Muslim elected to congrees wants to swear in on the Koran, wingers flip out!

[splat@14]

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=82
Full story at Pam's. Freeper quotes below;


Truthfully, I didn't know that this had become an issue. But Prager makes a very valid point. I fully agree that Ellison should not take his "oath" on the koran.

It's long past time for MoHamHeads to be offended and humiliated often and harshly. As an American, I was deeply offended and humiliated on September 11, 2001. But not as offended as the thousands of my fellow Americans that died that day and the tens of thousands in their surviving families. I would like to see MoHamHeads so offended and humiliated that they would go back to their nations of origin and leave us in peace.

What good does an oath on the Christian bible mean to a Muslim?

This has already been posted and someone still needs to buy Mr. Prager a copy of the United States Constitution, Article VI of which explicitly gives Mr. Ellison the right to choose to be sworn in on whatever tome he wants.

THERE ARE NO RELIGIOUS TESTS for office.

Come on now. Don't bring either common sense or actual FACT into a Muslim Paranoia thread.

There are no religous tests. No such test has been administered. The question in fact is whether we should alter tradition. I see no evidence we should.

Where is anyone bound by law to go with tradition?

He does not recognize American law as based on Christian principals. Therefore, he has no intention of upholding or honoring them.

How about a roll of toilet paper. So you want a Congressman swearing allegiance to his country on a roll of toilet paper?

On the other hand, what oath from a muslim is any good, no matter what? If a jew, a buddhist, a hindu, or an atheist can all take the oth on the same book, the bible, why can't a muslim? Muslims are not special.

Considering the fact that he can lie as long as it benefits and forwards his religion and false prophet, let him place his hand on the NYTs

How about if he takes his oath on a picture of the Twin Towers collapsing !!!

He could use a stack of Bibles...and his word wouldn't mean anything. But, there are a lot of Congresscritters that I feel the same way about...and as far as I know they aren't Muslim. That is a different discussion...if he wants to use a Koran, then he needs to run for office in an Islamic state, with an Islamic government.

I don't have much problem with people swearing the oath on whatever they deem holy, but what does an oath on the Koran mean anyhow when it commands Muslims to cheat, rob, rape, and kill the infidel?

This is a nonstarter. This forum needs to look to other things to bash this guy on. Bashing him over his religion won't get you anywhere except as a permanent minority. He has a freedom to choose whatever traditions HE holds. That's what the TRADITION of freedom is.

This is factually inaccurate. There is absolutely no Constitutional requirement for House members or even the President to swear on the Bible when taking his oath of office - while Presidents have traditionally done so, it's not clear that any oath needs to be with one hand on the Bible to qualify as an oath (it likely doesn't), and under the Constitution, office holders can take an affirmation of office of office instead of an oath anyway. In fact, President Teddy Roosevelt didn't swear on the Bible when he became President after McKinley's death in 1901. One simply might not have been available at the time. He still became President.

American patriots are turning in their graves at this deplorable outrage. IMO, the voters have lost their minds. If our enemies have their way, the voters will lose their heads as well.

Prager is dead wrong in describing the House's tradition for swearing in its members. It is done en masse on the House floor, not individually, and generally doesn't even include swearing on Bibles.

Next thing you know some idjit will claim that since they are an atheist they want to take their oath on some book by that Hair woman, and then some oaf will claim that their religion is Devil worship and they want to use the book of Satan. Still, since we as a country have IN OUR FOUNDATIONAL DOCUMENTS THE PRINCIPAL OF NO STATE RELIGION, I don't see how we can require someone to use the Bible and I am not sure they have to use anything at all--he may just be making a strawman issue. I am guessing you don't have to use anything at all. When I got sworn into Federal service as an officer of the USAR there was no book.

Islam is all about undermining American civilization.

[IndyOp]

1. He does not recognize American law as based on Christian [sic] principals.

BECAUSE AMERICAN LAW IS NOT BASED ON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES

[SidDithers]

2. A point that cannot be repeated often enough...

thanks for the pointed reminder. :toast:

Sid

[HappyWeasel]

3. well it is but, it has replaced Christianity as the state's doctrine.

[leeroysphitz]

7. Um... No it isn't. Our system of law is based squarely on

British common law which predates the introduction of Christianity to that country by more than 200 years.

[IndyOp]

9. If you are thinking that it is based on Christian principles because

some of the founders were Christian that doesn't cut it for me. Jefferson was a deist who believed that "organized religion" was a force for ill.

