I’m talking to a wall over here.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I fully agree with Dennis on this one. It does not matter one whit what someone believes in. It could be Islam, it could be the book of satan for all I know, but I do know that it is a tradition of our country and one which should be followed. If he wants to swear in with the Koran in addition to the bible I’m ok with that also but I’m 100% Prager here.

We all know that Ellison has a agenda and this is just the beginning. We must not allow our country to become Europe and go so over the top with a PC mentality.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I only skimmed through, MasterSgt, as I’m embroiled in responding on a dozen different blogs, including my own. But I found it difficult to disagree with anything you said, as they make sense and are ideas that I’ve contemplated myself. There isn’t anything I can see that you’ve said, that I necessarily disagree with strongly on. But I have made a decision to stand by Prager’s reasoning; although I perfectly think that if Ellison wants to have his photo taken with the Koran, that’s deeply American as well, in that it is a testament to the beauty of this nation that we have so much religious freedom.

However, the difference here is that when I handle or spend money I’m not pledging anything on the strength of the phrase “In God We Trust.”

I suppose that’s the reason why I support Prager on this: for me, there is no difference. As a non-religious person myself, I deplore the eradication of what’s I consider a part of American tradition and heritage, simply because militant secularists wish to eliminate all references and public expression of religion in government.

When I swore an oath to defend my country and the Constitution, that’s a serious personal commitment where my life is involved, and degrading it by swearing (falsely, in my view) on a book that holds no bond over me is both pointless and, I believe, downright insulting to those who revere that book as holy writ. At a minimum, that’s just plain tacky; at worst, downright blasphemous.

I can understand and appreciate that point. I know a family who is of such Christian faith, that they don’t celebrate the Christmas holiday, because they see it as a strictly religious observance and reject the commercialism. I, however, love the commercialism along with the religiosity. For me, it is part of America; and it is the commercialization which makes it accessible to the non-Christians.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Requiring any religious text or, indeed, any sworn oath at all, is basically a religious test for public office and would never stand a court test. Aside from that, there are plenty of reasons we conservatives should be embarrassed to even argue for such a requirement.

When being “sworn in” to the military — which I would argue is a higher and far more serious public obligation than being the mayor of East Armpit, Arkansas, or some chairborne voting machine in Washington — there is no Bible present. The only thing required to be present is an American flag, and we have the choice of either swearing (to God or whatever) an oath, or merely affirming that oath. I should know — as an atheist I affirmed that oath of enlistment in the U.S. Army from 1964 until my retirement in 1985, as did innumerable others whose ceremonies I attended. We take an oath (affirmed or sworn) that our country seems to consider rather binding, to say the least, without getting involved in some Jesuitical flummery over whose book takes precedence — L. Ron Hubbard’s peculiar screed, Mary Baker Eddy’s, or any of the uncountable different versions of the Bible.

I am frankly puzzled as to the point of this exercise. I understand the argument about tradition, and even support it for many issues. Regardless of my nonbelief, I’d keep references to God on money since it can’t be construed as proselytizing, is a long-standing tradition, and certainly doesn’t offend me. However, the difference here is that when I handle or spend money I’m not pledging anything on the strength of the phrase “In God We Trust.” When I swore an oath to defend my country and the Constitution, that’s a serious personal commitment where my life is involved, and degrading it by swearing (falsely, in my view) on a book that holds no bond over me is both pointless and, I believe, downright insulting to those who revere that book as holy writ. At a minimum, that’s just plain tacky; at worst, downright blasphemous.

By electing their representative, the voters have already passed judgment, for good or ill, on this man’s character and values (if any), and requiring him to pretend to take someone else’s sacred writing seriously makes no sense. An oath on such a non-book (to him) is meaningless and negates the whole point of such an oath.

In the final analysis, the presence or absence of any sacred writing is irrelevant since the whole strength of anyone’s oath, affirmation or promise rides only on their word. It’s either good or no good, depending on the character and sincerity of the oath-taker. Anything else is just window-dressing.

