Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Egads, Another hateful American Family Assoc. "Action Alert" re: Keith Ellison(D) MN/Koran

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 09:37 PM
Original message
Egads, Another hateful American Family Assoc. "Action Alert" re: Keith Ellison(D) MN/Koran
November 29, 2006

Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your entire email list of family and friends.

A first for America...The Koran replaces the Bible at swearing-in oath

What book will America base it's values on, the Bible or the Koran?

Dear Emit,

Please take a moment to read the following TownHall.com column by Dennis Prager, who is a Jew. After reading the column, take the suggest action at the bottom of this email. After you have read it, please forward it to your friends and family.

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. (End Commentary)


Take Action
1. Send an email asking your U.S. Representative and Senators to pass a law making the Bible the book used in the swearing-in ceremony of Representatives and Senators.

2. Forward this email to your friends and family today!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MadMaddie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
1. If the man doens't practice the Christian faith then why should
he be forced to swear on the bible....if he did he would by lying right?

Do these people have anything better to do? I don't care what religion a person is...I care about them being truthful...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donco6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 09:43 PM
Response to Original message
2. So, the bible is some "ultramagic" book?
So we have to swear on a bible even if we're not Christian? That's is probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silverojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #2
14. Sadly, most of us have to do just that
I'm not Christian, but if I were to appear in court, I'd have to swear on a Bible. Stupid, but true....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donco6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. The REALLY odd thing is the Bible condemns . . .
. . . swearing on anything.

33"Again, (AS)you have heard that the ancients were told, '(AT)YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FALSE VOWS, BUT SHALL FULFILL YOUR VOWS TO THE LORD.'

34"But I say to you, (AU)make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is (AV)the throne of God,

35or by the earth, for it is the (AW)footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is (AX)THE CITY OF THE GREAT KING.

36"Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black.

37"But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes' or 'No, no'; anything beyond these is of (AY)evil.


In other words, Jesus is telling people that they shouldn't swear by anything at all - they should just say, "Yes, that is true" or No it isn't. There's no need for a swearing or oath making at all. In fact, it cheapens the whole thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. Actually, while some states have such laws, they are unenforcable and unconstitutional...
You have an option of either swearing on the holy book or document of your choice, or affirm without such materials. The legal weight of your testimony is still the same regardless. Of course, I'm limiting this to a legalistic standpoint, the human factor, namely prejudice, doesn't apply. If one witness affirms and the other swears an oath on the Bible, a jury may side with the oath taker rather than the one who affirms. Oddly enough, not everyone who affirms is either an Atheist or Agnostic, they could be Jehovah Witnesses or members of any number of religions, Christian or not, that don't believe in swearing oaths to ANYTHING other than Divinity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Velveteen Ocelot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
3. How about that Constitution thingy?
Article VI: ... "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greeby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 09:46 PM
Response to Original message
4. As a matter of fact
Get rid of that morning Christian prayer they have whenever the House convenes. What happened to the separation of church and state? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatholicEdHead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 09:46 PM
Response to Original message
5. What a joke
He is swearing the oath no matter what. Keith can swear on whatever he wants, it does not have to be the bible. I believe the bible has been used for oath swearing in courts for some Muslim witnesses and defendants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #5
19. I think you meant Koran in the second sentence, correct?
All I know is that if I were elected to office, I would be sworn in on my Book of Shadows, a journal of my spiritual journey(Basically). For convenience's sake, I would most likely affirm in a court of law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buddysmellgood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 09:53 PM
Response to Original message
6. Third paragraph blows it: America's culture. These asshats don't even know
the American culture. It is grounded in the constitution and freedom, not some taliban-like test with a magic book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ioo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 09:57 PM
Response to Original message
7.  American Family Assoc. Can Go Fuck itself!
This is hate speech, and they should be sued!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
8. Emit - how did you get on their email list? NT
Edited on Wed Nov-29-06 09:58 PM by Eric J in MN
NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. I had been following several of the religious right groups
including this AFA, Focus on the Family, Rushdoony's Chalcedon group, etc. and sometime back in April of '05 they had that thing on CSPAN about "'Justice Sunday,' Hear Call to Action on Judicial Activism" (It was Justice Sunday I, actually -- can't find a link now, but they've had three, I think), I decided to get on their email lists to keep track of their dangerous actions. I read and get alerts from several and I also get a lot of info from Theocracywatch.org The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party (I highly recommend this website -- very informative).

