Video: Prager vs. Volokh on Ellison, the oath, and the Koran

posted at 10:36 pm on November 30, 2006 by Allahpundit

I posted on this the other day but the meat was so red and tasty that I thought we’d have some more. I agree completely with Glenn and Bainbridge, who, like Prager, is a big fan of the Bible. Which partly explains why he’s on Volokh’s side.


Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Make a new oath based strictly on the U.S. constitution and do away with the whole problem once and forever more. I’d rather there was no book of religion involved at all than even ONE son-of-a-bitch swearing the oath of office on the satanic Quran.

SilverStar830 on November 30, 2006 at 10:48 PM

I know Ellison is not an immigrant, but as this is basically an issue of assimilation and cultural unity, it’s a good example of the main problem with the open immigration branch of conservatism (Prager’s). That branch says immigration itself is not an issue (except maybe a security one) and we just need to devote all our energies and resources and magic words to the assimilation process. But how can you expect a Muslim to swear an oath on a religious book that is not his? “Assimilation” is really just a short hand for “not causing any major political upheaval”, because immigrants never entirely assimilate if they come in any significant numbers at all. They also change the host country.

Alex K on November 30, 2006 at 10:49 PM

Ellison has backing.

Ellison’s decision drew support from one prominent conservative firebrand, Colorado Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo, who champions a fence along the border with Mexico and thinks that unfettered immigration endangers American culture.

“He wants to take his oath on the Quran, that’s fine,” Tancredo said. “I think whatever you believe is necessary for you to uphold your obligations to the Constitution, that is fine with me.”

I bet that threw the writer for a loop, no reason to ask Tancredo other than thinking he was going to go after Ellison.

Ripclawe on November 30, 2006 at 11:26 PM

Slightly off on a tangent, but it seems like Prager was implying that Mormons don’t believe in the Bible, when he contrasted how they don’t ask for a Book of Mormon to swear on. For the record, Mormons use the King James Version of the Bible hand-in-hand with the Book of Mormon. We consider them both the word of God.

Though I don’t see how placing my hand on any book of scripture would make an oath more binding or solemn. Just my opinion, but I wouldn’t refuse to do it in a court or ceremony.

Hack Ptui on November 30, 2006 at 11:33 PM

I’m no fan of Islam, but I know this country was founded on Judeo-Christian faith. If “separation of church and state” requires so much controversy, then do away with swearing on the bible of any religion. Swear on the tenants upon which this country was founded. Swear upon what the founding fathers fought for. Require everyone – presidents, congressman, senators, judges – to swear upon the principals upon which our country was born.

thedecider on November 30, 2006 at 11:50 PM

…but I wouldn’t refuse to do it in a court or ceremony.

Hack Ptui on November 30, 2006 at 11:33 PM

This is actually a good point. Ellison is doing what he is doing to pitch a political fit and make some sort of statement. Prager wants people to be unified with Amnerican tradition of their own volition, but that’s probably a pipe dream in this day and age. As I said in the last thread, I think we should dispense with books entirely–and maybe the whole fiction of swearing-in ceremonies. Look where it got us vis-a-vis William Jefferson.

urbancenturion on November 30, 2006 at 11:52 PM

Once and for all, there is no “separation of church and state” in the Constitution. It reads

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

This means there will be no law establishing an official religion (as Congress is the only means of starting the while process of creating a law, prior to the activist courts we see nowadays). This was how the Anglican Church experience of England was handled. The more important part is “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. We see this every day, when prayer is disallowed in schools, “In God We Trust” banished, “Under God” erased, etc.

Anyone see any “separation” words in the Constitution, or are they buried in the verbage for the right to kill the unborn?

stonemeister on December 1, 2006 at 12:21 AM

Who the hell cares what he swears on. As long as he swears to uphold the constitution. That is what counts, the rest falls into line after that.

Sammy316 on December 1, 2006 at 12:32 AM

The irony of the whole thing (swearing on the Bible) is that the Bible says not to swear or take an oath period; let alone on the very thing saying not too.

MirCat on December 1, 2006 at 12:46 AM

Who the hell cares what he swears on.

For just one quick example- While some townships and citys ban township/city sponsored Christmas displays and any outward symbolism of Christianity for fear it will offend anyone not Christian, some of the townships and citys blare the calls to prayer of the Muslims from loud-speakers around their townships and citys not caring one bit if any non-Muslims are offended by the blaring call to Muslim prayer… 5x a day between 6am and 10pm.

I the hell care, and you should too. Either that or get your woman a burkha while they’re still cheap.

SilverStar830 on December 1, 2006 at 12:48 AM

While some townships and citys ban township/city sponsored Christmas displays … some of the townships and citys blare the calls to prayer of the Muslims

I’m not taking sides in my comment here, but you don’t see the difference between a “city-sponsored” nativity scene on public property and a call to prayer from a mosque that is not public property?

DaveS on December 1, 2006 at 1:13 AM

If someone is going to lie to you, do you really think said someone is going to care which book he desecrates? Let’s be realistic, please.

hillbillyjim on December 1, 2006 at 1:15 AM

Volokh view is right on the mark. Changing the century old tradition makes it a parody.

Ouabam on December 1, 2006 at 1:26 AM

I am a great admirer of Prager (much more so than Volokh), and so I wonder what he knows that I don’t know. It’s usually a lot.

But my first reaction is that there are so many scumbags in the history of our congress, for whom the swearing of oath on the New Testament of the Bible apparently meant nothing. Murtha? Jefferson? Dellums? Rostentowski? This dirtbag just removed from office, a Republican, whatsisname?

Anyway, what’s the point. Make them swear on the constitution, to uphold the constitution.

Jaibones on December 1, 2006 at 1:26 AM

Can’t say I’m surprised that Tancredo is on board. He was one of the original people talking about bombing Mecca, and he’s opposed to legal immigration. He’s very “-ist” (Christianist, Nativist, Racist).

I’m no fan of Islam, but I know this country was founded on Judeo-Christian faith.

Erm, no it wasn’t. It was founded with freedom of religion as a central tenet.

The more important part is “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. We see this every day, when prayer is disallowed in schools, “In God We Trust” banished, “Under God” erased, etc.

Private prayer by students is not disallowed in public schools (there may be specific instances, of course, but that doesn’t equal a systematic ban). “In Got We Trust” on money is not private speech, and removing it doesn’t affect anyone’s right to free speech or freedom of religion. Same with the injected “under God” in the pledge. Do you honestly think that freedom of religion means the right for religion (or basic theism) to be advocated by the government?

“Assimilation” is really just a short hand for “not causing any major political upheaval”, because immigrants never entirely assimilate if they come in any significant numbers at all. They also change the host country.

How is this helped by advocating that the religion of the majority be forced upon everyone else? Doesn’t this just make it easier for militant Islam to force people to abide by their religion?

Our nation is set up so that major political upheaval is hard. You’re not going to get rid of freedom of religion or freedom of speech without a fight. Your time is better spent fighting for the principles that’ll keep America great no matter its religious makeup. Advocating that the religious principles of the majority be forced upon the minority is a recipe for disaster.

Mark Jaquith on December 1, 2006 at 1:28 AM

After such an eloquent screed, I feel compelled to ask: Where do YOU (Mark Jaquith) stand on the “immigration issue”???

hillbillyjim on December 1, 2006 at 1:38 AM

Erm, no it wasn’t.

Erm is a really stinkypussy internet word these days.
Once upon a time it was a way to indicate that a person was genuinely not certain whether his recollection was correct.
Now it’s just smug-stink. I walk around it, same as orange cones.

Stephen M on December 1, 2006 at 2:03 AM

You should posted the H&C segment which pitted Prager vs. Malik Shamalamadingdong Shabaz or whatever that Nation of Islam racist idiot’s name is. He went off, basically saying that the western world has greatly benefited from Islam. Hilarious.

RightWinged on December 1, 2006 at 2:05 AM

I’m not taking sides in my comment here, but you don’t see the difference between a “city-sponsored” nativity scene on public property and a call to prayer from a mosque that is not public property?

DaveS on December 1, 2006 at 1:13 AM

The difference???

When it requires the simple stroke of a pen (or keystroke, take your pick) and a routine vote of whatever many council members there are to propose and enact a noise ordinance so that the rest of the town who isn’t Muslim doesn’t have to endure their peace being disturbed at 6am and 10pm and three more times in-between every single solitary day by a TRADITION, and, those same council members do manage to propose and enact ordinances banning something that brings joy and good feelings to even people the scroogiest of people with TRADITION as old as this country and brought here from just about every country there is that had people willing to make the arduous journey to get here and found the USA, yeah, I have a problem with that. If you don’t, great for you.

SilverStar830 on December 1, 2006 at 2:28 AM

RightWinged- Keep up the good work. Been missin’ you on your home channel. All is not lost.

hillbillyjim on December 1, 2006 at 2:34 AM

or are you to busy pontificating to answer a simple question?

Mark Jaquith on December 1, 2006 at 1:28 AM

hillbillyjim on December 1, 2006 at 2:43 AM

I swear by all that is holy that it doesn’t matter what a politician puts his/her hands on since he/she will still be a politician.

However, I can see why this would upset a LOT of folks.

SouthernGent on December 1, 2006 at 4:53 AM

“‘pon my word ‘n’ honor” is something still heard around “these here parts.” Of course, one “da’sn’t” question the veracity of a statement procluded by such.

hillbillyjim on December 1, 2006 at 5:11 AM

For you non-hillbillies, “da’sn’t” is a local form of “dares not” still used by some of our seasoned citizens.

hillbillyjim on December 1, 2006 at 5:15 AM

Prager is clearly siting a serious and thought provoking ideal, that of a common culture and common iconic factors which, if ignored, will further lead to deterioration in the order of our society.

William

William2006 on December 1, 2006 at 5:35 AM

(As a former Mormon) Mormons believe in the bible. Unlike Islam…

12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

My point being, it’s silly to think that a Mormon, like Romney, would even think twice about swearing on a bible. They wouldn’t request a Book of Mormon, because they believe in the Bible.

I guess what I’m really saying: Don’t lump Mormons and Islam in the same group. PLEASE! The comparison the guy making is silly.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 1, 2006 at 6:34 AM

Ellison should just decline the book issue all together. Of course he won by the Minneapolis Somolian Muslim vote so what do you expect? I’d be watching how he votes and praying that there never is a majority of him.

Joe on December 1, 2006 at 6:40 AM

I would like to ask this Ellison guy one question:

Are you an American who is Muslim, or a Muslim who is American?

His answer will reveal loads about his priorities.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 1, 2006 at 6:43 AM

Islam is NOT

LZVandy on December 1, 2006 at 6:49 AM

A freakin religion!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is a form of government, spewing hatred and violence on innocent people.
It must be outlawed.

LZVandy on December 1, 2006 at 6:50 AM

Congressmen are officially sworn in at a large ceremony with all incoming legislators. There is no Bible, Koran, yellow pages etc involved, you raise you hand and repeat the oath. The ceremony referred to here is strictly that, ceremonial, a photo op.

Not for a minute that this matters. Any reason to start braying.

honora on December 1, 2006 at 8:01 AM

I would like to ask this Ellison guy one question:

Are you an American who is Muslim, or a Muslim who is American?
His answer will reveal loads about his priorities.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 1, 2006 at 6:43 AM

Why don’t you answer the same question.

honora on December 1, 2006 at 8:02 AM

Why don’t you answer the same question.

honora on December 1, 2006 at 8:02 AM

Huh, I’m not Muslim… Nor do I quite understand what your getting at.

I’m an American first, no matter my other afflictions.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 1, 2006 at 8:16 AM

Jeez, I REALLY like that ‘swear on the Constitution’ thing! The ‘Bible’ has no official bearing on any function of government and reliance on it for these ceremonies set up this precise sort of situation , so cut it off at the knees ~ get rid of the religious oaths. The Constitution is what makes this country great, so someone damn well better be ready to swear to uphold it, similar to what our military does. Just the old ‘raise your right hand’. Drop the ‘so help me, God’ if you personally need to, because the very first line covers the whole thing.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…”

God, that’s beautiful. It’s like poetry.

tree hugging sister on December 1, 2006 at 8:25 AM

Why don’t you answer the same question.

honora on December 1, 2006 at 8:02 AM

So Honora… are you French first?

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 1, 2006 at 8:55 AM

step 1) eliminate the “creator”
step 2) eliminate the rights endowed by said “creator”
step 3) replace the “Creator” with Muhammed and institute Sharia.

rinse and repeat

-I would like to ask Mr. Ellison if he believes in Sharia. I would be curious to hear his response..

DarianCounts on December 1, 2006 at 9:01 AM

The problem I have with him swearing on Koran is that it not just a religious book it is a political book as well. Personally, if he won’t swear on the Bible, then he shouldn’t swear on any book. From what I gather, swearing on the bible is more of tradition than a mandate, started by George Washington. You see, there was a time in this country where swearing on the bible meant something, but in this relativistic world we live in, that meaning has been lost.

vcferlita on December 1, 2006 at 9:12 AM

would like to ask this Ellison guy one question:

Are you an American who is Muslim, or a Muslim who is American?
His answer will reveal loads about his priorities.

According to the US Military motto/slogan: God, Family, Country. So I guess American third, member of your family second, and Christian/Muslim/Scienctologist first.

JaHerer22 on December 1, 2006 at 9:14 AM

Daisy, this is NOT a proud moment for me with Ellison in office. And she ascribes INTEGRITY to Ellison, when at his victory party the crowd shouted Takbir and Allah ackbar? No thanks.

CrimsonFisted on December 1, 2006 at 9:30 AM

So Honora… are you French first?

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 1, 2006 at 8:55 AM

If I have to make a choice, afraid I put God before country. And BTW, I have one French grandparent. Actually hails from Alsace Lorraine which is France or Germany depending on which war they are fighting or getting over!

honora on December 1, 2006 at 9:43 AM

A freakin religion!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is a form of government, spewing hatred and violence on innocent people.
It must be outlawed.

LZVandy on December 1, 2006 at 6:50 AM

Really? So the 1.2 Muslims in say oh Egypt, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, the US, to name a few, all live under the same form of government. I’ll be damned. I have so forgotten everything I ever learned about political science and government….

honora on December 1, 2006 at 9:45 AM

1.2 billion (addendum to above)

honora on December 1, 2006 at 9:50 AM

If only it was so easy to put a man’s hand on a bible and make him honest.

right2bright on December 1, 2006 at 9:50 AM

He should swear on the bible just the jewish congressmen did and the catholic, protestant, episcopalian, athiest etc..

He doesnt, and he should be forced to surrender his seat to his opponent. Its part of our history and our society and that vile hate mongering piece of toilet paper Quran has no place in it.

Viper1 on December 1, 2006 at 10:15 AM

Prager is on very shaky ground here. Muslims undermining our freedoms need to be stopped, but Prager should have picked another battle.

modifiedcontent on December 1, 2006 at 10:15 AM

I’ll be damned. I have so forgotten everything I ever learned about political science and government….

honora on December 1, 2006 at 9:45 AM

**Wispers to Honora*** Sharia Law

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 1, 2006 at 10:28 AM

According to the US Military motto/slogan: God, Family, Country

WHERE did you get THAT piece of misinformation? There is NO such thing and NEVER has been.

tree hugging sister on December 1, 2006 at 10:40 AM

**Wispers to Honora*** Sharia Law

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 1, 2006 at 10:28 AM

Interesting link, especially this part:

There is tremendous variance in the interpretation and implementation of Islamic law in Muslim societies today. Liberal movements within Islam have questioned the relevance and applicability of sharia from a variety of perspectives. Several of the countries with the largest Muslim populations, including Indonesia, Bangladesh and Pakistan, have largely secular constitutions and laws, with only a few Islamic provisions in family law. Turkey has a constitution that is officially strongly secular, but where the state systematically favours Sunni Islam.[citation needed] India is the only country in the world which has separate Muslim civil laws, framed by Muslim Personal Law board, and wholly based on Sharia. However, the criminal laws are uniform.

honora on December 1, 2006 at 11:22 AM

I’m just wondering if the clown loses a debate, is he gonna throw a prayer rug on the floor of the House and start invoking suicide bombers.

JackM on December 1, 2006 at 11:54 AM

Honora,

While I don’t agree with everything that LZVandy said, many Muslims are pushing for an implementation of Sharia in the countries they have migrated too.

Depending on how strict the implementation, you could end up with such backward practices as required the 4 witness for rape.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 1, 2006 at 12:03 PM

Will Ellison read from the Koran, “fight the people of the Book, slay them or enslave them”? How do the rest of you feel about this teaching?

The folks here in out state Minnesota are livid about this. But what can they do? Ellison was voted in by the Minneapolis Moscow on the Mississippi liberals. He is a CAIR supporter and a cop killer defender. The Dhimmicrats here knew this and of course played the racist card.

Calling evil evil is not PC which is a shame and will be the undoing of the West. Should Ellison swear on a book written by a 54 year old man that buggered a 9 year old little girl? The answer is an obvious no. With any luck Ellison will be thrown out on his asshat in the next election.

