Joyner has the story, and says everything I would have said about it. I just want to add this: If I’m ever elected to office, I’m going to be sorely tempted to swear my oath of office on a copy of Playboy just to well and truly piss off people who ought to know better but don’t.
Sidebar
Subscribe
Search
Tip Jar
This site does not accept advertising.
Please show your support
by sending me all your money.
Comments
All comments are the property of their owners and do not reflect the opinions of this Web site or, well, basically anybody at all. The author of this Web site reserves the right to edit the hell out of any and all comments. Participate at your own risk.
“If” you’re elected to office? Come on, Jeff. It’s only a matter of time.
Derek
Tuesday, November 28th, 2006, 10:59 pm
So, someone else that Prager had gone nuts. Cool. Thought it was just the fever on my end.
alli
Tuesday, November 28th, 2006, 11:21 pm
If I could stomach listening to him, I might have a more informed opinion about whether he’s gone nuts. All I can say with confidence is that he’s a moron.
Or at least that he’s acting like one in this case.
Jeff Harrell
Tuesday, November 28th, 2006, 11:23 pm
This is why I don’t comment on things I know little about. It makes me look…well, like something mentioned in your title.
Without getting into it too deeply, Keith Ellison is throwing away 230 years of tradition in order to make a political statement. While the precedent of not using the Bible at your swearing in has a long tradition (ask any atheist activist), this would be the first time something other than the Bible was used.
For politics.
Nothing but a pathetic plea for attention.
Nothing to do with his “great religious faith.”
Just…politics.
But hey, because Prager said something about the Bible, don’t let the substance of the argument get in the way of a good title. Just because Prager tried to uphold 230 years of tradition, meh, not important.
It’s this kind of bickering that makes me dump people.
MacStansbury
Tuesday, November 28th, 2006, 11:58 pm
Well, this might be one of the few times I think Prager has let emotion overcome reason.
But most of the time he is one of the most thoughtful and polite hosts on radio today.
My question is, when CAIR’s pet congresscritter takes the oath, will the infidel judge giving the oath have to wear white gloves while holding the Koran?
Darleen
Wednesday, November 29th, 2006, 1:14 am
oh… btw…just for those people who don’t know Prager
He’s a religious Jew and for many years ran a very successful show called “Religion on the line” where leaders of different faiths gathered to consider all manner of topics.
Darleen
Wednesday, November 29th, 2006, 1:16 am
Given the Constitutional aspects, Mac, this is a tradition we are not only allowed but in fact legally obligated to ignore.
Jeff Harrell
Wednesday, November 29th, 2006, 7:11 am
Darleen,
I usually rather like Prager as well. But this is one of those times when he’s wrong. I’ve never listened to his show but his columns are usually very good.
alli
Wednesday, November 29th, 2006, 7:44 am
Um, why would Keith Ellison’s constituents or anyone else want him to swear an oath on a book that he doesn’t hold “sacred”? He might as well cross his fingers behind his back.
Prager is an asshat, and anyone who agrees with him on this issue is a butt-stetson.
pastor maker
Wednesday, November 29th, 2006, 8:32 am
Prager is an asshat, and anyone who agrees with him on this issue is a butt-stetson
Now there’s a reasoned arguement.
I can disagree with Prager on this issue, but I also can see the validity of some of his arguement. And he, himself, is far from an “asshat”.
Anyone have problems with Congresscritter Tom Cruise taking the oath on a Dianetics book?
Darleen
Wednesday, November 29th, 2006, 9:00 am
Anyone have problems with Congresscritter Tom Cruise taking the oath on a Dianetics book?
Other than the horror of Cruise being elected anything other than “Weirdo”, no. I feel no objection to this.
alli
Wednesday, November 29th, 2006, 9:23 am
None whatsoever. The oath doesn’t mean anything to anybody but the person who takes it. If putting your hand on a stack of back-issues of Mad Magazine makes it mean something to you, then go right ahead.
Jeff Harrell
Wednesday, November 29th, 2006, 9:40 am
Hey, I’m from Keith’s state, and I’m looking for any reason to keep him out of Congress. Hand on the Bible, pal. What? You don’t want to put your hand on the Bible? Excellent. You can take campaign donations from terrorism-associated CAIR and speak secretely at their meetings as a city councilmember, garbage man, or something less important than Congress.
