Redstate

The Office of the House Clerk confirmed to ThinkProgress that the swearing-in ceremony consists only of the Members raising their right hands and swearing to uphold the Constitution. The Clerk spokesperson said neither the Christian Bible, nor any other religious text, had ever been used in an official capacity during the ceremony. (Occassionally, Members pose for symbolic photo-ops with their hand on a Bible.)

Or what if someone wanted to take their oath on The Satanic Bible.

I personally would have a problem with that. And similarly I do have a problem with using the Quran, because I believe that some of what it teaches is just plain wrong - the jihad thing is just plain evil really. As others are saying, our laws give me the problem of not being able to prevent this. But they don't stop me from vigorously declaring that the idea of using the Quran for an oath to the USA is a bad one because of the stuff in that book which is inconsistent with the values of the USA and is really...not good.
John E.

that an American district would elect a Satanist. Really swearing on a The Satanic Bible would be the least of my concerns with such a politician.

What exactly about Koranic Jihad do you find evil?

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Anyway...smiting the necks of those who oppose and don't submit to Muhammad. I don't think Muhammad is a Prophet from a superior being and I think that he came to power through some immoral means that he used specific Recitations to legitimate. There are people around the world that get killed for saying that. Muhammad used his Recitations to kill those who criticized him. The mission of creating a world where everybody submits to Muhammad is quite other than holy by my sense of right and wrong and not in line with what I would call American values. And yes, I think that is in the vision offered by the Quran and in my opinion its no longer a good thing refrain from criticizing those aspects.

If it is clear that this Rep. rejects all those parts of the Quran, or interprets them out of existence to produce a purely spiritual and personal, ie. non-political religion, then my objections would be relaxed.

There have been so many discussions about Islam at RedState that I would feel guilty if we turn this diary into yet another. If you are after convincing me I have in incorrect view of Islam, maybe you should email me. If you want to tell me why I should keep my opinion - about swearing in on the Quran - to myself, go ahead.
John E.

Something to mull over, Deuteronomy 13 (emphases added):
If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,

2And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;

3Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

4Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.

5And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.

6If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

7Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

8Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

9But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

10And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

11And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.

12If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying,

13Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known;

14Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you;

15Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.

I don't think the Quran has a monopoly on the smiting here.

And if Jews and Christians around the world were implementing that vision, smiting the children of Belial, etc., I'd have a problem with people swearing in on the Bible too. They aren't so something tells me that they don't think that the Bible is telling us to do that. On the other hand, a nearby diary documents the death sentence recently put on an Azeri journalist for saying that Christianity is better than Islam. There are countless other examples. So something tells me that many Muslims do think the Quran is telling them to implement that vision. So I have a problem with it, that is an evil vision and I am not going to refrain from condemning it and I have a problem with where it is coming from.
John E.

particular time and place. You will search in vain for ANY passage in the Bible that admonishes Jews or Christians to kill unbelievers now, or at anytime after the particular historical accounts in the OT.

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com

-

From this comment (which, it seems, could apply equally to the Quran), one would conclude that the Bible is indeed a "living document". You could only murder people because they did not believe what you believe back then. Perhaps, then, equal gay rights are not denied by the Bible-they are only denied back when the Bible was written.
Believe me, I would love to be able to make that argument to those who want to delegitimize the love and devotion of my gay friends in the name of a book written more than a thousand years ago.

The point is, both of these books, Quran and Bible, are documents that promote "traditional" ideas, like murder based on ideology and, say, slavery, that most people have renounced long ago. So you can choose to take just the good in one of the books, or to take the bad with the good. Christians seem to be allowed to take the good without needing to prove it to everyone-I don't see why Keith Ellison shouldn't get the same privilege.

My comment makes a distinction between history and commandments. Passages of the Koran that are explicitly history should be treated as such. My understanding of the Koran is that there are numerous admonishions for Muslims to kill the infidel today and for all time. There are ZERO passages in the Bible of that kind.

A key to understanding each book is to understand that they are separate books with passages to be taken for what they are. The books per se are in no way related.

The history you cite is more the History of a vulnerable nation facing a hostile pagan population. Many of the passages in the OT that prescribe the death penalty for all sorts of offenses were more akin to a code for a military where total unity in order to survive is essential.

Sex outside of marriage is condemned throughout the OT and the NT, whether hetero or homo.

