by Dennis Prager

Read the rest here.

Do you believe that this is true? That it is the book used and not the oath that is important? That by using the Bible our congresspeople are affirming a unifying value system?

I don't like the Quran being used to take an oath on. We are at war with people who follow the Quran. Another case of dhimitude.

We are at war with zealots who use Islam as an excuse.

In other threads, you tried to pretend that if "school prayer" were allowed, you would not discriminate against other forms of school prayer.
And here we see this...

The point is the OATH. Taking it on the Bible is symbolic for Christians who want to demonstrate how seriously they take the oath they are giving.
It would make sense for OTHER RELIGIONS to take the oath invoking something that demonstrates how seriously they are taking the oath.

Insisting a Muslim take the oath on the Bible??? It's a thinly veiled attempt at demonstrating pretenses of religious superiority. Ignoring the PURPOSE of the action involved...

In this country, the oath can be taken WITHOUT the Bible. So this whole crap about how it has to be the Bible is just plain rubbish.

Wait a minute... in a different post elsewhere on DTT, didn't you say it was up to the individual to decide what kind of prayer to use a their inaguration? Isn't this similar?

We aren't at war with people who follow the Quran. We are at war with people who are terrorists. Big difference. But I can understand your confusion - in a way it's like a man (or a woman) who has been hurt by too many women (or men) that they decide they are ALL the enemy and stop dating altogether.

I'm not sure what you meant by "dhimitude"?

I would have to agree with foundit's post.

You have affirmed your bigotry and Islamophobia. It is not religious extremism you loath but rather Islam itself. Maybe this is derived from ignorance or perhaps it has its roots all the way back to the crusades.

During the second world war, the majority of Germans followed the bible, yet no one had a problem with the bible nor Christianity.

Keith Ellison shouldn't be labeled as a Muslim, "one of them", separate from us. He is an American, one who was elected to office by the people.

Forcing elected officials to swear an oath onto one religious book and one religious book only is not only contrary to the American ideal but directly unconstitutional.

"...but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (US Constitution; Article VI. Paragraph iii)

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." (US Constitution; Amendment I)

In fact, the only thing that would "undermine American civilization" would to make people swear an oath under only one religious text as Dennis Prager suggests. American civilization wasn't founded on the Christian religion, but was rather founded on the freedom to exercise what ever religion you want, if any at all, free of persecution.

Not only would not allowing him to swear in on the Koran be a religious test for office, but it would also be a violation of his freedom of religion. The 'unifying value system' is the system of secular ideologies called the freedom of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; freedom from religious persecution is not left out of this. Religious persecution, as Prager (that sick bastard) wishes, is in fact one of the primary causes of our nation's founding. We desired to practice what ever religion we want, free of tyranny and persecution of the British Empire.

Actually, I think it's a little dangerous for an American congressman to take his oath of office while holding his hand on the Koran - and it's not really for religious reasons.

If - and I say IF - you study the Koran, it's core teachings, the life of Muhammad, and the truth of the Muslim religion, you will see that they want to force Islam on EVERYONE.

This seems a little incongruous with a congressman in a secular nation, such as the United States.

Hmm.. if - and I say IF - what you say about Islam is true, then the 1% of Americans who are Muslim (about 2,984,442 persons) are forcing their religion on EVERYONE. Not just a new congressman who wants to swear an oath on what he holds to be sacred. I don't see this happening, do you?

Maybe we should do away with swearing oaths on books and start using what *really* matters - families. Have the new congressperson's family huddle round them with right hands upturned, one on top of the other, and his/hers on top, facing down, and have them take their oath.

What's kind of funny to me is that this "oath" seems to be a joke - in practical, everyday life - to most politicians.

Bible, Koran, whatever... They're lying anyway.

I agree. Do honest, honorable people really go into politics in the first place?