Wikipedia on Jefferson:

... many scholars agree with the claim that Jefferson was a deist, a common position held by intellectuals in the late 18th century. As Avery Cardinal Dulles, a leading Roman Catholic theologian reports, "In his college years at William and Mary he came to admire Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, and John Locke as three great paragons of wisdom. Under the influence of several professors he converted to the deist philosophy."

Dulles concludes:
In summary, then, Jefferson was a deist because he believed in one God, in divine providence, in the divine moral law, and in rewards and punishments after death; but did not believe in supernatural revelation. He was a Christian deist because he saw Christianity as the highest expression of natural religion and Jesus as an incomparably great moral teacher. He was not an orthodox Christian because he rejected, among other things, the doctrines that Jesus was the promised Messiah and the incarnate Son of God. Jefferson's religion is fairly typical of the American form of deism in his day.

Biographer Merrill Peterson summarizes Jefferson's theology:
First, that the Christianity of the churches was unreasonable, therefore unbelievable, but that stripped of priestly mystery, ritual, and dogma, reinterpreted in the light of historical evidence and human experience, and substituting the Newtonian cosmology for the discredited Biblical one, Christianity could be conformed to reason. Second, morality required no divine sanction or inspiration, no appeal beyond reason and nature, perhaps not even the hope of heaven or the fear of hell; and so the whole edifice of Christian revelation came tumbling to the ground.

Jefferson used deist terminology in repeatedly stating his belief in a creator, and in the United States Declaration of Independence used the terms "Creator", "Nature's God". Jefferson believed, furthermore, it was this Creator that endowed humanity with a number of inalienable rights, such as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". His experience in France just before the French Revolution made him deeply suspicious of Catholic priests and bishops as a force for reaction and ignorance. Similarly, his experience in America with inter-denominational intolerance served to reinforce this skeptical view of religion. In a letter to Willam Short, Jefferson wrote: "the serious enemies are the priests of the different religious sects, to whose spells on the human mind it's improvement is ominous."

[tinfoil tiaras]

4. Um..Freepers? I'm Christian too, but the Bible is *quite* violent

Especially in the Old Testament. Sodom and Gomorrah, The Moses story (the plagues and whatnot), hell even Noah's ark. So don't talk about how the Koran is violent, because the Bible is just every bit as violent as the Koran.


I love conservative hipocracy...:crazy:

[cali]

5. Stupid fucks

House members are sworn in en masse, simply raising their right hands. Afterwards, many do photo ops with their hands on the bible or whatever.

[tinfoil tiaras]

6. They probably wish that they had photo ops with the Bible

So that they can exploit that holy book and Christianity even more...:roll:

[IndyOp]

8. Photo ops? You mean like this guy?

Wow! This is the first time I've seen these flags -
crosses with the swastika on them ->


:wow: :wow: :wow: :wow:

[tinfoil tiaras]

12. Holy crap!

I've never seen those before. I don't understand how someone that calls themselves a Christian could have supported Hitler at that time...just wow. I have no other words to say

[BushOut06]

10. Muslims are allowed to LIE in order to help further their religion

Yep, I've heard this one several times from people. I've actually heard people say that we should never trust a Muslim, because the Koran teaches them that it's okay to lie in order to help their cause.

Hell, when you look at it that way, it's easy to see the freeper mindset. They have no intention of coexisting peacefully with Islam. By saying that all Muslims can't be trusted, it gives them the excuse they need to discriminate and harass them.

[msongs]

11. harry potter, lord of the rings, koran, bible, who cares what fiction they use?

all are appropriate if you believe what is in them as being true for you. If you are a war like tribal arab living in 5th century arabia, one is for you. if you are a war like tribal israeli living in 1st century palestine, one is true for you. If you are a 20th century science fiction fan of any denomination or war like tendency, one is true for you. not sure who would believe in harry potter, although certain religious cults might say harry potter is satanic witch who turns staffs into serpents. Ooops, that was Moses, not Harry.

Swear the guy in on the LA Times, or a flyer from Walmart if you want. Swearing in on a book does not mean the person will honor any of that book's content, particularly if that person is a congressperson.

My personal belief is practice the religion of your choice if you like, just keep it to yourself.

Unfortunately that is not a popular view amongst many readers of two of those books, who believe it is their diving right to persecute, torture, and murder all non-believers, infidels, heathens, etc, because their chosen book says they are the one and only true religion.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm