...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

[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. :)