Video: Keith Ellison responds to Dennis Prager and Virgil Goode

posted at 7:19 pm on December 21, 2006 by Allahpundit

He’s totally right re: Prager, but I’ve made that point before and won’t belabor it again. The executive committee of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council on which Prager sits thinks so, too — without using the word itself, they passed a resolution today censuring him.

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Executive Committee of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, while recognizing that Dennis Prager has the right to express his personal views freely, disassociates itself from Mr. Prager’s statements as being antithetical to the mission of the Museum as an institution promoting tolerance and respect for all peoples regardless of their race, religion or ethnicity.

As for Goode, Moran uncorks a righteous rant but lets his dudgeon get a smidge too high. No, not all Muslim immigrants are a threat to the “values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America,” but the ones who take seriously the supremacy of shari’a are. To borrow one of Steyn’s favorite quotations, from James C. Bennett: “democracy, immigration, multiculturalism … pick any two.” As long as they’re on board with the first and not the third, Goode’s a tool and we can all relax. If they’re not, and some surely are not, we have a problem.

Here’s the clip. “All of us [Muslims] are steadfastly opposed to the same people he’s opposed to, which is the terrorists,” says Ellison of Goode, which is a wonderful sentiment but would be a lot more wonderful coming from someone who isn’t palsy walsy with CAIR.

Update: Reliably lefty Jacob Weisberg of Slate says it’s perfectly okay not to vote for people based on their religion.

Objecting to someone because of his religious beliefs is not the same thing as prejudice based on religious heritage, race, or gender. Not applying a religious test for public office, means that people of all faiths are allowed to run—not that views about God, creation, and the moral order are inadmissible for political debate. In George W. Bush’s case, the public paid far too little attention to the role of religion in his thinking. Many voters failed to appreciate that while Bush’s religious beliefs may be moderate Methodist ones, he was someone who relied on his faith immoderately, as an alternative to rational understanding of complex issues.

Nor is it chauvinistic to say that certain religious views should be deal breakers in and of themselves. There are millions of religious Americans who would never vote for an atheist for president, because they believe that faith is necessary to lead the country. Others, myself included, would not, under most imaginable circumstances, vote for a fanatic or fundamentalist—a Hassidic Jew who regards Rabbi Menachem Schneerson as the Messiah, a Christian literalist who thinks that the Earth is less than 7,000 years old, or a Scientologist who thinks it is haunted by the souls of space aliens sent by the evil lord Xenu.

That comes in the course of a discussion about Mitt Romney’s Mormonism. Dan Riehl helps Jake find the elephant in the room.

Update: The Smoking Gun has a copy of Goode’s letter. Thanks to Slublog.


Related Posts:

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

So. Ellison wants to give us all a civics lesson. Fine. I’ll trade him a civics lesson for a history lesson. I wonder if he’d still be a Muslim if he knew that the many of the “Africans” who captured and sold blacks to British slave ships (ships that were transporting the slaves from Africa to the Americas) were in fact MUSLIMS. Perhaps we should ask him if his faith in Islam compels him to advocate enslaving the people of his own race, or if he only wants to kill all Jews and Christians. If the answer to all those questions is “no,” then I’ll tell him that he is not a very good Muslim.

CyberCipher on December 21, 2006 at 7:41 PM

I wonder if he’d still be a Muslim if he knew that the many of the “Africans” who captured and sold blacks to British slave ships (ships that were transporting the slaves from Africa to the Americas) were in fact MUSLIMS.

Ha! I use to work with a woman who’s husband was russian and was taken captive in Africa and sold into slavery. This was some time in the late 1970s. After two years, while being dragged through a market place in Dar El Salaam, he was able to slip a note to a westerner asking for help and he was eventually freed.

EF on December 21, 2006 at 7:49 PM

Oh, look! All this red meat going to waste! lol!

EF on December 21, 2006 at 8:06 PM

When is someone going to ask him about his affiliation with CAIR? There have got to be some juicy CAIR quotes we can dig up and ask him whether he agrees with them or not.

Slublog on December 21, 2006 at 8:25 PM

Perhaps we should ask him if his faith in Islam compels him to advocate enslaving the people of his own race.

Its not very cogent to argue that Islam compels believers to endorse slavery. Of course, there are passages of the Quran that seemingly justify slavery, but there are also such passages in Exodus and Leviticus. If you want to start playing the “gotcha” game with scriptural quotation, then I’m afraid the atheists are going to win. There are no religious texts that are devoid of regressive and anachronistic injunctions.

Far wiser to acknowledge that it is entirely possible to be a good Muslim or a good Christian without accepting at face value every single dictate of the Quran or the Bible. The problem with Islamic fundamentalists is that they don’t recognize this simple fact, and we essentially endorse that mindset when we buy into the same reductive view of faith. Keith Ellison can be a good Muslim without demanding the death or slavery of infidels, just as someone could be a good Christian without advocating the enslavement of female prisoners of war. We need to be combating the radical Islamist reading of scripture, not parroting it.

Jazzman on December 21, 2006 at 8:25 PM

It takes money to get to the US from overseas. A lot of pople in Muslim countries don’t have it (look at the unemployment rates and the average annual incomes). Radicals use immigration as a tool to insert Islamofascism into areas where it didn’t exist before, so the money is going to go to exporting radicals, not the nice guys, thus increasing the percentage of radical Muslims who will work actively in the target country to “colonize.” It’s not normal immigration patterns any more.

naliaka on December 21, 2006 at 8:32 PM

AP said:

He’s totally right re: Prager, but I’ve made that point before and won’t belabor it again.

I’ll bet “banishment from HOTAIR” that you don’t understand Prager’s argument. In fact, I bet you can’t articulate it in your own words. The same goes for Ellison, the leftists at the Holocaust Memorial, and CAIR. But, what the hell, its just our traditions and culture Ellison is throwing into the toilet. F*** him and the camel he rode in on.

Andy in Agoura Hills on December 21, 2006 at 8:35 PM

I don’t understand why Riehl’s post is titled “Talk About Hypocritical”. Weisberg argued that it is acceptable not to vote for someone because you disapprove of their religious beliefs. He used Romney as an example. Is Riehl calling him hypocritical just because he didn’t mention Ellison or Islam? Does someone need to spell out every single implication of their argument to avoid hypocrisy? It seems ridiculous to demand that Weisberg’s views on this issue obligate him to take a public stand on the Ellison/Goode controversy. Or is Riehl calling Weisberg hypocritical because some people who have no connection at all with Weisberg are attacking Rep. Goode? As far as I know, Weisberg has said nothing about Goode at all. So where’s the hypocrisy?

Jazzman on December 21, 2006 at 8:36 PM

By the way, Koch was trying to REMOVE Prager from the Holocaust Memorial council. He was just censured. Slap on wrist. Big deal.

Andy in Agoura Hills on December 21, 2006 at 8:37 PM

Any politician can swear on any religious book he or she wants. any person opposed to Ellison having an opportunity to put his hand on the Koran is a racist or un-American. at least more racist than Michael Richards (I saw a lot of self-righteous finger pointing on this site about that)

This is the United States of America not the United States of Christianity. I don’t agree with Ellison, I don’t like Ellison, radical Islam is a serious threat, but just because you don’t like a particular religion or book of faith doesn’t mean Ellison should be banned from using the Koran to swear in. Any politician trying to prevent Ellison from exercising his freedom should be voted out of office and condemned.

God Bless America

Opinionnation on December 21, 2006 at 8:43 PM

Ellison sounds like a girlyman to me.

Wade on December 21, 2006 at 8:56 PM

I’ll bet “banishment from HOTAIR” that you don’t understand Prager’s argument. In fact, I bet you can’t articulate it in your own words.

Here and here.

Slublog on December 21, 2006 at 8:57 PM

“Jazzman”, can’t you just take your sad, tired, left-wing bullsh+t on over to Huffington or DU? THEY might actually appreciate you; here you’re just an annoying pest

Janos Hunyadi on December 21, 2006 at 9:06 PM

Everyone is so twitchy this evening.

Perhaps we need a flamewar thread. These things have got to happen every so often…cleans out the bad blood.

Slublog on December 21, 2006 at 9:23 PM

I’m game. As always. I feel a PMS rage comin’ on…stand by.

seejanemom on December 21, 2006 at 9:34 PM

I feel a PMS rage comin’ on…stand by.

You win. I’m not suicidal.

Slublog on December 21, 2006 at 9:42 PM

Or, as Rocky would say, I don’t want to get all mangled and embarrased. :-)

Slublog on December 21, 2006 at 9:42 PM

I think we’d be on the same team, dude. Relax.I’ll share my progesterone tablets with you—-you’ll do great.

seejanemom on December 21, 2006 at 9:44 PM

I am going to take another page out of my ceremonial Koran, roll a big ol’ hog leg and blaze that bitch up in celebration of the birth of the original long haired revolutionary—my Lord and Saviour. Eat that, Keith.

seejanemom on December 21, 2006 at 9:58 PM

And then when I get a raging case of the munchies, I’m going to Bojangles for a sausage biscuit and a big ol’ sweet tea.

seejanemom on December 21, 2006 at 10:00 PM

“Jazzman”, can’t you just take your sad, tired, left-wing bullsh+t on over to Huffington or DU? THEY might actually appreciate you; here you’re just an annoying pest

Janos Hunyadi on December 21, 2006 at 9:06 PM

Understood. I apologize if I’ve been annoying or come across as a troll. It was not my intention.

Jazzman on December 21, 2006 at 10:17 PM

“All of us [Muslims] are steadfastly opposed to the same people he’s opposed to, which is the terrorists,”

He doesn’t really say anything here. If you are looking for the deception, he still decieves well. It’s just an IF.
But look at the way he doesn’t really condemn terrorists and definitely not muslim terrorists. He says ‘all of us’ which is NOT TRUE, ‘opposed to the same people’…and who is that? Which terrorists? in his mind- the Israeli’s? Timothy McVeigh? …he goes on ‘which is the terrorists.’ What does he mean by ‘the terrorists’?
He has never come out and condemned EXTREMIST ISLAM or muslim terrorists or muslim extremists. With what the koran says and muhammad ordered him to do, I want , no I NEED more from this guy before I will trust him.

My priorities are GOD, FAMILY, COUNTRY. In that order. If his are the same as mine, the same order of priority, then he will put the Koran and eventually sharia ahead of the United States of America.
Someone needs to ask these questions of him.

shooter on December 21, 2006 at 10:32 PM

Muslims must show the rest of the world as a whole that they reject radicalism and actually do something … like maybe ridding the world of the pyschotics currently in power. In addition they must also prove that they hold U.S. laws and it’s traditions over islamic law.

Until then I believe islamic politicians are incompatible in western countries.

Just look at Europe, especially England. England’s a loony bin. Sorry, y’all can cry foul and bigot all you want, no muslims in U.S. politics will ever be trusted by me in this day and age. Cry foul on islam and those who refuse to control it’s insanity, not those who refuse to accept it.

darwin on December 21, 2006 at 10:38 PM

Any politician can swear on any religious book he or she wants.

BTW, that’s really a non-issue. The real swearing in has NOTHING to do with the ‘ceremonial/photo-op’ session that has everyones underwear in knots. It is all for show. The real stuff, we don’t see. You could use “Green eggs and ham” if you so desired.

shooter on December 21, 2006 at 10:41 PM

You could use “Green eggs and ham” if you so desired.

That would actually be kind of cool.

Slublog on December 21, 2006 at 10:42 PM

darwin on December 21, 2006 at 10:38 PM

I’m with you, see my comments about priorities.

shooter on December 21, 2006 at 10:44 PM

Everyone is so twitchy this evening.

Perhaps we need a flamewar thread. These things have got to happen every so often…cleans out the bad blood.

Slublog on December 21, 2006 at 9:23 PM

Game on. I’ve got no bad blood with you or AP, but sometimes we slap our friends just because they say stupid shit.

I’ll bet “banishment from HOTAIR” that you don’t understand Prager’s argument. In fact, I bet you can’t articulate it in your own words. The same goes for Ellison, the leftists at the Holocaust Memorial, and CAIR.

Andy in Agoura Hills on December 21, 2006 at 8:35 PM

Slu, you’re 0 for today on Andy’s challenge. The links on AP previous posts are, at best, unconvincing, even to the extent of understanding the argument. In fact, Volokh’s notion that some Senate web site debunks Prager is ludicrous. In the entire history of the U.S. one President might have “affirmed” his oath of office outside the presence of a Bible? Are you f-ing kidding me? (Don’t even think about suggesting that a Quaker avoided using the Bible).

If anything, that makes Prager look like the only one discussing the issue that has the slightest idea of what he is talking about, especially as it relates to Volokh’s (pointy headed academic) argument that the U.S. Constitution somehow would frown upon swearing an oath of office with your hand on a Bible. Right…and since 1789, through the swearing in of, what, 55 Presidential terms, there might be one guy who didn’t get sworn in on a Bible?

I don’t know which is more preposterous, that argument, or Slu and Allah citing the leftist Jews from the Holocaust Museum flogging themselves by censuring a devoted, practicing Jew for his possibly anti-Islamist posture!

This is truly bizarro-world.

Jaibones on December 21, 2006 at 10:46 PM

Any politician can swear on any religious book he or she wants. any person opposed to Ellison having an opportunity to put his hand on the Koran is a racist or un-American. at least more racist than Michael Richards (I saw a lot of self-righteous finger pointing on this site about that)

Nope. Islam is not a race. Christianity is not a race.

I cannot say it better than Rowan Atkinson, best known for playing Mr. Bean, in response to a proposed UK law forbidding “inciting religious hatred”:

To criticise a person for their race is manifestly irrational and ridiculous but to criticise their religion, that is a right. That is a freedom

The freedom to criticise ideas, any ideas – even if they are sincerely held beliefs – is one of the fundamental freedoms of society.

A law which attempts to say you can criticise and ridicule ideas as long as they are not religious ideas is a very peculiar law indeed.

The Monster on December 21, 2006 at 10:46 PM

well said darwin, i agree with your post 100%

Starblazer on December 21, 2006 at 10:53 PM

I’m with you, see my comments about priorities.

shooter

I bow to no political correctness gods when it comes to the insidious lunacy of islam. The world should come together and outlaw it. Buddists, Hindus, Atheists, Christians, Jews … everyone. Wait, I forgot one … Liberalists.

darwin on December 21, 2006 at 10:53 PM

(I said a bad word,
it’s lost in commenter hell,
an hour down the drain)

Jaibones on December 21, 2006 at 11:02 PM

But will he bring home the bacon to Minnesota…errrr…maybe not bacon.

SouthernGent on December 21, 2006 at 11:21 PM

The Monster,

Criticizing religion is fine.

-nitpicking is fine too

Opinionnation on December 21, 2006 at 11:36 PM

My priorities are GOD, FAMILY, COUNTRY. In that order. If his are the same as mine, the same order of priority, then he will put the Koran and eventually sharia ahead of the United States of America.

Not every religious person is a theocrat like you, thank God. See how I just thanked God without feeling the need to impose my interpretation of his will upon you? Others know that trick too.

