The Islamization of America Continues
This is the natural result of a secular humanist/multicuturalist society. This is where it leads boys and girls.
From today’s Townhall.com by Dennis Prager.
Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.
He should not be allowed to do so — not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.
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.
Entire Article Here
November 30th, 2006 at 8:50 am
I’m sorry, did we institute a state religion while I was looking the other way? What would you say if Lieberman or any other Jewish Congressman wanted to swear the oath on the Torah?
November 30th, 2006 at 9:23 am
The Koran is a holy book. The Bible is a holy book. Swearing on oath on either one is just as binding. In fact, a muslim swearing on oath on a Bible is probably a whole lot less binding to a Muslim than swearing on oath on a Koran.
They are both sacred texts and are extremely important to both religions. I would take me swearing on a Bible very seriously. I imagine Mr. Ellison feels the same.
Sorry, I just don’t see the big deal. In fact, I think it makes sense. An oath should mean something.
November 30th, 2006 at 9:41 am
Mr. Prager says that this act “undermines American civilization”. That seems like quite a stretch. Passing the Military Commissions Act which does away with habeas corpus for anyone unfortunate enough to be labeled an enemy combatant would appear to undermine American civilization in a much more serious way.
November 30th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
The only problem wiht a Muslim “swearing an oath on the Koran” is that he is “swearing an oath” to carry out its commands such as bringing under submission anybody that does not submit to Islam. We are not an Islamic country (yet). America was founded upon Judeo-Chrstian principles of the Bible. We were established as “one nation under God.” All of our laws are derived from the Judeo-Christian Bible (specifically the Torah-10 Commandments) and even our 3 branches of govt modeled on teh Old Test )(Isaiah) (based on the God of Abraham being the supreme law giver, judge, and executor of the law).
Gregg
November 30th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
I thought Ellison would be taking the oath of office as a Congressman, not to carry out the nefarious agenda of the Koran (the swearing-in committee better check their texts before the ceremony, just in case).
Our nation founded on Judeo-Christian ethics? Yes, that’s who the Founders were- and they are good ethics at that. At the exclusion of those who hold other beliefs? That’s not my America.
I can see how having someone relentlessly try to convert me to their strict religious views would be repellent, but I don’t see that as Ellison’s motivation.
November 30th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
Now I am just curious. So the words that are being said and sworn to are irrelevant. That doesn’t make any sense at all. I would love to hear a Muslim chime in on this.
November 30th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
Mohammad the Prophet was a Crusader. He and his immediate followers killed tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Jews, Christians, etc. in their Crusader conquest of Southwest Asia and North Africa. Currently, the dozen or so largest conflicts in the world are happening on account of Islamic aggression. By its very nature, Islam is guilty of treason against the US and other ‘infidel’ nations. Who the bleep voted for Ellison anywho? We gotta lot more problems than whether or not a Koranic oath-of-office - which is an oxymoron - ought to be permitted.
November 30th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
I am struggling with this one. My first reaction was that this is his holy book. It may not be mine, but there is no religious test. Why shouldn’t he be allowed to use it?
Then I started to remember that today’s Islam is a political as well as a religious organization. Being a political organization, to which country is swearing his allegience? Can anyone really really know about any of us?
That is why it is tearing me up. I did not want him to win, but alas. He did. Now wait until a wiccan wins, a polymist wins (hey, that’s his religion), a satanist…
BTW, Joe swears in on his Bible, except it is a Torah. It is the Old Testament of our complete Bible.
Utah was not allowed to join the union until they had sworn off polygamy. Honest. Go check it out.
I don’t think anyone is wrong on this matter, nor are we right. Only time will tell. Remember, it was American’s who voted in the guy. I guess they did not know he was almost Farakan’s right hand man…
November 30th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
And of course there are no wars being fought in the name of Christianity right now or around the time of Mohammed. We are squeeky clean. Don’t tell that to the folks in Northern Ireland, or the Muslims who have died in the Balkans though. They probably didn’t get the memo.
I am assuming the people who voted for Ellison are the same type of people who voted for Daniel Inoyue after World War II. People who aren’t blinded by believing in gross generalities. There was a time when the only good Jap was a dead one, and small minded people thought that the best solution was to kill them all because they just couldn’t be dealt with rationally. They just weren’t like us. And the inside of Nazi soldier’s belt buckles read Gut Mit Uns (God is With Us.)
