Re: Prager, Ellison, the Koran, and now…CAIR (of course)
- Posted by Beth on December 4th, 2006 filed in General, Islamofascism, Moonbats, Politics, Stupid, WTF
Tags: CAIR, Keith Ellison, Dennis Prager
OK, ENOUGH with this bullshi’ite.
At first, I was thinking, why the hell doesn’t Keith Ellison just take his oath on the Bible like everyone else has done, regardless of their religious beliefs? It’s symbolic, if nothing else. Then I thought, well, what’s the big deal. If it means he’s taking his oath that seriously, then whatever. Unlike some people, though, I don’t think Dennis Prager is a bigot or whatever nasty euphemism his knee-jerk opponents used. Do I like that this Ellison clown wants to use the Koran? No, not particularly, and I have a right to have an opinion. Nevertheless, I figured “choose your battles.”
No more.
Apparently the vile scum at CAIR don’t know how to choose their battles. Of all things, they want Dennis Prager removed from–get this–the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council?
The Council on American-Islamic Relations said the comments by Dennis Prager, a columnist and conservative talk radio host, displayed an intolerance toward Islam that make him an inappropriate person to serve on the council.
Since when did CAIR give a rat’s ass about the Holocaust? Wouldn’t it be more logical if Jew-bashers (like CAIR!) were getting kicked off the Council? (Or at least, asked to leave?) WTF? And do they think anyone who really supports the Holocaust Memorial gives a flying shi’ite what CAIR wants? Are they f’n kidding?
Is this all they could figure out in their clumsy, obvious attempt to destroy someone who has a different view than they do? Newsflash to CAIR: I’ll bet right now that if it were possible to take a vote on this issue, you’d find that most Americans would agree that Keith Ellison should suck it up and take his oath on the Bible, and quit looking for opportunities to be divisive.
Answer this, CAIR and Keith Ellison: If an atheist decides he or she doesn’t want to take an oath on ANY religious text, what then? Cross my heart, hope to die, stick a needle in my eye? What if a Pastafarian wants to use The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Better yet, what if someone wants to take his or her oath on a copy of The Satanic Verses? Or maybe some nice book from Ibn Warraq? Where does it stop? Would you go after a critic as forcefully if someone decided they wanted to swear their oath on, say, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? I doubt it.
Darleen Click makes this analogy, as well:
To understand the point Prager is making, consider this analogy: What message would be sent if an elected official announced that his/her swearing in would be conducted in a language other than English, exclusively?
And more importantly, answer this, CAIR: I don’t see any goddamned Muslims on the Holocaust Memorial Council–what have you done for the US Holocaust Memorial lately? What have you done for Jews lately, besides bashing them and working for another Holocaust? What chutzpah!
Xrlq says:
I’m not CAIR or Keith Ellison, but I’ll answer anyway: he won’t take oath on any religious text. CAIR’s idiocy is inexcusable, but it doesn’t diminish or in any way affect Prager’s idiocy in invoking an oath requirement that does not exist, and which would be a clearly unconstitutional religious test of office if it did.
raz0r says:
Remind Ellison (and CAIR) that no one is forcing him to accept his election to office either. Provide him with two options, okay three.
A: Oath on the Bible
B: Oath on the Constitution
C: Do not accept office resulting in a new race for the vacated spot (like that’ll happen).
Frederick says:
That’s because no one is sworn into Congress on any type of religious text at all. As the Constitution says, there shall be no religious test to hold office. This all was shot down last week.
Beth says:
Really? The guys at Think Progress are on the Supreme Court?
Wow, who knew? :roll:
So I don’t see anyone but CAIR making a stink out of this, and all they’re doing is trying to fuck with Dennis Prager. Kinda farkin’ stupid, don’tcha think?
Beth says:
I’m with raz0r’s options. If the Bible bothers you, use the Constitution. If THAT bothers you, then you need to get the fuck out.
Basil's Blog » Blog Archive » Blogrolling 2006-12-05 says:
[...] Beth (MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy) looks at the dustup over Ellison and the Bible. [...]
Xrlq says:
Raz0r, if the Koran is that objectionable then the Bible is no better. If you want to limit every incoming Congressman to Options (b) and (c), that’s fine, as swearing fealty to the Bible is no substitute for upholding one’s oath to the Constitution anyway.
