A first for America...the Koran replaces Bible at swearing-in oath (1 Viewer)

Since Mr. Ellison is a lawyer, I will assume that he has been sworn in a court of law at one time or another. Wonder what book he was sworn in with?

I was wondering when someone would bring this up. Good job.

Just someone trying to seize the moment for his own glorification in a Politically Correct environment. It's up to every single person who believes in America, Americans, to stand up and make sure that we are not led down this self destructive road.

What is so pathetic about all of this crap is that the world is watching. They are watching and laughing at America, and every single day, we lose more and more respect in the world because of the internal conflicts that are going on because of all of our 'freedoms'. With 'freedom' comes responsibility. We are well on our way to no longer being a 'superpower' on this planet. God help us all if Liberals and PC crowd win.

Folks need to keep in mind that the basis of the Muslim religion, is to be the ONLY religion in the world. Then take a look at the every day occurances around the planet through those eyes.
 
Jackee, I suggest you read article VI of the constitution.

I'm pretty well acquainted with the Constitution David, but thanks for the suggestion anyway. Read my other posts. I'm not going to say the same thing a different way in an effort to make some people understand the big picture. A person either gets it or they don't. There isn't a magic number of times something can be said to make people understand what is happening in our great country.

Thankfully, so far there are still many more people who 'get it' then who don't. However, those who understand the undermining of everything America stands for, can no longer continue to sit around in the back ground complaining about 'the direction things are going', instead of standing up and speaking out against these things. Speak out or suffer the consequences, perhaps not for yourselves, but your grandchildren and theirs. Look ahead 7 generations.
 
America, Not Keith Ellison, Decides What Book a Congressman Takes His Oath On
by Dennis Prager
Posted Nov 28, 2006
America, Not Keith Ellison, Decides What Book a Congressman Takes His Oath On

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.

Mr. Prager hosts a nationally syndicated radio talk show based in Los Angeles. He is the author of four books, most recently "Happiness is a Serious Problem" (HarperCollins). His website is Dennis Prager.
Threads2
 
Last edited:
"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects." - James Madison

I think that contemporary Christians would do well to to actually study the writings of some the Founding Fathers like Jefferson and Madison. If they were to do they would soon find that they did indeed advocate and believe that church and state should be separate. For example, as President, Jefferson refused to recongnize a day of Thanksgiving because he believed that a government proclamation of such a day would be a breach of the establishment clause of the Bill of Rights. Other early Presidents took a similar stance. For the same reason Madison vetoed a bill passed by Congress that would have aided churches in caring for the needy. Can you imagine the howl that would be heard from religious conservatives if today a President did such a thing???
 
Better be careful Rich, someone might think you're dishing out some more "revisionist history" with talk like that. :eek:
 
Not only was this nation originally comprised of people with primarily a Christian foundation for their beliefs, it was also founded by people who came here because they believed in religious freedom.

If we allow current events to distract us from the core founding principles of our country we are becoming like so many of certain cultures who seek us harm.

In the grand scope of things, the request for a different book is a small request. It is also the exercising and reinforcement of the melting pot of America which allows for fifferent people to come together and work for our common good.

This should not offend conservatives or liberals. It is not a statement of how others should guide their lives but it is a strong statement by an individual who is dedicating his term to public service and a tip of the hat to recognize his different personal beliefs.

If we enforce a specific cult, no matter whether it be billions strong or just few, through a requirement for service, then we enter a state of being that will lead us to the turmoil that has been experienced in the middle east for generations.

This is a slipperly slope and is not really about the separation of church and state, but a question of separating particular "churches" (religions), and state. That is the problem.
 
Everyone is entitled to their opinions on this matter.

Me, I'm just going to follow my Momma's advice about arguing with some folks. ;)
 
Better be careful Rich, someone might think you're dishing out some more "revisionist history" with talk like that. :eek:

You're probably right. :D

I think Ted is right when he says, "Not only was this nation originally comprised of people with primarily a Christian foundation for their beliefs, it was also founded by people who came here because they believed in religious freedom." That some of the people who came here for reasons of religious freedom denied that same freedom to others is beside the point. I think the Founders did well in learning the lessons of European church/state entanglements by enshrining both religious liberty and church/state separation in our Constitution. That some would want to undo an arrangement that has clearly enhanced both religious liberty and political freedom is beyond me.
 