The Bible never promoted slavery. I defy to point to a passage that PROMOTES slavery. Slavery existed. God went to a lot of trouble to get Pharoah to Let His People Go. He also had them taken into slavery so that they could survive as a people. In the NT, God speaks to the spiritual needs and obligations of individuals that were master and slave. There is no "promotion" of the institution.

Interpreting the Bible for an honest reader is not about picking and choosing what one prefers but reading the text in context.

I'm hope when people read of our society hundreds of years from now, they will denounce us as harshly for killing babies in the womb as much as we condemn our forefathers that were born into a society where slavery existed. Our forefathers rid the western world of slavery on moral grounds based on the Bible.

Would that we rid our society of abortion based upon the same Book.

God bless

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com

Although you managed to spell "privilege" correctly, a feat not often replicated by our trolls, you've managed one too many hits on this comment.

Toodles.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

I'd like to know what got him struck...

Thomas and Moe can always tell when some guttersnipe wanders in and has, or even is is going to, annoy me and they erase them to save me from saying bad things. Welcome.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

[Now run along, moby. It's a big internet; I'm sure that you'll find somebody who'll not vomit at the sight of you. - Moe Lane]

and our own Timothy McVey. But then, you won't be here long enough to care!

I Get My News at HinzSightReport!

The Koran, like many religious texts, can be interpreted to mean many things. Although it is clear that suicide is an abomination and that the killing of women and children is forbidden, that didn't stop some fould cleric from twisting the Koran to allow for suicide bombings.

I do think there are flaws with the cultures that are perpetuated by Islam. However that doesn't mean that you must adhere to a violent lifestyle because you are a Muslim.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

by Islam"? I'd like that clarified.

Islam has been taught over the past 1000 years in a regressive manner. Enlightenment has often shunned in favor of dogmatic adherence to Islamic tradition. This has stunted the growth of several societies, most notably the Arab cultures.

As a result they eschew advances both technology and culturally.

I would write more but I'm about to go out to dinner.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

and in fact, it was Arabic/Muslim culture that started the enlightenment in Europe through the 17th century.

Historically speaking, most islamic cultures were functioning as well as European nations into the 16th and 17th centuries inspite of the crusades and other invasions. It was European colonialism (the root of most of the current issues within the region) that disrupted Africa, the Middle-East, Persia, India, and much of Southeat Asia, and led, of course, the genocide of the Americas.

Islam has been taken over by people who seek to use it as an excuse for behavior that has nothing to do with Islam. Judiasm, Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism all have people who attempt to hijack the religion for political purposes. As Bush continually says it is these extremists with no regard for the rights and welfare of others that twist the words of the Koran and spew hatred towards anyone who doesn't fit their narrow definitions.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Yes, people can "interpret" it incorrectly. The problem with the Koran is that the moderates are being challenged by the extremists with the Book and they are losing the argument because the extremists are right about what it says. This is a major problem. essentially, the moderates of Islam have created new religion.

The base problem is that the Koran is a lie. And one can re-interpret all one wants, but the base material is what it is.

The Bible is the word of God. Some things are true and some things are false. The Pope spoke eloquently of how reason confirms a reasonable God in the Bible. The Pope, unlike Muslims, has a Book that confirms this. The Koran does not. It is the elephant in the room that the extremists forced the moderates to look at.

Faith

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com

The problem with the Koran is that the moderates are being challenged by the extremists with the Book and they are losing the argument because the extremists are right about what it says.

Now, and not to be a jerk but to be enlightened, explain to my addled mind how that squares with the neo-con belief that Iraq can be democratic. I'm serious.

are winning the argument against the extremists with guns! The Taliban was hated by most, as was Saddam and by all acounts, the vast majority of the Iraqis reject al qaida.

But, yes, Islam has an internal conflict that is a major problem that will take many years to resolve and given that the conflict landed in NYC, DC and PA in 2001, its our problem too. Japan had a cult problem in 1945. And it may turn out that the only way the problem is resolved is to break the Middle east like we broke Japan and Germany.

But when we remove regimes, we naturally offer them the chance for freedom. Of course, they CAN be democratic. They have the raw material, ie brains.

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com

Hawk, I agree with everything you say, except the second sentence where you echo and amplify the oft repeated myth that has taken root axiomatically in the popular mindset.
If there were just "some foul cleric" teaching this interpretation then I would agree with you. But it isn't just "some foul cleric." That is a dangerous wishful untruth contradicted by reality, by the facts. Oh how I wish it were true but it isn't and people who maintain this myth are deceiving themselves and others. This myth demands an iconoclast.