I agree with Prager’s basic intent. I’d like to see those who espouse a culture so often unassimilable, and one whose basic tenets tend to conflict with our basic Constitution, at least go on record as supporting that Constitution and what we consider essential elements of individual freedom. Not that I’d necessarily believe him, but at least if it’s done on a book that he supposedly holds sacred it might mean something. If it’s someone else’s sacred book, it might as well be Roget’s Thesaurus or last month’s Hustler.

Like Prager, and most others on this thread, I have severe reservations about the intent, or even the ability, if many — perhaps most — of our Muslim immigrants to assimilate and accept the concepts of freedom and democracy we value; there are just too many centuries of mullah-driven, mindless slavery to a medieval religion that permeates their whole culture and society. Pointing out the inherent danger in continuing this cultural suicide is extremely important, but I believe the current quibbling is more of a distraction than a solution.

Forcing, or even encouraging, anyone to swear upon a specific sacred book is not only pointless, but just plain wrong, both legally and morally. If some law actually requires this, it needs to thrown out so we can get on with the real issues that put us, and our Nation, at great risk.

If this country can accept my word of honor that I’ll lay down my life to support and defend the country and the Constitution, it damn sure should accept it for assuming the awesome responsibilities of shoveling pork and schmoozing with lobbyists at Washington cocktail parties.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I don’t see eye-to-eye with the Captain Ed quote, in that I think he is missing the boat on Prager’s argument. Prager doesn’t dispute that legally, Ellison has the right to have the Koran present; he just feels Ellison should be persuaded by the reasons why he should not.

And everyone understands that the Reps are sworn in together as a group. That sidesteps addressing Prager’s reasoning and sets up a strawman argument, as if he doesn’t already understand that.

Can’t exactly disagree with your point about possibly making a mountain out of a molehill, and bringing more attention to an issue that might have been just swept under the radar screen; it’s one that Medved himself has made:

I happen to believe that this whole argument has been a disaster for conservatives and Republicans, for several reasons—

1- It makes us look like sore losers, grousing about oath-taking details after our “thumpin’” in the recent elections

2- It lends credence to liberal charges that we’re mean and cold-hearted and theocratic—especially given the timing of this dispute in the midst of the warm emotions of the holiday season. It obviously illustrates theocratic tendencies (which we’ve been at pains to deny) to argue that the Bible is the only holy text that deserves recognition in Congress.

3- It’s a winning political strategy to divide your opponents while uniting your supporters. This argument, this cause, does precisely the opposite: it unites our opponents while dividing our base. As Dennis acknowledges, many thoughtful conservatives and libertarians indignantly part company with him on this one.

4- Since we’re going to lose anyway, the whole fight makes us look like losers (especially just a month after an already disastrous election). The chances that Keith Ellison will decline to bring his Koran to his oath-taking — or that he will honor Mr. Prager’s request and bring along a copy of the Bible as well—seem non-existent to remote. Ellison will take the oath his own way — that’s his right (just as it’s the Constitutionally stipulated right of dissenters to avoid any oath and to substitute the words “I do solemnly affirm” for “I do solemnly swear.”). Launching a major fight when you’re certain to lose is a terrible, horrendous strategy — militarily and politically.

The controversy itself, might make such actions as Ellison’s, more pervasive and not less so.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I’m lining up with Captain Ed on this one, although with nothing near the passion that he exhibits on the subject.

Prager, who usually gets it right, got this issue spectacularly wrong. He wrote that any Congressman not willing to swear an oath on the Bible should not serve in Congress, and that the American fabric would suffer its worst damage since 9/11 if Ellison used the Qur’an instead of the Bible. This is utter nonsense. In the first place, the entire issue is somewhat moot since members have one ceremony where they all take the oath of office as a group on the floor of the House. The rules of the House, furthermore, allows for the use of an “affirmation” for those choosing not to swear their oaths as a religious preference — which demonstrates that America does have a tradition of tolerance for the needs of other religions in its processes. Quakers in particular take advantage of that option, although Richard Nixon swore his oath when elected as President.

I disagree with Prager, but think that he has standing for his opinion on the matter. I just believe that he could have picked a better opportunity to argue his case. This one is too easily confused with anti-muslim sentiment and unfortunately gives a glaring national spotlight to a relatively unimportant cog in the House machine. Conservatives don’t need to make a rock star out of Keith Ellison.

Like or Dislike: 0  0