the 11th) there was a bit of a ding dong debate regarding a Pakistan Muslim polititician argueing that there should be far more Muslim politicians in the UK, and a positive step to achieve this should be made. It opened a can of worms in regards to how fellow politicians could argue against him, in regards to racism and what have you. Ultimately the Muslim politician soon lost his wind and publicity. When in a country different to your ethnicity you primarily 'conform to it's system.' It's simply a case of respect. If they don't respect the system, it's laws and rules, then, to speak simplistically, you can fuck off. America's culture is imported cultures. It always has been (at least since our genocide of the Native Americans) and likely always will be.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #13 December 1, 2006 QuoteMethinks people should take this guy about as seriously as they take, say, Ann Coulter. Which one? Prager, Ellison, or both. I vote both. Bunch of PR grandstanding. But likely (right or wrong) this will not endear Ellison to his constituents. A good politician picks his battles, in this case, he's just creating one for press. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seedy 0 #14 December 1, 2006 Maybe they all should put their hand on a copy of the Constitution since that is what they are swearing to uphold. I intend to live forever -- so far, so good. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #15 December 1, 2006 I know that and seriously believe it to be the way to end international conflicts - to be the so called melting pot where different ethnicities break down to unite as one. I don't believe in nationalism. It delays the pre-mentioned. But the US is not quite there yet. So why not conform to it's system if you live there??? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #16 December 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteDave Colling, Ellison's spokesman, said he was unavailable for comment. Earlier, Ellison told the online Minnesota Monitor, "The Constitution guarantees for everyone to take the oath of office on whichever book they prefer. And that's what the freedom of religion is all about." Can I take my oath of office on "Green Eggs and Ham"? PS: With the seperation of church and state why do officials take an oath that involves religion at all? You sure could. Probably not the smartest political move though. I admire Ellison for swearing in upon the Koran. Afterall, what kind of person would forsake said person's religion for the sake of popular votes?.... A poor politician.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #17 December 1, 2006 >Bunch of PR grandstanding. "Ellison's spokesman said he was unavailable for comment." Now THAT'S a grandstanding politician! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #18 December 1, 2006 QuoteThe swearing-in has nothing to do with a bible. Prager is outraged because Ellison wants to do a PHOTO OP with a Koran? Is this one of those "fill in the blanks to suit your particular outrage" fabrications? I ask because I just read Prager's column and saw nothing that would back your statement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #19 December 1, 2006 Quote>Bunch of PR grandstanding. "Ellison's spokesman said he was unavailable for comment." Now THAT'S a grandstanding politician! It's what he did beforehand that was the grandstanding. Sorry that point was lost on some. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #20 December 1, 2006 >I ask because I just read Prager's column and saw nothing that >would back your statement. Ah. So you read a radio talk show host's article and therefore missed what's actually going on - fair enough. Members of the House DO NOT SWEAR IN ON A BIBLE. (Bolded, since you missed it before.) They swear in by raising their right hand and repeating an oath. No bibles or korans involved. Often, members of the House do a photo-op with the Speaker of the House that involves putting their hand on a bible. It has nothing to do with their jobs; it's a chance to get their faces in front of a camera, which all politicians like. This is where the (non)controversy is centered. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #21 December 1, 2006 QuoteWouldn’t you want him to place his hand on the Koran? I mean you want the guy to swear on what has the most meaning to him right? That depends upon how he interprets the Koran, and whether or not he intends to uphold and defend American values and laws. For example, if a newly elected congressman wanted to swear-in with his hand on Mein Kampf, then we'd have a problem... Likewise, if this Muslim congressman intends to try and implement Muslim Sharia law in place of American law, then we'd have a problem... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #22 December 1, 2006 Yeah simplistically your right John - even more simplistically you can read what I mentioned earlier and see how simple I am in regards to all this, haha! Hope your well. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #23 December 1, 2006 Quote>I ask because I just read Prager's column and saw nothing that >would back your statement. Ah. So you read a radio talk show host's article and therefore missed what's actually going on - fair enough. Members of the House DO NOT SWEAR IN ON A BIBLE. (Bolded, since you missed it before.) They swear in by raising their right hand and repeating an oath. No bibles or korans involved. Often, members of the House do a photo-op with the Speaker of the House that involves putting their hand on a bible. It has nothing to do with their jobs; it's a chance to get their faces in front of a camera, which all politicians like. This is where the (non)controversy is centered. This is what Prager is bothered by? What specifically did he say that led you to this "truth"? I do love how so many jump to unsupported conclusions around here. It is amusing. Back in early '03 I wrote a little piece on why I opposed the invasion of Iran. It had nothing the to do with the talking points of the left. Nevertheless, a number of people had me pegged as an anti-American, bleeding-heart pacifist. Can you imagine? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #24 December 2, 2006 QuoteNevertheless, a number of people had me pegged as an anti-American, bleeding-heart pacifist. Can you imagine? It happens all the time.....the right is GOOD at doing that to ANYONE who disagrees with THEIR agenda. MORE WAR.. Less actual serving America and what the Constitution is supposed to be about.l Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #25 December 2, 2006 >What specifically did he (Prager) say that led you to this "truth"? "Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran. He should not be allowed to do so." >I do love how so many jump to unsupported conclusions around here. It is amusing. Yes it is! Imagine how boring it would be if people actually read the stuff they were posting about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
