Pardon my language, but Jesus fuckin' Christ, where do they get these idiots?
And I'm not even going to get into the fact that the Constitution specifically prohibits the use of any religious test for holding office.
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 -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.
One more quote from the column:
Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress.
That is egregiously stupid.
That article just keeps getting dumber & dumber:
When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11.
I like Jambo's idea of taking the oath on Darwin. But seriously, does taking the oath on any text other than the Constitution make sense?
The idea of an oath on a Bible is based on the fanciful notion that if one lied after swearing on the Bible, harsh consequences would result. (If not the dramatic bolt of lightning, then eternal damnation.) It's the 21st century -- why don't we just hook our representatives up to lie detectors and ask them whether they intend to defend the Constitution?
not to mention the fact that not only have some people taken oaths on other religious texts, but a few *gasp* haven't used anything at all...
curse you teddy roosevelt
I was considering coming up with a defense of Mr. Prager, but I have to concede - it's a horrible argument from beginning to end. At one point, he argues
Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison's right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?
Though he uses the words, he neglects the fact that these are people who are 'elected'. They represent the people. The way people will deny that same right to a racist is by not electing him/her to a public office.
By 2:14 PM, at
By 2:16 PM, at << Home