Worst Fundie Wingnut LTTE Ever

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

Maybe not the worst ever, but it's right up there:

From this morning's Minneapolis Star-Tribune, http://www.startribune.com/563/story/848429.html:

The decision of U.S. Rep.-elect Keith Ellison to take the oath of office on the Qur'an is offensive to all Americans. Our country has been based on the Bible for the oath. He should not be allowed to serve if he cannot abide by the rules of America.

I am firing up my keyboard for a response. What an ignorant, bigoted nitwit!

[ComerPerro]

1. didn't this story turn out to be a complete fabrication by a RW nut? or did I read it wrong?

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. The 'ceremony' where they use the bible is just a photo op

The real swearing in does not involve the bible.

Dumbass freepers. :rofl:

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. Nobody is required to swear "on" anything, and the ceremony itself

does not involve Bibles or any such books - they just raise their right hand and swear to uphold the Constitution, which specifically says that there is to be NO religious test for any federal official. The new reps often have photo ops after the ceremony in which they are photographed with their hand on a Bible, but that's totally optional. I don't know whether Ellison ever said he would do that, but it's not important whether he did or didn't -- the fact that there are people who think this is required, regardless of the person's religious affiliation (or lack of one), is scary, and there are way too many people who are both bigoted and ignorant of the law and the Constitution. The Strib is gonna hear from me on this one.

[ComerPerro]

12. yeah, that was pretty much how I understood. Im unclear if he said anything himself

this kind of sounds to me like a RWer making a comment about "this muslim" and how he will want to be sworn in using the Quran, and then RW blogs and email forwards making sure that this story gets legs and becomes reported as literal fact.

Think of it, its a fantastic fundraising, anger-generating hitpiece.


EDIT afterthought: And it fits perfectly into their standard procedure of creating a big fuss and stink over something that isn't even true in the first place.

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. I think it is hilarious

Did you see the editorial?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2847285&mesg_id=2847364

[ComerPerro]

22. that was a really good take on the situation

[calimary]

29. And wasn't there a female governor who took her oath of office

just recently, on the Torah? I remember seeing something about that here.

[zreosumgame]

27. yep, just like when I took the oath to join the Navy a couple of decades ago

no bible then either, we and the congressmen swear on our HONOR, which is why so many repukes are in trouble...they do not know what that is

[rusty charly]

13. Members pose for symbolic photo-ops with their hand on a Bible.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/30/koran-bible-prager-ellison/

Right-wing radio host Dennis Prager wrote a column earlier this week claiming that Rep.-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim elected to Congress, had “announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.” Prager claimed this “act undermines American civilization,” and compared it to being sworn in with a copy of Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.”

Bloggers on the left and right — including Taylor Marsh, Steven Bennen, Eugene Volokh, Stephen Bainbridge — have torn apart Prager’s argument on constitutional grounds.

But Prager’s column is based on one other glaring error: the swearing-in ceremony for the House of Representatives never includes a religious book. The Office of the House Clerk confirmed to ThinkProgress that the swearing-in ceremony consists only of the Members raising their right hands and swearing to uphold the Constitution. The Clerk spokesperson said neither the Christian Bible, nor any other religious text, had ever been used in an official capacity during the ceremony. (Occassionally, Members pose for symbolic photo-ops with their hand on a Bible.)

[ComerPerro]

15. but can anyone confirm whether Ellison ever actually even said that?

[havocmom]

2. Thought this country was based of Freedom of religion.

Somebody throw a net over that letter writer and reel him/her in for some civics classes.

[Mz Pip]

3. Rules of America?

Or just the wannabe rules of a ranting ignoramous. These people are stupid beyone belief. :eyes:

I'd like the letter writer to produce these "rules."

Mz Pip
:dem:

[ck4829]

5. It's offensive to all Americans?

Not to me, it isn't.

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. In your letter, ask to see the "rules of America"

I'd like to see those myself. LOL

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. The "rules of America" are contained in the Constitution.

And Article VI says the oath is to support the Constitution and there is to be no religious test for any office holder. Seems pretty clear, IMO.

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. Not those rules, silly

The ones about using the bible for the swearing in. LOL

[twilight_sailing]

8. The shameless Republicans

are once again trying to destroy America (you know, little things like freedom of religion, one of the very foundations of this country) for tawdry political gain.
Shame on them. And shame on anyone who votes for them.

[Nobody]

10. You should see the editorial on the same page

where the paper goes off on the wingnuts having a collective hissy fit over a Muslim doing his photo op with the scriptures of his own religion.

I've never seen any paper go off like that, and they do use the term "wingnut".

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. "he's got wingnuts falling out of the trees on their empty heads" LOLOLOL

Editorial: Ellison and his Qur'an get wingnuts whirling
What a hilarious load of ignorance, intolerance he exposed.

