Religious Intolerance Alive & Well in US

[JohnnyBz00LS]

..... bought to you by (big surprize) those who affiliate themselves w/ the GOP.......

Posted on Mon, Jan. 08, 2007

IN MY OPINION

Koran debate another reminder of intolerance

BY LEONARD PITTS JR.
lpitts@MiamiHerald.com

On Thursday, Keith Ellison took his ceremonial oath of office as a Democratic representative from Minnesota using Thomas Jefferson's Koran. From this, we learn the following surprising fact: Thomas Jefferson owned a Koran.

Which probably shouldn't surprise us at all. Jefferson was renowned for his restless intellect and wide-ranging interests. Still, one hopes the tacit reminder that this Founding Father and author of American values did not fear the Koran will silence those who have condemned Ellison's decision to use that book for his swearing in. One hopes, but one does not expect.

After all, the objections raised by the congressman's critics are not exactly steeped in logic.

Take conservative columnist Dennis Prager, who wrote that Ellison's decision ''undermines American civilization.'' Throughout history, he said, people of other faiths have taken their oaths using Christian Bibles. If you can't do that, he said, you shouldn't be allowed to serve in Congress.

Prager was echoed by a blowhard chorus. Virgil Goode, a Republican representative from Virginia, warned constituents that unless we get tough on immigration, we'll see many more Muslim congressmen demanding to use Korans. The American Family Association called for a law requiring the use of Bibles at swearing-in ceremonies. For sheer illogic, though, Roy Moore, he of the Ten Commandments rock at the Alabama courthouse, topped them all. He cited the constitutional principle of freedom of religion ''without interference by government'' in demanding Congress prevent Ellison from taking the oath on a Koran.

LET'S COUNT THE WAYS

Lord, where to begin?

In the first place, Moore's argument refutes itself so effectively he must have been drinking when he wrote it.

In the second place, what does immigration have to do with it? Ellison was born in Detroit.

In the third place, I doubt his election presages a flood of Muslims in Congress, but if that happened, it would be because a majority of voters wanted it. Isn't that the very definition of democracy?

In the fourth place, contrary to what Prager thinks, this isn't the first time a politician has declined to take his oath on a Bible. Law Professor Jonathan Turley, writing in USA Today, reminds us that Presidents John Quincy Adams, Theodore Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover opted not to use Bibles. Jewish lawmakers have used Jewish holy books. President Franklin Pierce declined an oath altogether.

In the fifth place, it's stupid to require a man to take an oath on a book that has no meaning for him.

In the sixth place, what does it tell you that we're even having this conversation?

AMERICAN VALUES TWISTED

It tells me -- reminds me -- that there has always been a strain of intolerance in the American character, a reactionary streak that denies American values under the guise of defending them. That strain rises periodically, enflamed by demagogues and opportunists like Charles Coughlin in the 1930s and Joe McCarthy in the '50s, but it feels stronger and less abashed now than it has in years.

It is paradoxical that the same nation that speaks seriously of electing Condoleezza Rice or Barack Obama to the presidency can also speak seriously of denying Keith Ellison his office because he is a Muslim. That's just the kind of country we are, I'm afraid. Not always sufficiently brave. So Muslims -- doesn't matter whether we're talking Middle East crazies or a Midwest politician -- become the latest brand name of our fears. Some people claim to defend American values that they're too faint-hearted to even understand.

And yet for all that, this week, a Muslim put his hand on Thomas Jefferson's Koran and swore to serve all the people of his district. Then he shook Virgil Goode's hand and invited him to have coffee.

Thank goodness we're that sort of country, too.

 

[fossten]

That's right, Johnny. You just keep on supporting your muslim friends while bashing Christians. It's what you're best at.

Last time I heard, Dennis Prager had as much right to criticize as anyone else does, considering he's an American. Which proves the point that the only people actually allowed to exercise free speech in this country are liberals and muslims.

When the Islamists take over, the first people they will execute will be the wimpusses like you liberals.

 

[TheDude]

I have a question Fossten... Would you rather Ellison swear his oath on a book that means nothing to him thereby making his oath invalid, than swear on a book that does?

 

[fossten]

I have a question Fossten... Would you rather Ellison swear his oath on a book that means nothing to him thereby making his oath invalid, than swear on a book that does?