I am not telling a Muslim how to interpret the Quran. I am observing how so many of them - in particular the Imams or religious scholars of the Quran - do interpret it. So I think that the real problem is that you and so many others are not observing this.

If some Muslims reject or find some way to reconcile the particular horrible things that Muhammad did - like killing people for insulting or not submitting to him - things that we see so many Muslims imitating or calling for today, then I am fine with them. I don't tell them their interpretation is no good.

I urge you to read the Sirat Rasul - the earliest biography of Muhammad. You can find it online. Or else get Martin Ling's compilation which is endorsed by Islamic societies worldwide. In doing so, you will find the historical context in which and for which Muhammad produced his Recitations. You will find the specific actions that he wished to justify by his specific recitations. Read more of the hadiths as the Imams do and you will find the specific circumstances in which the specific suras were "revealed". You will find less and less latitude for varying interpretations and a fairly consistent way in which Islamic scholarship through the ages has reconciled the various seemingly contradictory passages like the ones you alluded to. You will find what "moderates" are up against. And you will find the ideas that motivate the mobs to frenzy whenever anyone "disrespects" Muhammad. They would tear me to pieces for saying what I believe about the man. The ideas that motivate that are evil brother. And they aren't coming from some stray Imam. And it is time we dispense with that false myth along with the factual inaccuracies like those asserted above by alscot or whatever his handle is.
John E.

My foul cleric comment didn't mean to suggest that if we could just get rid of a couple of bad clerics, Islam would be right as rain. Certainly not. There is certainly a festering problem within the religion.

But I don't believe that the religion itself is the problem. There are many nations in the world that are predominantly Muslim that are generally peaceful, including the most populous Muslim nation in the world.

I do believe that Christianity has gone through similar bouts of misuse by evil men. However it has largely grown out of that phase.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

bad Muslims have nuclear capability. BIG difference.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

The LibForAll foundation does a very good job of explaining what is going on in Indonesia and why its cultural traditions gravitated toward Sufism and tolerance. The articles by former Indonesian President Abdurrahman Wahid are of particular interest. There is a major struggle for the meaning of Islam going on there.

I believe that the measure of peacefulness toward non-Muslims that you contemplate and the degree to which the history of Islam parallels Christianity are also unfortunate myths, but having seen the way such discussions typically progress into close minded rhetorical skirmishes I have no allusion that you and I will resolve it here.

Nevertheless, as one thoughtful person to another, I challenge you: there is no room for complacency regarding the effect of this religion's political teachings. Please take a harder more studied look at this. I for one believe it is a serious problem and I am going to confront Muslims and non-Muslims alike over it. As an American I heartily defend those who make Islam a personal and spiritual choice, even though I may challenge the good sense of that choice, just as they may do me good to challenge the credibility of my beliefs. But I condemn - as purveyors of evil - those who believe in the political aspect of Islam; an aspect that Muhammad himself introduced. This aspect is violent and evil. I condemn it and you should too. Some Muslims reject it. All should reject it. Those that don't put themselves into a non-zero sum conflict with us over the value of submission vs. the value of liberty. There you have it. One of us is more right about this than the other. Some day I may be putting my life at risk for taking this position and I hope that tells you how much thought I have put into my conclusion.
John E.

I agree with much of what you say. To my secularist mind the mixing of religion with the affairs of man, namely government and politics, is a terribly dangerous thing to do. It is a scimitar that can be wielded by men of low scruples and character. They use religion as a mechanism to achieve personal desires and power. And since we cannot prevent those men of low moral fiber from using religion to gain personal power, we must secure it from being used in the world of politics.

I suspect that you are correct when it comes to comparisons of the history of Islam and Christianity. I have had them here before only to be taken aback by some of the arguments that defend past acts which I find indefensible.

But where you and part ways is how we choose to deal with Islam in the political world. You prefer to go with a method of condemnation. I dislike this method because I think that condemnation will achieve little. Those who already agree with you will give you their huzzas but those who oppose your views will become even more entrenched in their beliefs.

Enlightenment is achieved through guidance not judgment.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

I'll grant that I don't have a very high emotional IQ.

If you recognize the terms of the problem referred to above and disagree only with my confrontational method then I am very interested to entertain a better method for addressing it. I can explain why I think the verbal confrontation is required, but I would much rather listen to ideas that may address the problem more successfully. Once the problem is grasped in the above terms, it creates an imperative to address it.

"enlightenment through guidance not judgment" That has a good ring. Can you put the meat on it or direct me to a source that does? I need to see how to apply it and how to expect it to work our for the present exigency.
John E.