Timber Wolf on December 1, 2006 at 12:14 PM

Honora,

While I don’t agree with everything that LZVandy said, many Muslims are pushing for an implementation of Sharia in the countries they have migrated too.

Depending on how strict the implementation, you could end up with such backward practices as required the 4 witness for rape.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 1, 2006 at 12:03 PM

Well I appreciate the concern sweetie. But I’m not ready to go screaming into the night just yet!! ;^)

honora on December 1, 2006 at 12:28 PM

But I’m not ready to go screaming into the night just yet!! ;^)

honora on December 1, 2006 at 12:28 PM

I just join my dogs and howl at the moon. :)

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 1, 2006 at 12:40 PM

Where do YOU (Mark Jaquith) stand on the “immigration issue”???

Tall fence, wide gate. There’s no sense trying to stop the free flow of labor. We don’t have the resources, and even if we did, it’s bad for the economy. The only reason that illegal immigration is bad is that it’s a giant loophole for terrorists and other violent criminals. A fence by itself won’t work. You need to simultaneously decrease the barrier and cost of legal immigration if you want that to be the avenue that laborers choose. With labor choosing legal immigration, we’d know who is coming in, and border resources would be freed up to chase down people illegally crossing the border. And, of course, the people crossing the border would be much more likely to be criminals or terrorists, else why didn’t they choose the wide gate?

The only way you’re against that is if you’re nativist, racist, or genuinely think that an increase in the number of Piñatas or Spanish speakers is going to ruin American culture.

Erm is a really stinkypussy internet word these days.

It’s a buffer. I use it to avoid sounding like a harsh buzzer on a game show, soullessly and loudly proclaiming the error of the incorrect party.

or are you to busy pontificating to answer a simple question?

I shall deign to answer your question, Sir Bumps-a-lot.

And, for the record, I’d be all for having our officials swear on the Constitution. That’s far more of a definitive American document than is the Bible. The Fountainhead would also be a good choice. ;-)

step 3) replace the “Creator” with Muhammed and institute Sharia.

You’re a bit confused. Muhammed is not God to the Muslims, and he didn’t create the universe. They believe that God created the universe, just like Christians do. 13:16 in the Qur’an: “God is the creator of everything.”

Mark Jaquith on December 1, 2006 at 1:06 PM

and institute Sharia.

How do you feel about that one?

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 1, 2006 at 1:24 PM

So many of these posts are missing the point entirely.

The issue is NOT whether Ellison will take his oath more seriously or be more inclined to honor it if it is on a book he believes in.

The ISSUE IS he is demanding special treatment for him/muslims. Look all around the world and you will see that this is the MO of Islam.

They demand special treatment and any and all accomodation simply invites more demands. They then respond to any challenge by calling Islamophobia and racism and keep on pushing.

Ellison should be told to take his Oath on the Bible and if he is uncomfortable with that he may affirm with no book at all. If he cannot handle that, he should step down.

America1st on December 1, 2006 at 2:09 PM

He should not be allowed to swear on the Koran. I would never swear an oath on the bible (as you are not to swear by anything) but as a Christian-founded nation we offer the option to swear by the Bible.

Ellison should not be allowed special treatment because he is Muslim. He either chooses 1. no bible or 2. bible. Those are the choices. I guess if he wanted he could swear by just the old or new testaments, but like Prager put it, we make a symbolic statement by allowing him to swear by the Koran.

Volokh is right in pointing out the way the law is set up.

RiverCocytus on December 1, 2006 at 2:15 PM

You’re a bit confused. Muhammed is not God to the Muslims, and he didn’t create the universe. They believe that God created the universe, just like Christians do. 13:16 in the Qur’an: “God is the creator of everything.”

I should have written Allah. but the point is, in order to defeat America the first step is to remove GOD and replace him with Something else.
Allah has not endowed ALL men with inalienable rights.

DarianCounts on December 1, 2006 at 2:39 PM

Practicing islam isn’t freedom of religion. It’s devil worship.

venmax on December 1, 2006 at 3:12 PM

I can’t believe how silly most of the comments are.