Feisty
Wednesday, November 29th, 2006, 10:01 am
I think that pretty well sums it up, doesn’t it? The only people who care about this are people who are looking for any reason at all to keep Muslims out of Congress.
I’d call them racists, but frankly I think doing so would give racists a bad name. These people make me sick.
Stan
Wednesday, November 29th, 2006, 10:44 am
“…the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion… [and] it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims]…”
Treaty between USA and Libya, ratified by George Washington, the first President of the United States, June 10, 1797.
“The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or Mohammedan nation.”
John Adams
“Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindu and Infidel of every denomination.”
Thomas Jefferson; Autobiography, referring to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
sodium
Wednesday, November 29th, 2006, 12:45 pm
“If putting your hand on a stack of back-issues of Mad Magazine makes it mean something to you, then go right ahead.”
OK, but no Cracked… we gotta draw the line somewhere.
Joel
Wednesday, November 29th, 2006, 12:59 pm
So, Stan, you’re calling me worse than a racist for wanting to keep someone who cavorts with groups whose leaders associate with known terrorists and call for the destruction of Israel out of the United States Congress?
You WANT this guy in Congress? He’s also a European-style socialist, if you’re into that stuff. If he wants to throw a stink about a Bible and not get into Congress, I’m totally not going to run out there with my gloves on carrying a Koran for him. It’s better than having terrorists’ associates in Congress.
Feisty
Wednesday, November 29th, 2006, 1:57 pm
Anyone have problems with Congresscritter Tom Cruise taking the oath on a Dianetics book?
Nope. Whatever ridiculous things the congressperson wants to believe is his/her own business, as long as they’re not pushed on me. I happily voted for Keith Ellison, and I will again in two years.
Gus
Wednesday, November 29th, 2006, 2:28 pm
Not to be arguing everything and all, but I’d have a problem with someone being in the Congress of my country who thinks an alien named Xenu brought “millions of aliens to Earth” in Douglas DC-8s and blew them up to create human souls… as they do in scientology. Seriously.
So, Tom Cruise can swear upon a dianetics book, but that outs him as a generally crazy person, especially since that Hubbard guy said he made everything up. I don’t know why you you all’s standards for Congresspeople is so low.
Feisty
Wednesday, November 29th, 2006, 2:53 pm
Even as a Christian myself, I never particularly understood the purpose of putting your hand on a Bible while swearing an oath, as if otherwise it doesn’t count. Like, does putting my skin in contact with the leather and tree pulp upon which holy words just happen to be printed magically infuse me with extra sincerity? WTF.
But that said…
- I have no objection to an elected official taking their oath of office with their hand on any book they personally find sacred. If I don’t like what they find sacred, I don’t have to vote for him or her.
- I’d prefer we dispense with the argument entirely and replace the Bible/Koran/Dianetics/whatever with a copy of the Constitution, for the sake of oath-taking.
- And yet, I agree with Joel. Out of respect for the august body of Congress, I will indeed insist on proper decorum: MAD instead of Cracked, Playboy instead of Penthouse, Superman instead of Aquaman.
Tiff
Wednesday, November 29th, 2006, 3:24 pm
I happily voted for Keith Ellison, and I will again in two years.
This is why idiots stay in Congress for so long…people like Gus say they’ll vote for him again before he’s even not sworn on the Bible for his first term. At least Gus is aware that he’s too lazy to even figure out if the guy’s done his job or not.
Feisty
Wednesday, November 29th, 2006, 4:56 pm
The oath doesn’t mean anything to anybody but the person who takes it.
I beg to differ, Jeff. Since the oath is administered publically, then the meaning goes beyond the personal.
Otherwise, why have it? Indeed, why a public wedding with wedding vows?
Public oaths aren’t just to one’s choice (or non-choice) of Creator, they are made as witnessing infront of people from one’s family/community/nation. “I vow to behavior in a particular way according to a particular set of ethics/values/morals”.
Darleen
Wednesday, November 29th, 2006, 8:17 pm
Right. Which means absolutely nothing unless the person taking the oath holds that it does.