My original issues wasn't with people identifying aspects of Islam that are fundamentally wrong, at least in practice. My problem was with calling it an evil religion, as some have.

As for enlightenment through guidance rather than judgment. I believe that we have a society that is superior to any other on Earth. I believe it is self-evident to anyone who sees it. But many have no idea what our society really is because they have been indoctrinated with lies about it.

As such I think it is imperative that we do what we can to show why we are the greatest society on Earth.

Simply wagging our finger at others will achieve nothing.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

of reality to get through the day with their utopian world view, in which they get to play God, intact. Conversely, the world view of the Bible is that of the real world and reason.

As you kmow so well
just felt like saying it
later bro

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com

Reason and nature ought to be a common basis for us all. You endorse it. The Pope endorses it. The ironic thing is that modern thought - which has employed the capacities of the human mind to such great effect in the triumphs of knowledge in science - paralyzes itself with the notion that questions of culture, of morality, of what is good and right for man and society, reach into to realms of knowledge which are beyond the capacity of the human mind. This paralysis is a sickness which threatens to derail us. The Pope knows it. He knows it because his mind tells him so and because his religion tells him so. He knows it because he can observe that his religion helped create the assumption of a belief in a natural order that mankind could comprehend. An assumption that put us on the track to the triumph of knowledge that we have today. An assumption that is proved by its fruits. An assumption that is derailed by Boas' relativism and the devolution to pomo thinking.

GC, I think the Pope is confident, and I am too, that if we put the train back on the track, we will continue to discover that the teachings of Christ are right for mankind. So I am willing to subject them to the test, while at the same time trying to live them out.

I beg you to pardon me for jumping up on the soap box, or else thank you for your indulgence - you kindred spirit of mine.
John E.

incarnation:

"3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat."

The Left claims to worship reason, not God, but what they really worship is themselves as their own Gods. I also just noticed another irony that I had never noticed before, and that is the telling focus on Eve as finding the fruit "pleasant to the eyes." Isn't that just like the Left today?

Forgive me if I have told you this a million times (I am an evangelist when it comes to the books that have had a life shaping effect on me) but it is this passage that Chambers uses in the forward to Witness to define not only the cold war but also the major conflict in the world: Man under God vs Man without God.

And, btw, one other thing I love about this Pope, is that his goal is to re-evangelize Europe. I have a very leftist friend that I hope such a message as the Pope and reason addresses can reach him and others, but their first reaction is to reject "arrogance of certainty", ie faith, that would dare suggest that our truth is the truth, and a gift that we must share with the un-saved. At bottom, they simply refuse to surrender their God position to God. They believe, in many instances, but they will not surrender.

PRIDE KILLS.

peace out

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com

I just want them to realize that we can determine what is closer to the truth, what one thing is righter than another thing. Absolute certainty may be beyond our current grasp, but we all need to work hard to discover what is; and to develop enough confidence in our understanding of it to stake our lives on. Else we do a disservice not only to ourselves but to those who come after. If we get it wrong, history - and ultimately I believe god - will be our judge but we have to take our best shot. Abdicating is not humility, it is lazy cowardice.

" what they really worship is themselves as their own Gods. "
What would that mean? Creators of their own reality? Free-handed sculptors of human nature and society according to the whims of their own imagination? Richard Rorty?

peace, love and R..
................REASON
John E.

and your question and suggested anwers, yes, you get it, but read the forward to witness below. This essay and book converted many dems to conseratives in the 50s

" what they really worship is themselves as their own Gods. "
What would that mean? Creators of their own reality? Free-handed sculptors of human nature and society according to the whims of their own imagination? Richard Rorty?

excerpt and link to Chambers

"...The revolutionary heart of Communism is not the theatrical appeal: "Workers of the world, unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains. You have a world to gain." It is a simple statement of Karl Marx, further simplified for handy use: "Philosophers have explained the world; it is necessary to change the world." Communists are bound together by no secret oath. The tie that binds them across the frontiers of nations, across barriers of language and differences of class and education, in defiance of religion, morality, truth, law, honor, the weaknesses of the body and the irresolutions of the mind, even unto death, is a simple conviction: It is necessary to change the world. Their power, whose nature baffles the rest of the world, because in a large measure the rest of the world has lost that power, is the power to hold convictions and to act on them. It is the same power that moves mountains; it is also an unfailing power to move men. Communists are that part of mankind which has recovered the power to live or die--to bear witness--for its faith. And it is a simple, rational faith that inspires men to live or die for it.