Just like Osama can’t use Christian crusades without being a hypocrite (someone should give him a book on El Cid and the Turkish wars in the Balkans), we cannot say that Islam is all about war mongering.
Judge people individually. Because believing that one group deserves to be wiped out means that we will never be at peace. And I do not want my children worrying about this in 20 years.
Now, in regard to Gregg’s last thought, I really am curious if any Muslim considers swearing an oath on a Koran an easily broken oath. I assume like a CHristianswearing on the bible that the words of the oath are now sacred and can’t be broken.
And I vote republican, so don’t even bother with calling me a wingnut. I just know enough history to be able to look at random historical evidence thrown about rationally.
November 30th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
Since the Koran is the much touted Belief system of Radical Islam…since we found that the Biased Media has even written that our Military was doing the impossible and flushing Korans down the toilet..a Story that swept the world and caused many deaths in the Islamic world…I do not think this New Pol should take a chance of swearing on that Holy book in order to SAY HE WILL DEFEND THE UNITED STATES AND OUR CONSTITUTION AND LAWS…HE MAY BE PERFORMING AN ACT THAT WILL CAUSE HIM TO BE THE VICTIM OF A FATWA…,,I will have to re read the Koran from my college days to see if it is even ALLOWED under Islam to swear allegiance to a country vs Allah and using the Koran to do so..sounds tricky to me and very dangerous! Another thought comes to mind…Sharia Law..is that not the Ultimate Rule of Law to Muslims? I know that in England and other countries where there are large Muslim populations they are now using Sharia Law instead of the Laws of the Country in which they reside!
This devout Muslim Democrat will actually be swearing ON THE KORAN TO SUPPORT ABORTION, GAY RIGHTS, GAY MARRIAGE, AND WOMEN’S RIGHTS THE ENTIRE DEMOCRAT PARTY PLATFORM…IF HIS RELIGION IS SO IMPORTANT TO HIM..AS IT MUST NOT BE TO MANY OF THE NEWLY BIBLE SPEWING DEMOCRATS..HE SHOULD THINK TWICE ABOUT DOING THAT…THAT WOULD SURELY BE AN INSULT TO ALLAH AND THE ISLAMIC WORLD…
THIS COULD BE THE CAUSE OF A NEW UPRISING OF PROTEST AGAINST AMERICA…EVEN ONE IN AMERICA THIS TIME!
COULD THIS GUY BE SO STUPID AS TO START AN UPRISING, PERHAPS RIGHT HERE AT HOME? OR CAUSE MORE VIOLENCE IN THE ALREADY VIOLENT ISLAMICE WORLD?
LETS PRAY HE DOESN’T END UP LIKE VAN GOGH ON THES STREETS OF DC AFTER INSULTING ISLAM. HIS ONLY OPTION TO SAFETY AND SECURITY AS HE TAKES HIS POST AS AN ISLAMIC MEMBER WOULD BE TO MAKE A SPEECH SAYING THAT ALLAH RULES, HE WILL WORK TO END ABORTION, GAY RIGHTS AND WOMEN’S RIGHTS AS ALLAH HAS INSTRUCTED…WHERE DO WE ALL THINK HIS OFFICE WOULD BE PROBABLY IN BASEMENT 3 NEAR THE BOMB SHELTER!
December 1st, 2006 at 9:13 am
Law professor Eugene Volokh says, “This argument (Prager’s) both mistakes the purpose of the oath, and misunderstands the Constitution. In fact, it calls for the violation of some of the Constitutionâ??s multiculturalist provisions….”
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_11_26-2006_12_02.shtml#1164822551
December 1st, 2006 at 9:28 am
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWRjNjk2NTdmMThlOWFjYmMzNDMwZmZkYmJmZDg3MDM=
Volokh’s column on the issue is above.
“Much folly has been urged in the name of multiculturalism. But this is no reason to dismiss the core notion that a nation should both create a common culture and leave people with the freedom to retain important aspects of other cultures â?? especially religious cultures. That notion is deeply American, and expressly enshrined in our Constitution. If it is â??political correctness,â?ť it is so only in the sense that itâ??s a political notion, and a correct one. It has served us well, even when dealing with religious groups that were once hated and seen as incompatible with American values, such as Catholics.
We ought not blindly accept the legitimacy of other culturesâ?? beliefs. But the Constitution says that we canâ??t demand complete surrender to our majority culture â?? especially its religious beliefs â?? either in â??personal lifeâ?ť or in public life.”