A solemn vow is worth only the paper it’s printed on.
Jeff Harrell
Wednesday, November 29th, 2006, 8:19 pm
Wow, you Ellison bashers are sure a touchy, whiney bunch
And there’s just not a damn thing any of you can do to stop Ellison from being sworn in with a Quran
Too Bad, So Sad
And remember, the only one responsible for letting Usama bin Laden stay free & clear from having to answer for Sept 11 is President Jr, the biggest appeaser of al-Qaeda and Usama bin Laden in the world today
Just tough luck for those killed, wounded & traumatized on Sept 11 that W decided cutting & running from Afghanistan-in a pathetic attempt to show up his father by deposing Saddam Hussein-was a far better use of his Presidential power than achieving justice for the Sept 11 victims
KingCranky
Wednesday, November 29th, 2006, 8:21 pm
Hey, Stan?
What particular race is “Muslim”?
And where have you been for the past five years?
Here’s a large CLUE BAT for you…
I would have absolutely no problem voting for a Muslim like this woman, but spare me the whiney-assed snits about “Islamophobia” … I already gotta read about dhimmi’s like Jhimmi Carter and John Conyers.
Darleen
Wednesday, November 29th, 2006, 8:26 pm
Uh, Jeff?
Didn’t I say I disagreed with Prager, but I also understand where he is coming from?
I believe there is power in public oaths. Certainly, some people are so sociopathic that they can engage in any number of falsehoods without batting an eye. But for most who were raised with values of honor and self-respect, public oaths hold them to a set of behaviors, even if a particular instance may be painful.
It is kind of an adjunct to good manners. To paraphase Heinlein, human relations are pretty prickly to begin with…lots of sharp edges that can grind. Politeness is the oil that keeps the gears of human interaction smooth.
Oaths imply a trust relationship between the person taking it, and the people receiving it.
Without trust, human relations fall apart.
Darleen
Wednesday, November 29th, 2006, 8:35 pm
…who thinks an alien named Xenu brought “millions of aliens to Earth” in Douglas DC-8s and blew them up to create human souls… as they do in scientology.
Whereas the belief in virgin births, resurrections, and dead people a-sproutin’ wings at the end of times is just the height of reason? Errrr…ok. Sure. The essential difference between the Big Three religions and Scientology (or Mormonism even) is that the guys who made up those two were alive long enough for folks in recent memory to laugh at them.
Regarding swearing an oath, as I said at my blog:
“Here’s a novel idea for Mr. Prager and others: don’t swear an oath on any holy book, rather, simply give us your word as a man or woman. If the only reason you’re going to uphold the office to which you’ve been elected is because you fear the wrath of your god(s), you’re probably unfit for office, let alone membership in civilized society.”
andy
Wednesday, November 29th, 2006, 9:20 pm
Andy
What’s uncivilized about ethical monotheism?
Darleen
Wednesday, November 29th, 2006, 9:50 pm
What’s uncivilized about ethical monotheism?
Where did he say that it was uncivilized? What he said was, if the only thing that constrains your behaviour is fear of some unknown, supernatural being(s), oh say Xenu for example, then you may be unsuitable for civilized society. However, you will fit in in Hollywood just fine.
juris imprudent
Wednesday, November 29th, 2006, 10:20 pm
Let’s all compromise and have everyone raise their right hand like they do in court. Then those concerned with the safety of the nation can investigate those in office who cavort with terrorist sympathizers in secret meetings. It at least merits an investigation.
I’m an atheist, so I think all religion is myth, but there are some that are just crazier than others. Douglas DC-8s? Come on. Any reasonable person would assume the alien creators would use a Concorde or a DC-10 at the very least.
If you’re really bored, you can learn about scientology by viewing these I am particularly concerned about this group becasue a friend’s daughter was roped into one of these groups and has been rather emotionally scarred by them.
The Koran has jihad/murder as part of its basic teachings. Jihad has been taught and followed since its inception by those concerned with literal interpretation of the document. I guess I’d rather have a harmless alien-worshipper in office than someone who thinks Israel should be blown to shreds. If you want to elect a socialist maniac to office, at least elect a harmless one.