"Thereby making his oath invalid?" Are you kidding? Like you can trust any politician to keep his word anyway? Puhleeze. Don't make me laugh. I'm not falling for your silly trap question.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

That's right, Johnny. You just keep on supporting your muslim friends while bashing Christians. It's what you're best at.

Last time I heard, Dennis Prager had as much right to criticize as anyone else does, considering he's an American. Which proves the point that the only people actually allowed to exercise free speech in this country are liberals and muslims.

When the Islamists take over, the first people they will execute will be the wimpusses like you liberals.

You're typical ad-hominem personal attacks are as expected, and predictable. So revealing of your hateful attitude towards your fellow Americans. Yet, you wouldn't even know what it means to be a true American with your spiteful, hateful, hypocrital, intolerant ways. No biggie, I don't give a rat's ass about you or your opinion anyway, but you do make for a good laugh. :bowrofl:

1st off, nowhere did I "bash" christians. 2nd, nowhere did I or Pitts state that anyone wasn't entitled to their own freedom of speech. 3rd-ly, while Prager and his ilk like yourself are free to express themselves in this great country, I and others are equally free to make fun of thier intolerant, anti-American positions. But you keep on living in your little bizarro-world, making up stupid, untrue things to say of others who disagree with you, whatever makes you comfortable. Meanwhile the rest of us who have at least an ounce of common sense and pride in our country and what it stands for will continue to laugh uncontrollably at you.
:facesjump :bowrofl: :facesjump :bowrofl:

 

[TheDude]

"Thereby making his oath invalid?" Are you kidding? Like you can trust any politician to keep his word anyway? Puhleeze. Don't make me laugh. I'm not falling for your silly trap question.

Then why do you care at all then if swearing an oath is pointless?

Yes, by asking you your opinion I am trying to "trap" you. You got me Fossten! Your paranoia is very telling.

 

[fossten]

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah I'm an idiot a$$hole blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...

I can't figure out which is a bigger waste of space, your skull or this thread.

:sleep:

 

[rmac694203]

blah blah blah don't personally attack me blah blah oh by the way you're an a$$hole blah blah

What maturity

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

"Thereby making his oath invalid?" Are you kidding? Like you can trust any politician to keep his word anyway? Puhleeze. Don't make me laugh. I'm not falling for your silly trap question.

Translation:

"I'm a spinless wuss and I'm not about to reveal my intolerant, hateful, bigoted, racist self to the rest of the world. Therefore I'll stand in this corner an piss my pants like the "Percy Wetmore" that I am."

:bowrofl:

 

[fossten]

Translation:

"I'm a spinless wuss and I'm not about to reveal my intolerant, hateful, bigoted, racist self to the rest of the world. Therefore I'll stand in this corner an piss my pants like the "Percy Wetmore" that I am."

:bowrofl:

What maturity

Yet, you wouldn't even know what it means to be a true American with your spiteful, hateful, hypocrital, intolerant ways. No biggie, I don't give a rat's ass about you or your opinion anyway, but you do make for a good laugh.

But you keep on living in your little bizarro-world, making up stupid, untrue things to say of others who disagree with you, whatever makes you comfortable. Meanwhile the rest of us who have at least an ounce of common sense and pride in our country and what it stands for will continue to laugh uncontrollably at you.

What maturity

There, rmac, I filled in for you since you don't have the spine to stand up to your own bigoted hater peep.

 

[fossten]

You're typical ad-hominem personal attacks are as expected, and predictable. So revealing of your hateful attitude towards your fellow Americans. Yet, you wouldn't even know what it means to be a true American with your spiteful, hateful, hypocrital, intolerant ways. No biggie, I don't give a rat's ass about you or your opinion anyway, but you do make for a good laugh. :bowrofl:

1st off, nowhere did I "bash" christians. 2nd, nowhere did I or Pitts state that anyone wasn't entitled to their own freedom of speech. 3rd-ly, while Prager and his ilk like yourself are free to express themselves in this great country, I and others are equally free to make fun of thier intolerant, anti-American positions. But you keep on living in your little bizarro-world, making up stupid, untrue things to say of others who disagree with you, whatever makes you comfortable. Meanwhile the rest of us who have at least an ounce of common sense and pride in our country and what it stands for will continue to laugh uncontrollably at you.
:facesjump :bowrofl: :facesjump :bowrofl:

Translation: I hate everybody, from Christians to conservatives to the military to America. I even smash my own mirror every morning. HATE HATE HATE HATE AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH! :lol:

Johnny, we know you have pride in your country. We're just not sure whether it's Iran or Syria.