So, in a nutshell, just kind of doing my own little black ops, checking out the crazies to see what they're up to. A lot of times, and I've posted about this before, I use their links to do just the opposite of what they are suggesting. They're on another kick right now, for example, with Ford and gay marriage -- trying to get their readers to send emails to Ford -- so I send emails congratulating Ford for their diversity, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donco6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Chalcedony makes AFA look like cartoon characters.
Now THERE's a scary group.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
9. Is it true that all Jews in Congress swear on a Christian bible? NT
NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnLocke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. No!
Edited on Wed Nov-29-06 11:16 PM by JohnLocke
Besides playing on the racist fears of his readers by comparing taking the oath of office on the Koran to "a racist elected to Congress" being allowed to "choose Hitler's 'Mein Kampf,' the Nazis' Bible," Prager is completely wrong when he states that "all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book."
In our country's history, four presidents have been inaugurated without swearing an oath on the Bible. Franklin Pierce was affirmed, and swore no oath, Rutherford Hayes initially had a private ceremony with no Bible before his public ceremony, Theodore Roosevelt had no Bible at his ceremony, and Lyndon Johnson used a missal during his first term.
Despite Prager's insistence that "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," it is clear that he is wrong. Linda Lingle, Governor of Hawaii, took the oath of office on a Torah in 2001. Madeleine Kunin, a Jewish Immigrant and Governor of Vermont "rested her left hand on a stack of old prayer books that had belonged to her mother, grandparents, and great grandfather" as "a physical expression of the weight of Jewish history."
And in North Carolina, the Notary Public has a written code for swearing in:
"A person taking an oath should place one hand on the Holy Scriptures. This book will vary depending on the person's religious beliefs: Christians should use the New Testament or the Bible; Jews, the Torah or the Old Testament; Moslems, the Koran; Hindus, the Bhagavad-Gita; etc."

(...)
Oh, and apparently Prager has a problem with Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz:
U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) made headlines earlier this month when she could not find a Hebrew Bible for her swearing in; she refused the Christian Bible proffered by House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and eventually borrowed one from Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.).


http://njdc.typepad.com/njdcs_blog/2006/11/religious_tests.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-30-06 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #16
26. Thanks for the link n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
last_texas_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
10. I'm curious...
>>But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.>>

I'm wondering exactly when "America" decided what book its public servants should take their oaths upon. I don't recall hearing this issue ever being put to a vote, and I know I've never been asked. It just seems like another meaningless tradition, like having "In God We Trust" on currency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-30-06 03:23 AM
Response to Reply #10
25. Someone pointed out in another thread that Congress members...
...don't really touch anything when they're officially sworn in.

Afterwards, for a swearing-in photograph, they touch a book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ediacara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 10:58 PM
Response to Original message
13. If I'm ever elected to anything, I'll swear in placing my hand on the Constitution
thank you very much....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pdxmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 11:17 PM
Response to Original message
17. So it's not a matter of the belief in what they are swearing, it's about
what pieces of paper and binding are under that hand. It means no more to him than swearing on a copy of "My Pet Goat", but the far right doesn't seem to care about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starbucks Anarchist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 11:28 PM
Response to Original message
20. Let me get this straight.
Thousands of legislators have sworn on the Bible through all these years. Suddenly, one guy swears on the Koran and they go apeshit?

:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bobbie Jo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 11:41 PM
Response to Original message
21. Make a Law???
C'mon folks...for so-called "conservatives" they sure want to legislate everything that doesn't suit them, including what we eat, sleep, and breath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pushed To The Left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-30-06 12:34 AM
Response to Original message
22. What part of "no establishment of religion" do these people not understand?
How would they feel if Christian politicians were forced to place their hands on the Quran during swearing-in ceremonies? Hardcore social conservatism is one thing, but this right wing "alert" is bordering on religious bigotry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-30-06 12:36 AM
Response to Original message
23. It should be whatever book the person taking the oath feels proper
Would these people be having a fit if it were the Torah instead of the Koran?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-30-06 12:38 AM
Response to Original message
24. well, I got news for them. America will base its' values on NEITHER
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 03:46 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC