...don't....have...words..........

[sarahmichelef]

reposting from ellid:
America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on

Selected gems, with commentary as long as I can say something that doesn't consist entirely of WTM-FingF?:

• "He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization."  With liberty and justice for all, indeed.
• "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."  SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, ASSHOLE!  READ THE GODDAMN CONSTITUTION!
• "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."  That's pretty funny.  I can't decide if I should be offended or not, since technically the Old Testament is part of the Bible.  But something tells me that Mr. Prager wouldn't be too cool with an observant Jew choosing to pledge rather than swear and omitting the Bible altogether.  (Although Prager would have us believe that Jews have been swearing on the Bible, I'd be willing to bet that at least some have chosen not to swear at all...)
• "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."  Yeah, we wouldn't want to piss him off.  He might call up his buddy Osama and order a strike against Apple Pie.

Give me an effing break.

Comments

[elliesam.livejournal.com]

That this custom still continues has always baffled me. IMO, I don't think we need to have people swearing on any book. Taking an oath is taking an oath, and that's a personal pledge. Laying your hand on some printed product doesn't change the intentions you have when you make that pledge, or how well you keep that pledge, and should be entirely optional.

[brewergnome.livejournal.com]

Holy crapping crapmonkeys.

Wow that's some kwality, grade-A, flaming, spiced to perfection, stupid.

[ellid.livejournal.com]

Something I pointed out over in dark_christian: our two Quaker presidents (Hoover and Nixon) didn't swear any oaths because they were Quakers. Our legal system has always allowed those who cannot swear oaths to "affirm" that their testimony is true, largely because of the large Quaker population in Pennsylvania during the Revolution.


"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

But then again, a lot of these right-wing idiots seem to forget that we do indeed have a written Constitution, and that it's quite clear on such matters.

[stefka.livejournal.com]

Not to start anything, because frankly, I don't much care if he takes his oath on a copy of Webster's Ditionary, as long as he takes (and means) the same oath as every other officeholder. If his word is not his word, the book under his hand doesn't matter at all. And, indeed, some officeholders have not "sworn," but "affirmed." ...

But the "wall of separation between church and state" is not in the Constitution. Not anywhere. I've read the Constitution repeatedly (yes, I really AM that geeky), and I've read the letter, written in 1802, in which Jefferson wrote that phrase.

All the Constitution has to say on religion appears in the First Amendment, which states in its entirety: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

[alphasarah.livejournal.com]

Yeah, ok, I was mad. While I'm pretty sure our interpretations of the first amendment differ, I do agree that this isn't really a separation of church and state issue.

However, Prager's insistence on the Bible being the ONLY book that guides American life is downright offensive to anyone who is not a Christian.

[stefka.livejournal.com]

I can certainly see that. And the Constitution also says the bit about there being no religious test for officeholders.

I've just had enough debates on what is or is not in the Constitution (and particularly about that specific phrase) that I have to bring it up when I see it. I shudder at the thought of the number of lawyers who cite that phrase. I have on more than one occasion handed a person a copy of the Constitution (the World Almanac usually has it), and told them to find it. :)

Graagrrgghrggh

[greyhame.livejournal.com]

That's so insanely fucked up I can't even be coherently enraged about it.