December 1st, 2006 at 10:49 am
Thank you Kevin. Very enlightening story and answered a lot of questions. these graphs really clarified things:
“To begin with, the oath is a religious ritual, both in its origins and its use by the devout today. The oath invokes God as a witness to oneâ??s promise, as a means of making the promise more weighty on the oathtakerâ??s conscience.
This is why, for instance, the Federal Rules of Evidence, dealing with the related subject of the courtroom oath, state, â??Before testifying, every witness shall be required to declare that the witness will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation administered in a form calculated to awaken the witnessâ?? conscience and impress the witnessâ?? mind with the duty to do so.â?ť If you want the oath to be maximally effective, then it is indeed entirely true that â??all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.â?ť That book is the one that will most impress the oathtakerâ??s mind with the duty to comply with the oath.
Of course, some might care less about making the oath more effective, and more about using the oath to reinforce traditional American values, in which they include respect for the Bible (the â??only … bookâ?ť â??America is interested inâ?ť) over other holy books. That, I take it, is part of Pragerâ??s argument, especially when he goes on to say, â??When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization.â?ť
Yet this would literally violate the Constitutionâ??s provision that â??no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.â?ť For the devout, taking an oath upon a religious book is a religious act. Requiring the performance of a religious act using the holy book of a particular religion is a religious test. If Congress were indeed to take the view that â??If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book [the Bible], donâ??t serve in Congress,â?ť it would be imposing an unconstitutional religious test.
Whatâ??s more, the Constitution itself expressly recognizes the oath as a religious act that some may have religious compunctions about performing. The religious-test clause is actually part of a longer sentence: â??The Senators and Representatives … [and other state and federal officials] shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required ….â?ť The option of giving an affirmation rather than oath reflects the judgment â?? an early multiculturalist judgment â?? in favor of accommodating members of some denominations (such as Quakers) who read the Bible as generally prohibiting the swearing of oaths.”
December 1st, 2006 at 5:10 pm
The Koran is a murderous monstosity that should be kept out of America. It teaches that all Christans and Jews should be killed. I cant believe after the 9-11 and all the things that have taken place that we would elect an enemy to the any office of our land. If we dont stop this slide it wont be long and the Muslims in America will demand sharia law in place of our Biblical laws. I read the Koran and it is a book whose goal is world domination. The Torah speaks about the Salvation of a nation. The New Testament speaks of personal salavation. The Korans Goal is to take over the world. It is an evil book that needs to be banned along with that religion of hate. Signed Forrest
December 3rd, 2006 at 5:09 pm
Doug, by your line of reasoning, let’s assume I am an atheist and don’t recognize any “holy book of truth” would it be a constitutional violation for me as anewly elected member of Congress to refuse to take an oath of office to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution and the laws of our nation?
Gregg
December 4th, 2006 at 12:06 am
I’ll comment as a Muslim a on this issue. Before I do I see a predominant ignorance of Islam prevading on this blog. It was once said, “Ignorance is Bliss” but I guess when coupled w/ Arrogance it must be complete Nirvana? That’s what I’m seeing.
I read someone calling the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) a crusader? And that he killed Jews? These are unsupported by Historical documents. Historical documents i.e. Tarikh Tabari, Ibn Ishaq, Nihaya wal Bidayah etc go to pin point that battles did happen w/ Jews on two fronts.
1. When they sided w/ the pagan forces to exterminate the Muslims while in Madina thus, in violation of the original pact drawn up on entry of the Prophet to Madina. Tribes in question are the Banu Qurayzah and the Banu Nadhir, first to be expelled for attempt on the life of the Prophet.
2. When the Jews of Khaybar, this being the fort in which the eariler expelled Jews gathered and abated the Pagans to bring down Islam. A battle ensued upon the provacation of the Jewish tribe who valantly called on the Muslims to come out and see real fighters because the pagans were weak in comparison to them.
visit jews-for-allah.org
The Quran no where teaches or sanctions the killing of innocent life.
It teaches:
“…whoever kills a person, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he had killed all men. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved the lives of all men…” (Surah 5 v.32)
Now Greg would like everyone to believe that 9:5 is a mandate to kill or convert but that is a ludicrous argument w/ no standing when the historical and textual context of the verses are examined.
Greg might argue that this verse is an Abrogator of previous verses dealing w/ love, kindess, patience and mercy. But Greg, can you produce one single Hadith which specifically says that this verse abrogates others?
Earilest Quran commentaries dating back 8-10 centuries, which I have, like Tafsir Badawi, Al-Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir, Tanwir al Miqbas min Tafsir ibn Abbass, Al-Jalalayn etc go no where to hint any “abrogation”.
Infact, if your such a scholar of Islam Greg why not explain the concepts of Naskh wal Mansukh? Or do you run to the Fraud Robert Spencer for clarification?
I’ll do you the favor. Naskh wal Mansukh or which has been wrongly assumed to be “abrogation” stands for “Lifting and Implementing”.
Now what is being lifted? Maulana Muhammad Ali in his book “The Religion of Islam” written Pre-WWII, and is available off Amazon.com, states that it is only a clarifier of a previous misconception of a verse on the part of the companions.
Infact there are no such thing as verses being abrogated. 18:1 is clear testimony to that.
Back to 9:5, just read v.3,4,6-13 Greg for a accurate understanding of the verse.
Also refer to 2:190 that stipulates:
“And fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you but be not aggressive. Surely Allah loves not the aggressors.”
There is more to comment but I’ll just ask that you get a hold of the book:
“Murder in the Name of Allah” by Mirza Tahir Ahmad.
Its available off Amazon.com
———
Now to the issue of the new Congressman swearing on the Holy Quran. Basically, it is his choice to whether do it or not. Would make no difference if he swore on the Bible. The important thing is not to proferr a religious sentiment but a secular sentiment in line w/ the Constitution. There were those of the Founding father’s who flatly denied the authority of the Bible like Thomas Paine, just read his book “The Age of Reason”.
Thomas Jefferson wasn’t a Christian either and the same is true of Ben Franklin. The 1st amendment has the “establishment clause” which prevents the Gov’t by imposing any faith on another. So reflect on that.
December 4th, 2006 at 9:52 am
Thank you Kazim.
December 4th, 2006 at 10:50 am
Yes, thanks Kazim.
Gregg,
As for your comment, I was not advocating or suggesting a refusal to take the oath, though in fact the Constitution provides for only an Oath of Office for the President– Article II of the Constitution. In fact, here are the exact words of the President’s Oath of Office, according to the Constitution, and on which Congressional oaths are based:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
“So help me God” has been added as a matter of custom, as office-holders have generally been religious believers– but it is not required. The Bible was also added as a matter of custom.
Source
Oaths in general have been over-emphasized at times of national crisis, especially the Civil War for Congress, and the Communist Witch Hunt/Red Scare for the Pledge of Allegiance. But to the main point, the mention of God, let alone the presence of the Bible, has ever been deemed necessary or legally binding in the oaths of office– and in fact Congresspeople are not even prescribed by the constitution to take the oath (though I agree that custom isn’t a bad idea).
Let the man use the Koran, for God’s sake. And please, everyone, stop generalizing on religions– treat others as you would have them treat you (I forget where I read that, but I’m a sure a wise man said it).
December 4th, 2006 at 10:59 am
I just realized I didn’t answer the question directly:
If you are an atheist, you can still take the oath of office. “So help me God” is not in the original oath, and the Bible is there by custom, not prescription. You don’t need to believe in God to believe in Democracy, hard as that might be for some people to comprehend. I’m also not entirely convinced that the oath itself is anything more than custom, rather than a binding Constitutional requirement (there may be other laws on this outside the Constitution that I have not found).
December 4th, 2006 at 6:22 pm
Well my guess is that we won’t hear from anyone else on how this is wrong.
February 8th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Chhose your path, Americans. Reality or BIG LIE religious propaganda. If the facts matter, and I’m sure they DON’T for most Republicans - then put this in your corncob pipe and smoke it: Thomas Jefferson - as in ‘a Jeffersonian democracy’ - WAS NOT a Christian and Adolphus Hitler WAS a Christian. (right-wingers may now adjourn in their mad attempt to recast reality for their foolish followers, the smart ones can Google ‘Gott mit Uns’ for all the evidence they’ll ever need to become crazed enough to bite themselves in the eyeball) Have a REALISTIC day !
http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm
(Ouch! That’s gonna leave a mark!)
Rienhardt Gehlen
CEO - IG Farbin Inc.
Administrator - Boy Scouts of America
Camp Nordland & Camp Siegfried Troops