 

[fossten]

Addressing the subject of Thomas Jefferson owning the Koran, it is interesting that history revisionists like to draw whatever elixir they can from remote factoids such as this. Nowhere does history indicate that Jefferson was a muslim, nor does history indicate that Jefferson favored or even tolerated Islam. Just because he owned a copy of the Koran doesn't mean jack squat. I suppose we can go to the Clinton library/massage parlor and look at all the books and assume that Bill Clinton believes everything written in every book therein just because the library/massage parlor is named after him?

My father owns copies of the Bible, the book of Mormon, the Koran, the translations of the Bible used by the Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, et al. He uses the non-Bible texts as reference materials due to his profession as a full time evangelist. He doesn't believe any of the bunk contained in these other books, but they are quite useful to him in his studies and assist him in understanding the flaws and falsehoods contained therein.

There is a clear reason why Jefferson owned a copy of the Koran. (See post below for details.) The author of this article certainly didn't bother to do any investigative reporting and find out the truth. Instead, he made an assumption that fit his action line, and made up his own set of facts. He has no idea how Jefferson felt about the Koran, yet he presumes to know his very motives.

The author of this article tries to use an old trick, remarking that Jefferson didn't "fear the Koran." This premise implies that anyone who is against a U.S. Congressman swearing in on the Koran automatically "fears" the Koran. It's a subtle, clever little technique, but it's baloney. I don't fear the Koran, and Dennis Prager doesn't fear the Koran.

What every one of you should fear is this country being dominated by Islam. Take a look around at any other country where Islam is the principal religion. You won't find one single country where they have the freedom this country provides. Anywhere Islam dominates, the country is locked down and infidels are beheaded or have to pay a head tax.

Finally, note how the author HOPES that Dennis Prager will be silenced. What ever happened to freedom of speech? We don't have to agree with someone else's point of view, but urging people to be silenced certainly doesn't conform to American values. It is fascinating the outrage when anybody of muslim faith is criticized in this country, whereas anybody can bash Christianity with impunity. Can you spell DOUBLE STANDARD, boys and girls?

 

[fossten]

What Thomas Jefferson learned from the Muslim book of jihad
The U.S Veteran Dispatch ^ | 1-05-07 | Ted Sampley
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1763252/posts

Posted on 01/05/2007 9:02:03 PM PST by smoothsailing


What Thomas Jefferson learned from the Muslim book of jihad


By Ted Sampley

U.S. Veteran Dispatch

January 2007

Democrat Keith Ellison is now officially the first Muslim United States congressman. True to his pledge, he placed his hand on the Quran, the Muslim book of jihad and pledged his allegiance to the United States during his ceremonial swearing-in.


Capitol Hill staff said Ellison's swearing-in photo opportunity drew more media than they had ever seen in the history of the U.S. House. Ellison represents the 5th Congressional District of Minnesota.


The Quran Ellison used was no ordinary book. It once belonged to Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and one of America's founding fathers. Ellison borrowed it from the Rare Book Section of the Library of Congress. It was one of the 6,500 Jefferson books archived in the library.


Ellison, who was born in Detroit and converted to Islam while in college, said he chose to use Jefferson's Quran because it showed that "a visionary like Jefferson" believed that wisdom could be gleaned from many sources.


There is no doubt Ellison was right about Jefferson believing wisdom could be "gleaned" from the Muslim Quran. At the time Jefferson owned the book, he needed to know everything possible about Muslims because he was about to advocate war against the Islamic "Barbary" states of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli.


Ellison's use of Jefferson's Quran as a prop illuminates a subject once well-known in the history of the United States, but, which today, is mostly forgotten - the Muslim pirate slavers who over many centuries enslaved millions of Africans and tens of thousands of Christian Europeans and Americans in the Islamic "Barbary" states.


Over the course of 10 centuries, Muslim pirates cruised the African and Mediterranean coastline, pillaging villages and seizing slaves.


The taking of slaves in pre-dawn raids on unsuspecting coastal villages had a high casualty rate. It was typical of Muslim raiders to kill off as many of the "non-Muslim" older men and women as possible so the preferred "booty" of only young women and children could be collected.


Young non-Muslim women were targeted because of their value as concubines in Islamic markets. Islamic law provides for the sexual interests of Muslim men by allowing them to take as many as four wives at one time and to have as many concubines as their fortunes allow.