But, what the hell, its just our traditions and culture Ellison is throwing into the toilet.

That’s really what this is all about. Are the traditions of the majority more important than the principles on which our nation was founded?

F*** him and the camel he rode in on.

Does this look like a gas station bathroom stall to you?

Mark Jaquith on December 21, 2006 at 11:42 PM

my 2 cents..

I agree with Prager too.
..and yes, I understand his argument.
I also don’t think he is a bigot of any kind.

Any politician can swear on any religious book he or she wants. any person opposed to Ellison having an opportunity to put his hand on the Koran is a racist or un-American. at least more racist than Michael Richards (I saw a lot of self-righteous finger pointing on this site about that)

This is the United States of America not the United States of Christianity. I don’t agree with Ellison, I don’t like Ellison, radical Islam is a serious threat, but just because you don’t like a particular religion or book of faith doesn’t mean Ellison should be banned from using the Koran to swear in. Any politician trying to prevent Ellison from exercising his freedom should be voted out of office and condemned.

God Bless America

Opinionnation on December 21, 2006 at 8:43 PM

As far as I know, no one is trying to prevent anything.. Where did you get that from? Certainly not Prager, he repeatedly said that he didn’t mind Ellison’s use of the Koran but asked that he have a Bible present. With due respect, chill on the self-righteous finger pointing about self-righteous finger pointing until you have the facts straight.

RobertCSampson on December 22, 2006 at 12:27 AM

Well, Robert you need your facts straight.

Goode hopes to stop more Muslims from gaining office to prevent them from using the Koran; it’s his position he’s trying to push

“The Muslim representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district, and if American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran,”

I’ll accept your apology…

Opinionnation on December 22, 2006 at 1:03 AM

Judeo-Christianity is compatible with western values. Islam is not.

p.v. cornelius on December 22, 2006 at 2:04 AM

The religious test as they were referring to it was NOT a Christian/Muslims/Jew/Buddhist, it was strictly meant to deny a “Denominational” test among Christians. In other words, they could and most states did deny accepting those who couldn’t swore an oath to Christ, but if you could swear an oath to Christ you were golden, ie no “religious test”

You can see these in the state requirements:

‘I,_____, do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have firm persuasion of its truth…’”
New Hampshire; Part 1, Article 1, Section 5 (1784) “…the legislature …authorize …the several towns …to make adequate provision at their own expense, for the support and maintenance of public protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality…”
New Hampshire; Part 2, (1784) “[Provides that no person be elected governor, senator, representative or member of the Council] who is not of the protestant religion.”

Tennessee; Article VIII, Section 2 (1796) “…no person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State.”

Simply put we put a traitor and an evil man in a position of power. He is taking an oath about the US Constitution that is in direct contradiction to his religion. In the long run, he will pick his religion to follow first.

Tim Burton on December 22, 2006 at 2:55 AM

A good link to the Western Civ and early US history text: Primary Source Documents Pertaining To North American History

Tim Burton on December 22, 2006 at 2:59 AM

I wonder if Keith knows anything about what’s happening in the Sudan. What does he think about? in the mid 90s, arab muslims from N.E. Sudan went south and murdered 2 million Christian Africans.

Keith: “Hhhmmm, well, they’re black … but they’re not muslims … soooo I *guess* it’s ok.”

Then, they moved west and started killing muslim Africans.

Keith: “Well, they’re black, and they’re muslim … uh … somebody get CAIR on the line! I wanna talk to somebody about this RIGHT NOW! … I need someone to explain to me … why this is ok so that I’ll know how to answer when some smartass right wing logger asks me.”

Jazzman, a “good muslim” is one who murders infidels. Most muslims do not murder infidels, but they are apostates, not true believers. With islam, ya gotta take the “good religious boy” chart and flip it upside down. A “Good” muslim, meaning a “true practioner of the faith” is a jihadi. The peaceful muslims are what we’d call an “Easter Catholic”.

Funny, libs won’t vote for Pubs ’cause of religion … yet they’ll vote for a muslim. Libs worry about their civil rights as they vote for a muslim. How ironic.

Tony737 on December 22, 2006 at 5:40 AM

oops that should say right wing Blogger

Tony737 on December 22, 2006 at 5:52 AM

I wonder how the feminists and liberals who voted for Ellison feel about these passages he is going to swear on?

“Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the others, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them.” (Koran 4:34)

Women who disobey their husband will go to hell. (Koran 66:10)

“Good women are obedient…. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them.” (Koran 4:34)

“Of women who seem good in your eyes, marry but two, or three, or four; and if ye still fear ye shall not act equitably, then one only.” (Koran 33:51)

Centurion68 on December 22, 2006 at 7:40 AM

I’ll accept your apology…

Opinionnation on December 22, 2006 at 1:03 AM

I think you jumped ahead a little. Arrogant dicklickers don’t do well here…

Jaibones on December 22, 2006 at 7:57 AM

All I said last night was hog leg and sausage biscuit…and this bloodbath is my “good morning!”??

