Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PROLIFE who wrote (755769)	12/7/2006 11:18:59 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769670

Dennis Prager: when you're in a hole, first stop digging December 06, 2006 blogs.chron.com We all say silly things sometimes. When people respond, digging in your heels is seldom the smartest response. Someone should tell Dennis Prager this, considering his new column on the "controversy" about Keith Ellison taking his oath of office with a Koran. If you can get past his "liberals were mean to me" whine, the point of his column is this: the US was founded on Christian principles, and no politician has ever chosen to take an oath on a religious text other than the Bible. He is simply factually wrong on both counts; as has been discussed at great length everywhere, this country's founder mostly believed in God but generally not the God of the Bible; they specifically decided not to make this a Christian country; and Ellison is not the first politician to choose something other than Bible for his swearing-in photo op. (Prager is backing off from his original statements here: the problem isn't not using a Bible, it's using a religious book other than the Bible. Of course, we've seen politicians use the Torah in the past. And it's a bit weird to say that in a religiously diverse country, using a book other than a specific edition of the Bible is un-American. Especially when it's the book of a religion that recognizes Judaism and Christianity as related faiths that worship the same God.) Prager is free to dislike Ellison's decision, but when he defends his view with an invented history of the founding of the US, and inaccurate statements about how religious books have been used in these ceremonies in the past, he sounds pretty silly. This often happens when you try to defend a nonsensical statement, though. Posted by John Whiteside at December 6, 2006 12:45 PM ----------------------------------------------- I have been following it for a few days now and here is the gist of what is wrong with Pragers assertions: 1. The official swearing-in ceremony that occurs in Congress (and all government agencies) is done without any Holy text and without mention of any Holy being. 2. The Constitution states "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article VI, section 3) 3. There is precedent both in the past and during this calender year that not one consistent Holy book has been used in the un-official (photo-op) swearing-in ceremony: Pres. Thruman did not use any book, Pres. Kennedy used a Catholic Bible, Rep. Lidely (R-HI) used the Tanakh in 2002 and 12/4/2006, Rep. Wasserman Shultz used the Hebrew Bbile (Tankh) provided by Congressman Akerman. 4. This country was not intended by the founding fathers to be a Christian Nation: Treaty with Tripoli (1796) states in Article 11: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen ..." ( signed 1/3/1797 by Joel Barlow the American consul-general to the Barbary states). 5. If the shoe were on the other foot: At least one Muslim country (a Theocracy no less) provides members of its Parliament (Islamic Consultative Assembly) belonging to religious minorities to swear on their holy book. "Members belonging to the religious minorities will swear by their own sacred books while taking this oath. Members not attending the first session will perform the ceremony of taking the oath at the first session they attend." (Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran - Article 67). So after 10 minutes of research it is evident that Mr. Prager made his comments out of bigotry. His only reason for attacking Mr. Ellison is not that he is not using the Bible but that he using a Quran. His hatred of a Muslim having been elected to Congress is glaring. This is a slap in the face of the citizens of Minnesota who chose Mr. Ellison as their representative. It would be a hypocrisy for a man who is intolerant of citizens who are a religious minority to head a organization that is set up to remind the world of the over 6+ million deaths that occurred due intolerance of a religious minority. Further, to make use of a book that is at the heart of the organization he heads so callously only brings dishonor to those victims that the memorial is designed to remember. It only makes sense that a bigot such as this be removed from a position appointed by the President of the United States. Posted by: nanuk at December 6, 2006 02:06 PM