Everyone is entitled to their opinions on this matter.

Me, I'm just going to follow my Momma's advice about arguing with some folks. ;)

if you can't beat em join em.


we should not be forcing anyone in this country to swear on a bible, to swear ' so help me God' , or anything to that effect.

forcing the use of the bible is an obvious endorsement of two religions - judaism and christianity. two closely related religions

that is most obviously blatantly unconstitutional. the fact that most people in this country don't have a problem with it is completely beside the point.

the bill of rights wasn't written for the majority.

it was written for individuals.
 
How EVER has America survived all of this time without such infinite wisdom? :confused: :confused: :confused:

Wait, what's that I hear? Oh, It's just another bandwagon coming our way.
 
So much for your momma's advice, huh?

As far as bandwagonning is concerned, you seem to be DRIVING Rush Limbaugh's.

Seriously....
 
So much for your momma's advice, huh?

As far as bandwagonning is concerned, you seem to be DRIVING Rush Limbaugh's.

Seriously....

Actually, I'm driving the Conservative, anti liberal, pro-America wagon.

By the way, I've never listened to Limbaugh in my life. No reason, just haven't.

But hey! Believe what you want.

And as for Momma? I'm not arguing... are you? :)
 
It was just a matter of time before this happened. I don't think we can trust muslims. Not after 9-11 and all the other attacks on the US by them. No one else is attacking us, just muslims. Nothing racist here either. They started the problem, not us. Some may be decent folks who might not want to hurt the US but can you really trust them? Their mosks are nothing but arsenals. Just ask any soldier who has been in Iraq. They hide behind their religion.

IMHO, I sincerely believe that when the chips are down, they will be more loyal to their koran than to the US. And that's where the problem lies. Their koran incites them to convert or kill all non-muslims.

If I was ever elected to a public office I would ask if I could take the oath using a current NHRA rule book.
 
Last edited:
It was just a matter of time before this happened. I don't think we can trust muslims. Not after 9-11 and all the other attacks on the US by them. No one else is attacking us, just muslims. Nothing racist here either. They started the problem, not us. Some may be decent folks who might not want to hurt the US but can you really trust them? Their mosks are nothing but arsenals. Just ask any soldier who has been in Iraq. They hide behind their religion.

IMHO, I sincerely believe that when the chips are down, they will be more loyal to their koran than to the US. And that's where the problem lies. Their koran incites them to convert or kill all non-muslims.

If I was ever elected to a public office I would ask if I could take the oath using a current NHRA rule book.

Ah, how refreshing. Someone who 'gets it'.

I know some Muslim people. Wonderful folks. My objection is that there are more Muslims who practice Islam in a peaceful manner, then there are of the militants .... it is the majority of peaceful Muslims who should be in the forefront of containing the jihadists and they don't seem to be doing anything, in spite of the tens of thousands among them who have been killed by people, supposedly of their own religion.
 
Ah, how refreshing. Someone who 'gets it'.

I know some Muslim people. Wonderful folks. My objection is that there are more Muslims who practice Islam in a peaceful manner, then there are of the militants .... it is the majority of peaceful Muslims who should be in the forefront of containing the jihadists and they don't seem to be doing anything, in spite of the tens of thousands among them who have been killed by people, supposedly of their own religion.

I agree completely, Jackee. I really question their courage to stand up to the militants. If the militants attend their mosks, after a while they get to know who the bad guys are. Then why don't they identify them to the FBI? I believe that when confronted by their religious leaders as to what comes first to them, they will say the koran, and the U.S. comes second. Even the muslims in our military have become problems and have killed other service members "in the name of allah". If I had my way, muslims would not be allowed in our military. Again, they have proven that they can't be trusted. And this conclusion has been formed by THEIR actions.

If the "good" muslims REALLY want to regain the trust of the American people, and prove to us that they really are against the actions of the militants (have you EVER heard a muslim say the the actions of 9-11 were wrong?...didn't think so), they should take a very aggressive stand against the militants and do everything they can to eliminate them.

Spec ops folks call this "direct action".
 
Ways To Support Nitromater

Users who are viewing this thread


Back
Top