I happen to be a purist. This is a country about freedom OF religion…let him use his little comic book…but if he and any of those sewer rats at CAIR think they are putting my happy @$$ in a burka, this white girl is going postal…

seejanemom on December 22, 2006 at 7:57 AM

If Islam was a religion like all others, there would be no problem. But it’s not, and never will be. It’s a very political, totalitarian ideology, so treating it with multicultural sensitivity is lethally dangerous. Islam is inherently anathema to the US Constitution the way Christianity, Judaism and even Buddhism never can or will be. We tolerate its spread, like Marxism, at our own risk.

Halley on December 22, 2006 at 8:21 AM

So, is Ellison going to demand that congress take a break if it is in sesssion and it’s muzzie prayer time? Will there be little writings on the floor saying, Mecca – this way?

EF on December 22, 2006 at 8:22 AM

It’s a very political, totalitarian ideology, so treating it with multicultural sensitivity is lethally dangerous.

We’ll end up like France or these scandanavian countries. No, thanks.

EF on December 22, 2006 at 8:24 AM

Game on. I’ve got no bad blood with you or AP

The ‘bad blood’ thing wasn’t because I feel I have any, but a quote. Probably should have used the /Clemenza tag.

As for the rest of the post, while I respect Prager, I think his argument against Ellison is weak and hyperbolic. He offers no constitutional basis for his belief that allowing Ellison to swear on the Koran would “undermine American civilization.”

Here’s the part of Prager’s argument that bothers me the most:

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.

I guess what bothers me is that I don’t like the Bible – the scripture of purpose – being regarded as nothing more than a symbol upon which we swear oaths and that somehow, doing so, makes us a nation that holds that book sacred.

It’s feel-goodism of the worst sort. Perhaps to Prager, swearing on scripture gives a patina of holiness to the too-often sordid nature of politics, but given the state of politics, the act of using scripture almost seems cynical – like a bone the politicians throw us once in awhile.

I’d rather not have my scripture, my Bible, my holy book used in that fashion. I would rather politicans swore on a copy of the document they are giving an oath to uphold than pretend at piety by using a book that many of them hold in contempt.

Slublog on December 22, 2006 at 9:08 AM

What a clown this Goode character is. I am particularly amused by how he refers to himself in the third person. How utterly odd. His deep Southern accent spewing his bigotry, really took me back. All he needs now is one of those Lester Maddox ax handles.

honora on December 22, 2006 at 9:46 AM

Any politician can swear on any religious book he or she wants. any person opposed to Ellison having an opportunity to put his hand on the Koran is a racist or un-American. at least more racist than Michael Richards (I saw a lot of self-righteous finger pointing on this site about that)

This is the United States of America not the United States of Christianity. I don’t agree with Ellison, I don’t like Ellison, radical Islam is a serious threat, but just because you don’t like a particular religion or book of faith doesn’t mean Ellison should be banned from using the Koran to swear in. Any politician trying to prevent Ellison from exercising his freedom should be voted out of office and condemned.

God Bless America

Opinionnation on December 21, 2006 at 8:43 PM

Bravo!!!

honora on December 22, 2006 at 9:49 AM

It never ceases to amaze me that so many drug store patriots like this Goode character have so little faith in their country. We are not France nor Denmark nor even the UK. Our country has a long and successful history of assimilation.

Xenophobia rears its ugly head with tiresome regularily. Instead of worrying Muslims we should be worrying about ignorance.

honora on December 22, 2006 at 9:57 AM

I’ll accept your apology…

Opinionnation on December 22, 2006 at 1:03 AM

You will accept nothing. I don’t know much about the Goode controversy except that I read a few articles including the one you linked which stated that the “Virgil Goode” position is one defending us from illegal immigration. He may very well be a bigot. I really don’t care. My point was that he wasn’t trying to stop anything. Have you seen any proposed legislation. Me neither.

Moreover, my comments were about Dennis Prager not Virgil Goode. HERE is Pragers response to his critics including you. I will point you this quote.

am for no law to be passed to prevent Keith Ellison or anyone else from bringing any book he wants to his swearing-in, whether actual or ceremonial. But neither I nor tens of millions of other Americans will watch in silence as the Bible is replaced with another religious text for the first time since George Washington brought a Bible to his swearing-in. It is not I, but Keith Ellison, who has engaged in disuniting the country. He can still help reunite it by simply bringing both books to his ceremonial swearing-in.

Sounds a lot like what I said in my comments, eh?

RobertCSampson on December 22, 2006 at 10:12 AM

Our country has a long and successful history of assimilation.

In the past – when assimilation was expected an encouraged and we didn’t have cheap and easy global communication and travel. The fact that at one time when people immigrated to this country they were forced to severe most ties is no more.

We are not France nor Denmark nor even the UK.

Not, yet. Parts of Michigan sure look like it, though.

EF on December 22, 2006 at 10:13 AM

I guess what bothers me is that I don’t like the Bible – the scripture of purpose – being regarded as nothing more than a symbol upon which we swear oaths and that somehow, doing so, makes us a nation that holds that book sacred.

Slublog on December 22, 2006 at 9:08 AM

I don’t believe that this is what he said, or implied; I think he’s implying the opposite, that the Bible should be regarded as nothing less than this.

I’d rather not have my scripture, my Bible, my holy book used in that fashion.