1. The country was founded upon Judeo-Christian VALUES (not faith).
2. This issue has NOTHING to do with government establishment of a state religion.
3. This issue has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with singling out muslims.
4. As most everyone knows, or should know, Muslims are encouraged to practice taqiyyah (lie). So, swearing an oath is irrelevent to them.
5. This is NOT about what makes Ellison feel good, its about what SOCIETY values. Our society values the morals based on Judeo-Christian values, not the values in the koran.
6. Since this is a symbolic ceremony based on tradition, what will be the damages to Ellison if he uses a Bible??? Nothing.
7. Liberals love to fuck with traditions because they want to feel good. Thus, this is the same reasoning behind the need to redefine marriage. Tradition is good for society because it instills values that are good for the society.
8. This has NOTHING to do with diversity. Diversity only works when diverse people share the same values. This would be an excellent opportunity for Ellison to show non-muslims, that he respects and upholds this country’s values.

Andy in Agoura Hills on December 1, 2006 at 4:17 PM

Well I appreciate the concern sweetie. But I’m not ready to go screaming into the night just yet!! ;^)

honora on December 1, 2006 at 12:28 PM

Making light and fun of shari’a practices isn’t going to make them go away or make them any less harrowing…We already know of instances of clitorectomies on young girls, rape charges brought, and enforced marriages here in America and in the UK, as well as all the other places Islam is dug in plus the 55 countries they already control.
Ellison wants to make the USA one nation under Islam. I say “No.” No Koran.

Jen the Neocon on December 1, 2006 at 7:52 PM

To the Muslim woman in the linked video:

Please, please go to any Muslim nation in the world today and try to be a Christian. Then you can come and preach to us about religious tolerance.

spmat on December 2, 2006 at 4:05 AM

Ellison wants to make the USA one nation under Islam. I say “No.” No Koran.

Jen the Neocon on December 1, 2006 at 7:52 PM

He does? Can you cite your reference on this? You know, you’re entitled to your own opinion, you’re not entitled to your own facts.

honora on December 2, 2006 at 1:25 PM

To the Muslim woman in the linked video:

Please, please go to any Muslim nation in the world today and try to be a Christian. Then you can come and preach to us about religious tolerance.

spmat on December 2, 2006 at 4:05 AM

Amen to that. I’ve disagreed with Prager’s views maybe twice since I started listening to his show a thousand years ago, but not on this issue. Recalling the stories of Muslims who refused to perform their duties as ordered (e.g., soldiers, FBI agents) because doing so meant that they would “betray their fellow Muslims,” I’m curious as to where the observant Keith Ellison’s allegiance actually lies.

SpartRan on December 2, 2006 at 4:01 PM

“and institute Sharia.”

How do you feel about that one?

It doesn’t matter how I feel, because it has nothing to do with the matter at hand. Not all Muslims are Islamists, and not all Islamists are terrorists. You’re looking at the Venn diagram inside out.

Stop laying bullshit onto the issue.

1. Lawmakers must swear an oath, or affirm their intentions when coming into office.
2. Of those who choose to swear an oath, some choose to swear on a book.
3. Of those who choose to swear on a book, some choose to swear on the Bible. Others choose something else.
4. Ellison is a Muslim. He wants to swear on his holy book, because that’s the only way the oath will have personal meaning for him.

And now the people on this thread:

Ellison wants to make the USA one nation under Islam. I say “No.” No Koran.

Source?

Practicing islam isn’t freedom of religion. It’s devil worship.

“Worshiping X isn’t freedom to worship. It’s worshiping Y!”

Have your mom check your math again.

Making light and fun of shari’a practices isn’t going to make them go away

Letting Ellison swear on a Qur’an isn’t going to make it arrive.

Tradition is good for society because it instills values that are good for the society.

Tradition isn’t good or bad in and of itself. It’s just that which is handed down. Racism is a tradition. Female circumcision is a tradition. Having a state religion is a tradition.

This is NOT about what makes Ellison feel good, its about what SOCIETY values.

We’ll be right back, with Karl Marx.

[Islam] must be outlawed.

We’ll be right back, with Henry VIII.

Please, get a grip. Freedom of religion is not, and should not be construed to be a national submission to the religion that any single person should choose in exercise of that freedom. Let the man swear on the thing that he thinks lends the greatest gravity to his oath. And feel free to join me in decrying him if/when he violates that oath.

Mark Jaquith on December 3, 2006 at 1:51 AM

and we come one step closer to the Koran being integrated into our political system.

One Angry Christian on December 3, 2006 at 10:36 AM