Published: December 02, 2006


THE BIBLELESS OATH

"An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: 'I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.' This section does not affect other oaths required by law."


You've gotta hand it to Keith Ellison, Minneapolis' congressman-elect: He's not even in the House yet, and he's got wingnuts falling out of the trees on their empty heads.

When Ellison announced that he would take the oath of office on the Qur'an, right-wing radio gasbag Dennis Prager went into high indignation mode. Ohmygod, Prager fumed, Ellison can't be allowed to do that; it "undermines American civilization." Using the Qur'an is akin to a racist taking the oath on a copy of Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf," he fulminated: "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."

And Prager was just warming up, not to mention the acolytes who responded to him. He was over the top, but they were over the moon. Did you know, voters of Minneapolis, that Ellison's campaign was financed by terrorists?

Where to begin? How about that oath Ellison will take? He will pledge to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States." If the wild talkers scrunch up their brows and focus really, really hard, maybe even they will recall that freedom of (and from) religion -- that which motivated the Pilgrims to brave the Atlantic -- is the paramount value Ellison will swear to protect. Scrunch a little more, and perhaps they will even recall that the Constitution specifically prohibits any religious test for members of Congress. Requiring someone to put their hand on a Bible would seem to fill the "religious test" bill quite well.

That's probably why no religious book plays an official role in swearing in members of Congress.

They gather on the House floor, raise their right hands and follow as the speaker leads them through the oath. Some pose privately for photos with a book of choice, but the official oath is unencumbered by religious tomes of any flavor.

Crow, anyone?

http://www.startribune.com/561/story/848427.html

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

17. Yes, the editorial was terrific.

"What a hilarious load of ignorance, intolerance he exposed." The Strib is often very good at slapping down the lunatic right. And I suspect they published that obnoxious LTTE as a foil to their editorial. Still, I think readers need to call bullshit, too, because the wingers generally dismiss the Strib's op-ed writers as a bunch of lefty terrorist sympathizers.

[calimary]

30. "A hilarious load of ignorance, intolerance" fairly well sums up dennis

prager's whole show. He's frickin' ridiculous. Arrogant, know-it-all, holier-than-thou, sanctimonious twit. I found him unlistenable after about 10 minutes - and that was, I think, some 15 years ago.

[BlackVelvet04]

18. Submission of extremely stupid

letter to the editor: 39 Cents
Paper in which your letter where you made an ass of yourself appears: $1.25
Editorial pointing out what an ass you are: PRICELESS

[Hav]

19. .

Even if it were true, even if they would swear on the bible, another DUer pointed out a few days ago how silly it would be for a Muslim to do so.
If I'm not wrong, the reason why certain people do it with the bible is because of the importance of the religion and the bible for them. It's a symbol to show that one takes the oath seriously by combining it if a very important thing.
If one betrays what was said in the oath, then this person somehow also betrayed his own religion.
Why should a Muslim then take the oath on the bible when the Qur'an means so much more for him?

[sarge43]

20. A question occurs.

Does Islamic law (religious or secular)or traditional require the taking of oaths upon the Qur'an?

[China_cat]

21. If you haven't already sent it

make sure that you ask if the person would really trust someone who would be willing to swear an oath on a book that they do not consider a sacred tract of their religion.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

23. That was definitely one of the points I wanted to raise.

And it will be included. Seriously, why would anyone want a congressman to "swear" on something they didn't believe in?

[China_cat]

25. Why would someone want ANYONE

to swear on something they don't believe in?

[Nobody]

33. Exactly. For me to swear to any deity invalidates any oath I could make

I won't swear on something or by something I don't believe in. Some people are so threatened by it.

I'm proud to be represented by Keith Ellison. Of the field of about 20 people vying for the office of 5th District Rep, he was a standout. I like what he says about health care and the war in Iraq to name a couple things.

More power to him for wanting to swear on something that means something to him.

[Union Thug]

24. Another self-deluded, right-wing twit who failed to do his homework.

I have no patience for these assholes.

[Left Is Write]

26. It's not a rule. It's not offensive to "all" Americans. Our country is not based on the Bible.

These Ellison-bashers are really starting to piss me off.

[depakid]

28. Actually, I have a problem swearing on either one of them

People ought to be swearing on a copy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

[TerdlowSmedley]

31. US Representatives do not put their hand on any sort of book

for the swearing-in. It's bullshit.

[Pierre.Suave]

32. I like this one.

PRIME MINISTER AL-MALIKI

He fits Bush profile

The president insists that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is the right man for the job.

That makes sense in view of a leaked White House memo that depicts him as oblivious, duplicitous and incompetent -- he has all the qualifications necessary to work with this administration.