Again, Prager’s argument does not, I think, have all that much to do with religion, believe it or not. He’s talking about the cultural traditions and values of this country. It might seem like “feel-goodism” to you, but 217 years, this is what we have done.

It should come as no surprise in this forum that the first one to bust this tradition is an Islamist Muslim with ties to terrorism-friendly CAIR, and the hateful Louis Farrakhan. (Spare me the Kumbaya, honora).

As for religious reverence, I would love to see Christmas removed from the public sphere, also. No snowmen, Santas, decorated trees, public holidays, orgies of spending associated with the celebration of the Biblical accounts of the birth of Christ. You ready to push for that, too?

You ready to picket outside Lord and Taylor when the Easter dresses go on sale, with pagan bunny decorations? Slu? AP? Anybody? Bueller?

Jaibones on December 22, 2006 at 10:20 AM

Nice work on the quote tab…

Jaibones on December 22, 2006 at 10:21 AM

Again, Prager’s argument does not, I think, have all that much to do with religion, believe it or not. He’s talking about the cultural traditions and values of this country. It might seem like “feel-goodism” to you, but 217 years, this is what we have done.

I understand his argument, but do not share his belief that tradition alone should be the deciding factor in this debate.

Cue Tevye.

As for religious reverence, I would love to see Christmas removed from the public sphere, also. No snowmen, Santas, decorated trees, public holidays, orgies of spending associated with the celebration of the Biblical accounts of the birth of Christ. You ready to push for that, too?

You ready to picket outside Lord and Taylor when the Easter dresses go on sale, with pagan bunny decorations? Slu? AP? Anybody? Bueller?

Lord and Taylor?

Actually, seeing the two major Christian celebrations turned into nothing more than an excuse for consumerism does bother me. I enjoy the holidays, but keep my celebrations simple.

Slublog on December 22, 2006 at 10:25 AM

You could use “Green eggs and ham” if you so desired.

Yes, but then you’d have to alter the oath to follow Dr. Seuss’ meter:

“Would you, could you, swear to support and defend the Constitution? Would you swear it in a boat? Would you swear it with a goat?”

James on December 22, 2006 at 10:27 AM

Whoops. Hit the submit button too soon.

When I was in college, I worked at Wal-Mart. It’s not just Easter dresses people are buying – there was talk of “Easter presents” as well.

Makes me crazy.

Slublog on December 22, 2006 at 10:28 AM

“Xenophobia rears its ugly head with tiresome regularily. Instead of worrying Muslims we should be worrying about ignorance.”

“Waaaaaaa … You’re xenophobic.” I’m beginning to think liberals are born this way. Only a fool would rationalize world events as they do.

Thank you for displaying your ignorance. How about taking a break from your tiresome cliches thrown out with even more tiresome regularity? Xenophobia? If any group of people or ideal has given the rest of the world reason to be wary of their intentions it’s islam.

How about growing a pair and start calling evil what it is to it’s face?

darwin on December 22, 2006 at 10:40 AM

The problem here is what the Koran actualy SAYS…

Its OK to lie to infidels, to swear falsly, in the futherence of Jihad, and all Moslems are called to Jihad.

Sooo… to me its like watching a man swearing with his fingers crossed behind his back….

Romeo13 on December 22, 2006 at 10:46 AM

“Sooo… to me its like watching a man swearing with his fingers crossed behind his back….”

Thank you. Islam justifies anything and everything in an effort to maintain and grow the cult.

It just boggles my mind that liberals continue to treat this obscene cult with respect.

darwin on December 22, 2006 at 10:49 AM

Actually, seeing the two major Christian celebrations turned into nothing more than an excuse for consumerism does bother me. I enjoy the holidays, but keep my celebrations simple.

Slublog on December 22, 2006 at 10:25 AM

Bingo. I get a kick out of this phony “War on Christmas” stuff.

Christmas as a religious celebration hit the mat long ago. If OReilly and those other clowns really want to address taking back Christmas, forget the ACLU or the ever tiresome “Merry Christmas” versus “Happy Holidays” debate, they need to take on that old fat guy in the red suit.

Merry Christmas Slu!!! Hope you and yours have a lovely holiday.

honora on December 22, 2006 at 11:15 AM

Ellison should stop trying to ram his pathetic religion down other’s throats.

JackM on December 22, 2006 at 11:16 AM

Well said Darwin. Islam is a cult. America is a melting pot and they can use their little rag to swear to anything…but at the end of the day, SOME of us can see their real motives.

Debbie was right. I think he is the Manchurian Candidate…the Jihadi Candidate…DIRKADIRKA

seejanemom on December 22, 2006 at 11:17 AM

Thanks, honora. Have a good Christmas yourself.

Slublog on December 22, 2006 at 11:19 AM

Dennis Prager is correct; The executive committee is wrong; Since we are not belaboring points neither will I. The consensus of such is not something worth worrying about. It is like placing value in the opinion of Kofi Anan and the United Nations.

The ACLU is far ahead of commecialism as an attack on Christmas and Christians. In fact capitalism is the economic engine of freedom and freedom loving republics. The same cannot be said for the ACLU, they are the attack dogs of the religion of the Godless.