Boys, as young as 9 or 10 years old, were often mutilated to create eunuchs who would bring higher prices in the slave markets of the Middle East. Muslim slave traders created "eunuch stations" along major African slave routes so the necessary surgery could be performed. It was estimated that only a small number of the boys subjected to the mutilation survived after the surgery.


When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the "Dey of Algiers"--an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria.


Because American commerce in the Mediterranean was being destroyed by the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784 to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States. Congress appointed a special commission consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations.


Lacking the ability to protect its merchant ships in the Mediterranean, the new America government tried to appease the Muslim slavers by agreeing to pay tribute and ransoms in order to retrieve seized American ships and buy the freedom of enslaved sailors.


Adams argued in favor of paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce in the Mediterranean moving again. Jefferson was opposed. He believed there would be no end to the demands for tribute and wanted matters settled "through the medium of war." He proposed a league of trading nations to force an end to Muslim piracy.


In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the "Dey of Algiers" ambassador to Britain.


The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote to appease.


During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey's ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.


In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."


For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.


Not long after Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, he dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress.


Declaring that America was going to spend "millions for defense but not one cent for tribute," Jefferson pressed the issue by deploying American Marines and many of America's best warships to the Muslim Barbary Coast.


The USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid all saw action.


In 1805, American Marines marched across the dessert from Egypt into Tripolitania, forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the freeing of all American slaves.


During the Jefferson administration, the Muslim Barbary States, crumbling as a result of intense American naval bombardment and on shore raids by Marines, finally officially agreed to abandon slavery and piracy.


Jefferson's victory over the Muslims lives on today in the Marine Hymn, with the line, "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, we will fight our country's battles on the land as on the sea."


It wasn't until 1815 that the problem was fully settled by the total defeat of all the Muslim slave trading pirates.

Jefferson had been right. The "medium of war" was the only way to put and end to the Muslim problem. Mr. Ellison was right about Jefferson. He was a "visionary" wise enough to read and learn about the enemy from their own Muslim book of jihad.

*owned*

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

What every one of you should fear is this country being dominated by Islam.

There is it folks, in black and white. Probably the most concise example of the religious intolerance harbored by this anti-American on this site. Nice of you to piss on one of the basic priciples that lie at the foundation of this great country.

*owned*

 

[fossten]

There is it folks, in black and white. Probably the most concise example of the religious intolerance harbored by this anti-American on this site. Nice of you to piss on one of the basic priciples that lie at the foundation of this great country.

*owned*

Excuse me, but Islam does NOT lie at the foundation of this country.

Go back to Iran or Syria and rendezvous with your Al Qaeda buddies.

I stand by my statements. You are ignorant of Islam. Period.

 

[wnapstead]

So eloquently said, Johnny!

 

[Calabrio]

Dennis Prager has been grossly and maliciously misrepresented by the Muslim activists and liberal-haters...

So, rather that telling you what I think he wrote, why don't you read the two articles that caused such a fuss. You will see that there is NO intolerance of religion coming from the man, a point made especially clear given that he is Jewish.


America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on
By Dennis Prager
Tuesday, November 28, 2006

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.

First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- my culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. 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. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. 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?

Of course, Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either. Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible. Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of "Dianetics" by L. Ron Hubbard.

So why are we allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done -- choose his own most revered book for his oath?

The answer is obvious -- Ellison is a Muslim. And whoever decides these matters, not to mention virtually every editorial page in America, is not going to offend a Muslim. In fact, many of these people argue it will be a good thing because Muslims around the world will see what an open society America is and how much Americans honor Muslims and the Koran.

This argument appeals to all those who believe that one of the greatest goals of America is to be loved by the world, and especially by Muslims because then fewer Muslims will hate us (and therefore fewer will bomb us).

But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible. In fact, the opposite is more likely: Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America.

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. It is hard to believe that this is the legacy most Muslim Americans want to bequeath to America. But if it is, it is not only Europe that is in trouble.

 

[Calabrio]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2006/12/05/a_response_to_my_many_critics_-_and_a_solution]Response

A response to my many critics - and a solution
By Dennis Prager
Tuesday, December 5, 2006

To understate the case, my last column, "America, Not Keith Ellison, Decides What Book a Congressman Takes His Oath on," seems to have touched a national nerve.

It has caused a national discussion -- actually, more hate-filled attacks on me than civil discussion -- and has been covered by just about all major American news media. To their credit, CNN and Fox News both gave me ample time (in television terms anyway) to express my views on two of each network's major shows: "Paula Zahn Now" and Headline News on CNN, and "Hannity & Colmes" and "Your World with Neil Cavuto" on Fox News. And many American newspapers have covered it.

In addition, there was widespread coverage on left-wing blogs, which, with no exception I could find, distorted what I said, charging my column and me with, for example, racism (see below), when race plays no role at all in this issue or in my column. For the record, because I deem this a significant statement about most of the Left, I found virtually no left-wing blog that was not filled with obscenity-laced descriptions of me. Aside from the immaturity and loathing of higher civilization that such public use of curse words reveal, the fury and hate render the leftist charge that it is the Right that is hate-filled one of the most obvious expressions of psychological projection I have seen in my lifetime.

Clearly, many Americans, including some conservatives and libertarians, have no problem with the idea that for the first time in American history, a person elected to Congress has rejected the Bible for another religious text when taking his oath of office (whether ceremonial or actual -- more on this below). This includes some thoughtful colleagues in conservative talk radio (intellectual life on conservative radio is far more diverse than intellectual life at most American universities).

So, for those who do cherish dialogue, including those on the Left who have trained themselves to avoid thought by merely choosing from a list of epithets -- "racist," "bigoted," "homophobic," "Islamophobic," "sexist," "xenophobic," "fascist" -- here are my responses to the most frequently offered objections to my piece:

Accusation: I am advocating something unconstitutional by demanding that the Bible be included in oaths of office. I am reminded that Mr. Ellison has a right to practice the religion of his choice and that there shall be no religious test for candidates for office in America.

Response: I never even hinted that there should be a religious test. It has never occurred to me that only Christians run for office in America. The idea is particularly laughable in my case since I am not now, nor ever have been, a Christian. I am a Jew (a non-denominational religious Jew, for the record), and I would vote for any Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Mormon, atheist, Jew, Zoroastrian, Hindu, Wiccan, Confucian, Taoist or combination thereof whose social values I share. Conversely, I would not vote for a fellow Jew whose social values I did not share. I want people of every faith and of no faith who affirm the values I affirm to enter political life.

My belief that the Bible should be present at any oath (or affirmation) of office has nothing whatsoever to do with the religion of the office holder. And it never has until Keith Ellison's decision to substitute a different text for the Bible. Many office holders who do not believe in the Bible at all or who reject some part have nevertheless used the Bible at their swearing-in (I noted this in my column). Even the vast majority of Jews elected to office have used a Bible containing both the Old and New Testaments, even though Jews do not regard the New Testament as part of their Bible. A tiny number of Jews have used only the Old Testament. As a religious Jew, I of course understand their decision, but I disagree with it.

I agree with the tens of thousands of office holders in American history who have honored the American tradition -- I am well aware it is not a law, and I do not want it to be -- of bringing a Bible to their ceremonial or actual swearing-in. Keith Ellison is ending that powerful tradition, and it is he who has called the public's attention to his doing so. He obviously thinks this is important. I think it is important. My critics think it isn't.

Why wouldn't Ellison bring a Bible along with the Koran? That he chose not to is the narcissism of multiculturalism that I referred to: The individual's culture trumps the national culture.

You don't have to be Christian to acknowledge that the Bible is the source of America's values. Virtually every founder of this country knew that and acknowledged it. The argument that founders such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were deists, even if accurate (it is greatly exaggerated), makes my point, not my opponents'. The founders who were not believing Christians venerated the Bible as the source of America's values just as much as practicing Christians did.

America derives its laws from its Constitution. It derives its values from the Bible. We don't get inalienable rights from the Constitution; we get them from God. Which is exactly what the signers of the Declaration of Independence wrote: We are endowed with inalienable rights by our Creator, not by government and not by any man-made document. And that Creator and those inalienable rights emanate from the Bible. Keith Ellison's freedom to openly believe and practice Islam and to run for elective office as a Muslim is a direct result of a society molded by the Bible and the people who believed in it, a fact he should be willing to honor as he is sworn in.

I cannot name any Western European country that does not have a document similar to the American Constitution and something akin to our Bill of Rights. It is, therefore, not the Constitution that has made America unique and a moral beacon to the world's downtrodden. What has made America unique is the combination of Enlightenment ideas with our underlying Judeo-Christian values. (I have described 24 of those values in 24 columns in 2005, all available on the Internet through www.pragerradio.com.)

It was understood from the beginning of the republic that liberty is derived from God, not from man alone. That is why the Liberty Bell has an inscription from the Bible (from the Torah in the Old Testament) on it, not an inscription from any secular Enlightenment (or ancient Greek) source.

Accusation: Very many critics note the fact that members of Congress are not sworn in individually with Bibles but all together in the House chamber and without the Bible. The use of the Bible is a ceremonial act that takes place in private before family, friends and the press. My critics cite this fact as if somehow it invalidates my larger point.

Response: First, it was Keith Ellison who raised the entire issue of taking an oath on a Koran rather than a Bible. He did not make his announcement in the hopes that it would be ignored but to make a statement. I was responding to that statement. Critics who are unhappy with it becoming an issue should direct their ire at Mr. Ellison.

Second, the very fact that it is a ceremony makes my point far more forcefully. Obviously, Mr. Ellison will have already been officially sworn in. Therefore, the use of the Koran has absolutely nothing to do with taking an oath on the book he holds sacred. It is used entirely to send a message to the American people. So all the arguments that he must be able to swear on the book he holds sacred are moot. He will have already been sworn in.

Ceremonies matter a lot. As I told the Associated Press, ceremonies are essential to the continuity of a civilization. Therefore, the first time in American history that a congressman has decided to jettison the Bible for another text should not go unnoticed -- or elicit yawns, as it has from conservative and libertarian critics.

Accusation: My column and/or I are racist, bigoted and Islamophobic.

Response: "Racist": It is impossible to fully respond to absurdity. How is race possibly involved in my wanting the Bible to be present at swearings-in of American politicians? I wrote in my column that I apply the same standard to Jews, Scientologists and everyone else. Those who make this charge merely cheapen the word racism and therefore weaken the fight against it.

"Islamophobic": I wrote not a word against Islam or the Koran and made it clear at the beginning of my column that nothing I write is specific to Islam or the Koran. All those who write that I "compared" the Koran to "Mein Kampf" are lying -- deliberately lying to defame me rather than respond to my arguments. I simply offered a slippery slope argument that if we let everyone choose their own text at swearings-in, what will happen one day should a racist decide to use "Mein Kampf"? A slippery slope argument is not an equivalence argument. The Left regularly argues that vouchers to support Catholic schools can one day be used to support religious extremists' schools. Are they comparing Catholicism to religious extremism? Of course not. And no one on the Right has ever stooped so low as to make such a charge. Moreover, I not only mentioned "Mein Kampf," I mentioned "Dianetics," Scientology's most revered work, the works of Voltaire (for secularists) and other works.

"Bigoted": Bigoted against whom? Against non-Christians? I am a non-Christian. Am I bigoted against myself as a Jew? I happen to be one of the most active individuals in American Jewish life and co-author of probably the most widely used English-language introduction to Judaism of the last 30 years.

In fact, it is as a Jew that I am so aware of the fragility of all civilizations, including ours. I am therefore aware of how uniquely good America has been for all its citizens, including and especially its Jews. This uniqueness does not stem from secularism alone, but from an extraordinary Judeo-Christian value system that has been our civic religion. Europe is secular and is a failing civilization; one that is also increasingly judenrein [empty of Jews] because of its anti-Semitism.

I am for no law to be passed to prevent Keith Ellison or anyone else from bringing any book he wants to his swearing-in, whether actual or ceremonial. But neither I nor tens of millions of other Americans will watch in silence as the Bible is replaced with another religious text for the first time since George Washington brought a Bible to his swearing-in. It is not I, but Keith Ellison, who has engaged in disuniting the country. He can still help reunite it by simply bringing both books to his ceremonial swearing-in. Had he originally announced that he would do that, I would have written a different column -- filled with praise of him. And there would be a lot less cursing and anger in America.

Dennis Prager is a radio show host, contributing columinst for Townhall.com, and author of 4 books including Happiness Is a Serious Problem: A Human Nature Repair Manual.

 

[fossten]

Gee, Cal, I bet Johnny never read one word of those articles before he commented. And yet this comes straight from the horse's mouth.

That's what happens when you get all your news and info from www.leftwingwackopussy.org.

 

[rmac694203]

At least he is attempting to make a point, even if you don't like it. You, on the other hand, act all high and mighty like your words are gold, yet your words sound like my 13 year old sister trying to argue. You have to be the biggest hypocrite on this board, and possibly that I have ever seen. Go ahead and personally attack people, then cry about it on another thread. Go ahead and make a totally pointless post like "blah bla blah" then yell at someone for "not contributing anything thoughtful to the thread." You may not get it, but I'm sure everyone else sees through your bullsh!t.

 

[fossten]

At least he is attempting to make a point, even if you don't like it. You, on the other hand, act all high and mighty like your words are gold, yet your words sound like my 13 year old sister trying to argue. You have to be the biggest hypocrite on this board, and possibly that I have ever seen. Go ahead and personally attack people, then cry about it on another thread. Go ahead and make a totally pointless post like "blah bla blah" then yell at someone for "not contributing anything thoughtful to the thread." You may not get it, but I'm sure everyone else sees through your bullsh!t.

OH you really got me on that one, spearcatching libtard. I'm gonna go home and cry and never come back JUST BECAUSE YOU SAID SOMETHING NASTY TO ME. <sarcasm off> Your relevance is null. Johnny doesn't make points. He bashes. He attacks, he insults. He has no substance. You are sympathetic to his point of view, so you don't bother criticizing his technique, which makes you as amateurish and hypocritical as you try to paint me as being. I just made a lengthy point on this thread which you obviously haven't bothered to read, so why should I care what you think?

By the way, you need to remember to respect your 13 year old big sister while you're living at home. Mind your manners.

 

[rmac694203]

I don't want you to go and cry, I just had to say that though. If you want to go on being the way you are, whatever. I often don't agree with what Johnny says, but he just plain isn't as annoying as you, so I usually don't catch it I guess. Call it what you want, it still doesn't change how I feel. And you do make some well thought out posts, and I read them, but then you come back with something as stupid as just calling people "liberal [insert insult]" or "you don't totally agree with everything I say so you're an America Hater" and then wonder why people end up calling you names back.

 

[fossten]

I don't want you to go and cry, I just had to say that though. If you want to go on being the way you are, whatever. I often don't agree with what Johnny says, but he just plain isn't as annoying as you, so I usually don't catch it I guess. Call it what you want, it still doesn't change how I feel. And you do make some well thought out posts, and I read them, but then you come back with something as stupid as just calling people "liberal [insert insult]" or "you don't totally agree with everything I say so you're an America Hater" and then wonder why people end up calling you names back.

Get over it and move on. Quit catching spears for Johnny. He's perfectly capable of hurling insults on his own. The only time anything flares up around here is when he shows up. Go back and look at his posts and you'll see what I mean.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Excuse me, but Islam does NOT lie at the foundation of this country.

You see, this is exactly why YOU have zero credibility and are incapable of making a valid argument. Your reading comprehension is clouded by your poluted imagination, so you make up stuff in a weak attempt to build a false basis for an argument that doesn't even exist. When cornered, you resort to name calling and try to weasle out by changing the topic. I was talking about freedom of religion, not Islam, you dufus. DEE DEE DEE.

Go back to Iran or Syria and rendezvous with your Al Qaeda buddies.

Considering your intolerance of other religions and desire for an oppressive government and laws that are derived solely by a single religion, YOU would certainly feel more at home there.

Calabrio, thanks for posting those articles. However, Prager is merely backpedaling and clouding the issue to cover his ass. But this thread isn't about Prager, it's about religious (in-) tolerance. While it is true that the constitution acknowledges "a creator", it doesn't name that creator (God, Buddah etc) to make it clear that every man is free to choose his religious beliefs for himself..... unlike those like Prager and David who'd prefer to shove his/her choice of religion down everyone else's throat and deny one's basic, constitutionally protected freedom to choose. Besides, even Prager notes, there is no law of this land that makes the Bible the official religious document by which we must all abide by or swear an oath upon.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Get over it and move on. Quit catching spears for Johnny. He's perfectly capable of hurling insults on his own. The only time anything flares up around here is when he shows up. Go back and look at his posts and you'll see what I mean.

This is :bsflag: and you know it. I stayed away from the board for nearly a month, only to come back after new years to find plenty of "flaring up" that had transpired without my presence, including insults directed at me when I haven't even "been around". The ONLY time anything "flares up" is when you resort to your pitiful insults towards anyone and everyone who does not agree with you. Get over yourself, little boy. You are as insiginificant as a mosquito's "klingon".