If Ellison wants to be the first Muslim in office during a time of war against Islam/terrorism, he should be doing his damndest to denounce terrorism and reject groups like CAIR. Instead, he embraces the group, takes their money, and throws a hissy fit over an American tradition as his first act as an elected official. I just don’t like the guy one damn bit. A Muslim in office can do a lot to denounce jihad/terrorism. This guy has done NONE of that.
Feisty
Wednesday, November 29th, 2006, 10:45 pm
Dennis Prager Dead Wrong On Ellison & Koran
Now I don’t make a secret of the fact that I am not a big fan of Islam. Indeed, it concerns me that more Muslims and Islamic institutions don’t stand up and take a hardline stance against terrorism. And I…
Rhymes With Right
Thursday, November 30th, 2006, 6:56 am
I know that freedom of religion is protected in the 1st amendment (though the courts say its not) but lets consider this. It is generally excepted that as long as you are not breaking a law, or endangering the public safety or threatening somebody’s life you are allowed to do whatever you please correct?
Then under that clause let us explore this fact. It is stated in the Koran that a Muslim need not keep his promise to an “infidel” (unbeliever). It is also stated in the Koran that all true Muslims are to kill the infidel and if they die in the process they will assuredly go to heaven.
With those thoughts in mind, consider this. Suppose 51% of the members of Congress were Muslim and were all sworn into office using the Koran as their oath of authority. Now think if all (or majority) of them held the same view as the above. There is no accountability!
If a member of congress were to do something unconstitutional then we could say that they broke their oath to uphold the constitution based on the bible they swore on which says “let your yea be yea and your nay, nay”. However, if a Muslim, or anyone who took the oath of office on the Koran in some way broke that oath we would have no grounds to prosecute, or remove them from office because they swore on a book that says you don’t have to keep your promise to an infidel!
Freedom of Religion, speech, and press are all protected in America by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the Bible doesn’t condemn any of them, to the contrary it condones them. Thats why we have used it as the book upon which you take your oath ever since this nation was founded. Thats why this country is so great, because you can think, say, and believe what you want as well as SHARE IT WITH OTHERS WITHOUT FEAR OF BEING ARRESTED, PERSECUTED OR KILLED!
Does anyone honestly believe that you could do such a thing in a Muslim country like…Syria, Iran or Saudi Arabia? Christian missionaries are being killed and persecuted for what they believe and teach in those countries even in this “religiously tolerant” society we live in! Citizens in Syria are allowed to kill someone who says the Koran is not true and will not be prosecuted at all for it! When was the last time you heard of a Christian, Buddhist, or Catholic teaching you could kill someone who’s religion was different than yours? When was the last time you heard of a Catholic flying an airplane into a building. When was the last time you heard of a religious crusade that killed all who opposed? When was the last time any religious leader (aside from Islam) called for jihad?
All I am saying is that there is a double standard when it comes to true followers of Islam. I am not saying we shouldn’t allow them to study there religion here, I am not saying that all Muslims are bad people, what I am saying is that the Bible says that ” Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins .” If anyone thinks that true Muslims don’t hate Jews, Christians, and Americans you are living in ignorance. The Bible says to hate the sin and love the sinner, to “love thy neighbor as thyself” to “show kindness unto the stranger”. And THAT is why Americans have taken their oath of office on the Bible since America’s foundation! That is why the Bible should be sacred to Americans everywhere, and as for those who would stoop so low as to say
“If I’m ever elected to office, I’m going to be sorely tempted to swear my oath of office on a copy of Playboy just to well and truly piss off people who ought to know better but don’t.”
should be ashamed and realize that if you said such a thing of the Koran in a Muslim country you could very well end up dead! Just because we have all these wonderful rights does that mean we should abuse them? I am only 18, I don’t aspire to know everything, most everybody who reads this is probably a lot smarter than I am, but I beg you to examine the facts with an unbiased view and think whether or not the giving up of an American tradition and replacing it with the book that is sacred to Islamic terrorists and what is they claim to be the source for their actions is truly a wise choice or not.
Jonathan
Friday, March 23rd, 2007, 3:03 pm