MarkB on December 22, 2006 at 12:03 PM

Whoops. Hit the submit button too soon.

Slublog on December 22, 2006 at 10:28 AM

Islam syndrome?

Connie on December 22, 2006 at 12:17 PM

If Islam was a religion like all others, there would be no problem. But it’s not, and never will be. It’s a very political, totalitarian ideology, so treating it with multicultural sensitivity is lethally dangerous. Islam is inherently anathema to the US Constitution the way Christianity, Judaism and even Buddhism never can or will be. We tolerate its spread, like Marxism, at our own risk.

Halley on December 22, 2006 at 8:21 AM

Exactamundo!

Connie on December 22, 2006 at 12:18 PM

Assimilation actually requires assimilation. That means foregoing what was theirs and adopting what is ours. When America stops requiring this of our immigrants or even our politicians we are no longer America.

Ignorance comes in many forms, Muslims and moonbats being two prime examples, so for my part I will remain concerned of each.

MarkB on December 22, 2006 at 12:25 PM

Assimilation actually requires assimilation. That means foregoing what was theirs and adopting what is ours. When America stops requiring this of our immigrants or even our politicians we are no longer America.

Ignorance comes in many forms, Muslims and moonbats being two prime examples, so for my part I will remain concerned of each.

MarkB on December 22, 2006 at 12:25 PM

Oh balls. Assimilation in the sociological sense means taking from many and making one. Look at Christmas–where does the idea of the Christmas tree come from? How about Santa Claus? Or the creche? You think these were native American customs? Get some perspective, not everything began the day you started observing things.

honora on December 22, 2006 at 12:31 PM

Assimilation in the sociological sense means taking from many and making one.

honora on December 22, 2006 at 12:31 PM

So when we finish assimilating with Muslims, we will all be “one” then and wearing burqas. Oh yay.

Connie on December 22, 2006 at 12:57 PM

To honora and her like minded nimnuls,

I am sooo tired of hearing and seeing in print the term “radical Islam.” What people fail to understand is that it’s ALL “radical Islam” — there isn’t any other kind. Any differences that you might cite are only a matter of degree, and those differences DON’T change the core teachings of Islam. So if you don’t believe me, that’s fine, I wouldn’t expect you to. After all, CyberCiper roughly translates as “internet nobody” But you should read this:

“The god of Islam is not the same God of the Christian or the Judeo-Christian faith. It is a different god, and I believe a very evil and a very wicked religion.” (Franklin Graham, on CBC, Sunday, October 22, 2006)

And if you (and the majority of the American people) won’t believe Franklin Graham either, then most likely, ALL of us will die at the hands of the Jihadists. Muslims are NOT my enemy. Islam is. Islam is PURE EVIL. There. I said it.

After we’re all dead, I can’t say for certain if God punishes souls for being naive, but if He does, don’t come running to me in order to find someone that will defend you. I will tell God EVERYTHING that I heard and saw while I was on earth (not that He needs my help) — including your high-brow pandering of people that are bent on pure evil.

CyberCipher on December 22, 2006 at 1:18 PM

Lord and Taylor?

Slublog on December 22, 2006 at 10:25 AM

Heh. Actually, I couldn’t help myself on that one; got it from a dumb email joke about Jesus and Finkelstein, the tailor.

Merry Christmas!

Jaibones on December 22, 2006 at 1:19 PM

You will accept nothing. I don’t know much about the Goode controversy except that I read a few articles including the one you linked which stated that the “Virgil Goode” position is one defending us from illegal immigration. He may very well be a bigot. I really don’t care. My point was that he wasn’t trying to stop anything. Have you seen any proposed legislation. Me neither.

Moreover, my comments were about Dennis Prager not Virgil Goode.

Prager is not someone I care about. My point was about Goode and was in many ways, a general remark. The apology thing wasn’t a serious comment it was in response to the getting my facts straight remark which was rather condescending; not to mention wrong.

Opinionnation on December 22, 2006 at 1:42 PM

Islamic leaders worldwide teach that it is the duty of Muslims to destroy states that are not based on the Sharia law of the Koran.

If Ellison means what he says, all he has to do to prove it is to say very publicly, that he believes that:

- Anybody who blows up a bus, plane or train in the name of Islam is not going to heaven and is not getting 72 virgins, and is lost to Islam.

- In America the laws of the Koran are subordinate to the U.S. Constitution.

If he says those things, he can be a great leader for the assimilation of Muslims in the U.S.

If he won’t say those things, there’s a danger that he doesn’t believe them. He needs to be put on the spot about it.

Vik_R on December 22, 2006 at 1:49 PM

Heh. Actually, I couldn’t help myself on that one; got it from a dumb email joke about Jesus and Finkelstein, the tailor.

Ah. Heheh.

Merry Christmas to you as well.

Slublog on December 22, 2006 at 2:02 PM

Let me blog pimp for somebody I don’t know and that is trackedback above:
Blog-o-Fascists

I think the guy – or gal, makes some very good points.

EF on December 22, 2006 at 2:21 PM

“Waaaaaaa … You’re xenophobic.” I’m beginning to think liberals are born this way. Only a fool would rationalize world events as they do.

darwin on December 22, 2006 at 10:40 AM

Final thoughts: I must disagree; liberals may be raised to think this way, but they can be reformed. Many of us have received treatment for the mentall illness of liberalism.