Beth, if you really think only CAIR and the left are annoyed by Prager’s historically and constitutionally illiterate idiocy, you really need to get out more. To name only two high profile examples, Eugene Volokh is hardly a lefty, and Glenn Reynolds could “CAIR” less what a group of terror apologists think about him. Like I said, CAIR’s reaction to the column is unjustifiable, but that doesn’t change the fact that Prager is out to lunch, any more than some terrorist yelling “Allahu akbar” proves that there is no God, or that he isn’t really great.
Beth says:
No, I don’t think CAIR and the left are the only ones. I do think, though, that CAIR and the usual suspects are engaged in ridiculous ad hominem attacks, unlike The Law Professors™.
As I said in the post, I wouldn’t even care about the whole thing–my MAJOR objection is to CAIR. I despise them. I choose my battles carefully; something Ellison apparently doesn’t do, which is no surprise considering he’s CAIR’s boy (you know, CAIR–the ones who wish for an Islamic America?). If it’s that big of a deal to him personally, then why enlist CAIR? Why not file a legal challenge and see it through? It’s not like anyone’s saying there’s no legal merit to Ellison’s position.
I’m not even saying Ellison is trying to further CAIR’s agenda with this whole thing, although he could be–or maybe he’s just looking to start shi’ite with this. Or maybe he was pure of heart and just expected that’s the way things are (choose your own book). Somehow I seriously doubt it, though. He can’t be that stupid or naive. I smell a CAIR-setup.
Personally, I can’t wait until someone wants to take the oath on The Gospel of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. (Dennis Kucinich, maybe?)
Scott Allan says:
While swearing the oath, politicians promise to, “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic” and “bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”
I’m not sure how effective swearing on a Bible has been in making many politicians keep this promise! :) I’m not sure anymore how we will be protected from our enemies or if politicians really care about keeping us safe and upholding our values. I am actually counting on the Democrats acting like typical politicians and not keeping any of their promises after being elected.
Asking someone to take an oath on a book they don’t believe in will not encourage politicians to be any more loyal to their country. But you would also think it shouldn’t bother them in the slightest either if it truly holds no meaning for them. Do they think that they won’t be able to keep their promises if it is not on their book of choice? They are not being asked to swear their allegiance to Christianity or endorse what the Bible says. We just want them to promise to protect us and do the right thing. Just wondering, in a court of law, if an atheist swears to tell the truth on a Bible, did he really promise anything at all? The mere objection to the Bible actually acknowledges it has moral relevance. As usual this is just a political game for both sides to further their agendas.
I do like the idea of swearing on the Constitution. That would end all the debate and ridiculousness.
Cassandra says:
I wasn’t sure I agreed with Prager’s point about requiring Ellison to swear on the Bible, *however*, his objection was hardly racist or bigoted and he made a perfectly legitimate point when he pointed out that many many Jews, Mormons, atheists, etc have sworn on the Bible for quite some time without kicking up a fuss.
Now does this mean Ellison can lawfully be compelled to do likewise? Unfortunately, no. But you really have to admire the neatness of his proposed compromise: why *not* carry a Bible in your other hand to ’show respect’ while swearing on the Koran or other book of your faith?
Ummm….do I believe for one second that Mr. Ellison will show the same respect for other cultures that he would demand in a HEARTBEAT for his own?
Nope.
And thus is Dennis Prager’s point made. The man’s no dummy.
Scott Allan says:
Do you think they will hire Gloria Allred and demand money from Prager?
raz0r says:
My point had nothing to do with religion and more to do with tradition (with reagrds to Option A), something I failed to include in my post. A few mea culpas and whatnot. As has been mentioned, thousands of others have gone through the process without ne’er an objection.
I see this as the tip of a slippery slope. They will not honor the traditions of this nation, it will not be long before they do not honor the oath they take. Like it or not, we are defined by our traditions: God, baseball, mom’s apple pie, etc.
This has been chosen as a point with which to chisel away at the foundation of our core. Today it’s the oath on a Bible. Tomorrow, something else. One day it might be the flag (and this nation) they choose not to beholden themselves to. Slippery slope. That’s how I see it.
jay says:
I dont really think that the constitution requires a ” Bible” or any other sacred book…the porpuse of taking the oath is make sure that a congressman honors his country and protect ..so i think Ellison should be given the choice to use the book he believes in so at least we’ll know that he will honor this nation because he saying the oath on the book that coontains his principles..
Number1 says:
In regards to your statement about atheists and agnostics the US Constitution SPECIFICALLY states that you don’t have to make any oaths religious or otherwise. You mearly have to affirm that you will uphold the Constitution. Because unlike most conservatives the founding fathers were sensitive to the rights of religious minorities. In Hawaii a Buddhist was elected and he decided that he didn’t want to be sworn in on anything. He just said that he affirmed that he would uphold the Constition. Also the Constitution says that there should be no, “Religious Tests,” for holding office. And I think its pretty clear that making people swear on a bible is a pretty extensive religious test. Maybe if you and people like you READ the Constitution there wouldn’t be as much confusion.
Beth says:
I dunno, but maybe there’s invisible code that’s appeared in my post or comments. Either that or a lot of people CAN’T READ.
Let me put it plain and simple for the plainly simple:
MY ISSUE IS WITH CAIR, AND WITH THIS HAVING BEEN MADE AN ISSUE IN THE FIRST PLACE. NOWHERE DID I SAY THAT EVERYONE SHOULD USE THE BIBLE.
The motherfarking examples I used were to illustrate the fact that MAKING A BIG DEAL out of using the motherfarking Q’uran opens it up to WHATEVER.
Mother Mary on a slice of toast!
Oh, and Number1: FARK OFF, you illiterate jackass. You have no farking idea who you’re speaking to, you moronic little asscrumb.
NOTE TO ANYONE ELSE COMMENTING: READ THE FARKING POST. It’s about CAIR. Get it?
(NOT in the mood to deal with illiterates on the internets. Ever.)
jay says:
have some ethics man….all you gotta do is just give your opinion..we’re not fightin we’re just expressing our point of view
Troy says:
There are inaccuracies in the comments. Mr. Prager never said he demanded a certain book and a certain oath at a certain time. He acknowledges that the congressman have their official oath in a particular forum with other congressmen. No Bible oath is required. Mr. Prager acknowledges this, and this is the point: Mr. Ellison went out on his own and made a statement that he is doing his own ceremony, after the official one, in which he will use the Quran, and not the Bible–which has been used by virtually all Americans in office. Mr. Prager was simply responding to Mr. Ellison’s statement, which did not need to be made since his oath is already taken care of.
The question is: If Mr. Ellison’s private ceremony is his own business, why did he announce that he is using the Quran? Let him do it without announcements. Mr. Prager was only responding. To call him a bigot is utterly outrageous. He is not a bigot. Furthermore, Mr. Prager has no problem with Mr. Ellison swearing on the Quran, he simply said that he should bring a Bible too to show respect for the foundations of our country (NO, this does not mean we are a Chrisitian only country!) Finally, there is no question that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles from the Bible–the Old and New Testaments. The fact that there is an establishment clause is beside the point. Mr. Prager is trying to preserve the uniqueness of America. It is sad that so few understand our history, and resort to name calling. His argument is hard to understand if one does not know the Genesis of this country. Russia has a constituion too, with similar wonderful verbiage as ours. However, they do not have our Judeo-Christian background and basis–and that makes all the difference in the world. That is why Russia has no liberty and freedom, but a useless constitution. Our constitution has meaning because of our Judeo-Christian background which provided the values for the legal constituion. Law alone is not adequate, there must be a committment to values that support those legal principles. Think about this and read the history of our founders before you resort to name calling of a person for taking a stand. What CAIR is doing to Mr. Prager is no different than what was done by them to the Danish paper for publishing a cartoon. They are trying to destroy him because Mr. Prager has been critical of CAIR in the past.
Bob Waters says:
Every argument against Ellison taking the oath on the Koran is just plain dumb, as well as a repudiation of the First Amendment.
This is not about taking the oath in a foreign language. This is about taking the oath on the scriptures of one’s own religion, rather than those of somebody else. To take the oath on the holy book of a faith you don’t believe in would make a mockery of both faiths, and would be an utterly meaningless gesture.
BTW, at least one current member of Congress each took the oath on a copy of the Jewish Tanakh and on a Mormon prayer book. No, Dennis Praeger is not a bigot- but his argument is nevertheless one that can only be founded on bigotry, a repudiation of the First Amendment, and the embrace of the very attitude toward religious diversity in evidence in most Muslim countries.
Ellison should never have been elected- because of his extremist ties, not because of his religion. But having been elected, he has as much right to take his oath on a Koran as Christian members do to take theirs on Bibles. Again, to force him to use a Bible would render the whole significance of using the book meaningless.
Prager’s objection is not only un-American, but just plain dumb.