Remember: A Liberal is one who refuses to take his own side in a fight. Still the best definition I have ever heard.

And what could be more ridiculous (in this thread) than atheists and secular Jews complaining (to Christians?) about a practicing Jew’s criticism of the secular public policy decision of a practicing Muslim?

I know.

Jaibones on December 22, 2006 at 2:27 PM

And if you (and the majority of the American people) won’t believe Franklin Graham either, then most likely, ALL of us will die at the hands of the Jihadists. Muslims are NOT my enemy. Islam is. Islam is PURE EVIL. There. I said it.

After we’re all dead, I can’t say for certain if God punishes souls for being naive, but if He does, don’t come running to me in order to find someone that will defend you. I will tell God EVERYTHING that I heard and saw while I was on earth (not that He needs my help) — including your high-brow pandering of people that are bent on pure evil.

CyberCipher on December 22, 2006 at 1:18 PM

I understand in hell you can’t use capital letters. So there’s that…

honora on December 22, 2006 at 2:44 PM

My perspective is quite fine, and more rational and objective than yours, if I do say so myself…heh.

MarkB on December 22, 2006 at 2:53 PM

I understand in hell you can’t use capital letters. So there’s that…

honora on December 22, 2006 at 2:44 PM

It’s amazing how much information can be communicated through voice inflection, body language, AND capital letters. Even Bill O’Reilly knows that. Apparently, you don’t. Bygones.

CyberCipher on December 22, 2006 at 3:14 PM

How come this hasn’t been moved to Top Picks? I’m sensing a pattern here.

EF on December 22, 2006 at 3:19 PM

Agree w/the comments supporting the Bible as a repository of Judeo-Christian philosophy (live & let live) vs. the Koran (supremacism and mandatory, unending warfare).

[seejanemom]

Debbie was right. I think he is the Manchurian Candidate…the Jihadi Candidate…DIRKADIRKA

Not sure about that myself, but I did think the derisive comments directed toward Debbie were over the top and missed the point. I responded on the original thread, if you care to see it.

RD on December 22, 2006 at 4:31 PM

[RD] I responded on the original thread, if you care to see it.

Sorry – here’s the link correctly inlined.

RD on December 22, 2006 at 4:34 PM

Imagine bin Laden’s glee when he heard that Keith was elected!

“Oh muslim brothers! We are one step closer to taking over the great satan! Allah be praised! We shall soon have sharia law in America!”

At the same time, the lefty libs are ‘celebrating diversity’…

“Yay! Look at us! Look at how non-islamophobic we are! Yay for us! We’re not bigots! Look at me! NO, look at ME! No, no, LOOK AT ME!!”

Meanwhile, back at the cave, muslim ‘holy warriors’ are sharpening their knives…

“Oh muslim brothers! Go to America and kill the infidels! Especially the weak liberals who won’t fight back! We must kill them first and the rest will submit. Find Julia Roberts, Alec Baldwin and Tim Robbins and smite them at their necks! Lay in wait for them and attack them at every ambush! Cut off their left foot and their right hand. Cover their whores in the burqa and rape those who refuse!”

You libs are like sheep leading the wolves to the herd. Giving your greatgrandchildren’s lives over to a ‘religion’ that will make your greatgrandson a suicide bomber and will cut off your greatgranddaughter’s clitoris to save her ‘honor’ and within a generation of taking over will destroy this country that you claim to love so much.

“United we stand”. Remember that? If we were all on the same side, this war would be over by now and we’d be back to debating taxes and abortion but NNNOOOOOooooooooo you guys just HAVE to keep trying to win the war debate. THERE IS NO WAR DEBATE! We are at war! Whether you like it or not! Dammit! Japan just bomber Pearl Harbor “Well, we need to find out why they hate us so much.” No, Einstein, we need to destroy the muthaf*ckers before they destroy us! What’s so friggin’ hard to understand about that?

Tony737 on December 23, 2006 at 5:10 AM

I think that Ellison and others are missing the point of objection to Islam and the Muslim.

The stated intent of their core doctrine specifically advocates the conquest or enslavement of the “infidel”, religious intolerance, killing of apostates, imposition of Islamic law on all people, compromise of civil rights, and a fundamental incompatability with the Consitituion of the United States and it’s laws. This incompatability with the laws of the United States is the issue.

If Kieth Ellison were serious in his argument that Muslims with to intergrate with those in the United States to it’s benfit he should debate Robert Spencer and directly address the issues in his book “The Truth about Muhammad”. Have him debate Mark Steyn and Brigitte Gabriel. Answer the issues directly without the predictable run around and avoidance. Let me say that again so that there is not any misunderstanding: ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ABOUT ISLAMIC INTENT DIRECTLY, WITHOUT ANY DODGE OR AMBIGUITY IN A MANNER THAT SPEAKS DIRECTLY TO THE QUESTION, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THOSE IN THE UNITED STATES.

I would not hold my breath for that to happen, it will be hazardous to your health.

omegaram on February 19, 2007 at 8:11 PM