It is not new. It is, in fact, man's second oldest faith. Its promise was whispered in the first days of the Creation under the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil: "Ye shall be as gods." It is the great alternative faith of mankind. Like all great faiths, its force derives from a simple vision. Other ages have had great visions. They have always been different versions of the same vision: the vision of God and man's relationship to God. The Communist vision is the vision of Man without God.

It is the vision of man's mind displacing God as the creative intelligence of the world. It is the vision of man's liberated mind, by the sole force of its rational intelligence, redirecting man's destiny and reorganizing man's life and the world. It is the vision of man, once more the central figure of the Creation, not because God made man in His image, but because man's mind makes him the most intelligent of the animals. Copernicus and his successors displaced man as the central fact of the universe by proving that the earth was not the central star of the universe. Communism restores man to his sovereignty by the simple method of denying God.

The vision is a challenge and implies a threat. It challenges man to prove by his acts that he is the masterwork of the Creation-- by making thought and act one. It challenges him to prove it by using the force of his rational mind to end the bloody meaninglessness of man's history--by giving it purpose and a plan. It challenges him to prove it by reducing the meaningless chaos of nature, by imposing on it his rational will to order, abundance, security, peace. It is the vision of materialism..."

the whole thing

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/chambers.html

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com

I'll read some more of it gc; give some more thought. Be all of that as it may, presently I am not sure I want to run laps with you on that issue. Communism with its ideological rejection of god as a cornerstone of all thought is one thing. There are similarities between communism and what I am railing against - what the name is I am not quite sure - but I haven't been inclined to reduce my rail to a disavowal of god. I am more concerned with a disavowal of reason and the human mind as effective in reaching objective answers to moral questions such that morality is viewed as arbitrary. I don't think that those who haven't discovered god yet need to simply bend to authority because I think our minds and our natural moral sense are effective for this purpose and in the end will lead us toward the same place as revelation has. And actually, all my beliefs, including my belief in god, derive from my moral sense and my rational inquiries. I don't pit faith against reason any more than the quantum physicist does, since he believes in a state of things beyond his senses that defies all his natural intuitions. I am satisfied if a person is willing to follow hes thoughts about god to wherever they lead, but not dismiss god axiomatically.
John E.

But I think that Chambers point also refutes the Left's claim that the choice is faith vs reason. Chambers was attacking the claim that economics was the crucial issue that decided history. Chambers asserted that the crucial issue in history is faith in God vs man without God. I think it is inherent in Chambers argument that the faith he refers to is the true faith. The Pope is saying that surely the Left should see that Christianity presents a reasonable God and a culture within which reason can govern rather that brute force.

But this argument Chambers makes is not restricted to communism per se, but also the leftist secular progressive view that rejects the traditional values that should govern men's lives as against the superman model of Nietzsche?

apples oranges
oh well, later

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com

I have always been enriched by following your links, so I will peg it for reading. :) thanks gc
John E.

You are right that would be of greater concern. I would not like it if they swore in on a communist manifesto either, and maybe that is not quite so unlikely.

Like you say, in this case the really big concern is what the Rep. believes and - if it tracks right down the line with what is in the Quran - why he got elected.

[I was having trouble getting around a "validation error"
John E.

Since he's a Muslim, I know he will join with Pence, Flake, Shadegg & Co in opposing pork.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

You say it very badly. And you add nothing to Prager's rather silly points except to assert - in the face of the Constitution - that Prager's points are valid, when they are not.

You and Prager are both entitled to your views. But the US is governed by a Constitution which says something different. There are procedures for you to amend it if you want, and if you can generate sufficient support.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

but we need to see what this is, another attack on our culture. Those that have a problem with this see it in that way. It's the same with things such as what the definition of marriage is. All the arguments over civil rights, what the constitution says, etc. are all interesting, but it represents an attack on what we are and what we have always believed in and held dear. Can the constitution be twisted to repudiate what has been understood for 240+ years? Sure it can. It takes one judge. And if you disagree with that judge and try to do anything about it, you'll be attacked as a right wing socio con fanatic.

However you feel on this technically, the camel has stuck his nose into the tent. Will we eventually be left on the outside? Does tradition mean anything anymore? Does everything have to be re-evaluated because someone is offended at everything?

Trying to introduce an unconstitutional religious test for office-holders? Or upholding the fact that there is none?

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

YOUR culture. Let's make that clear. It is you who follows a book called the Bible. Not me, and not a heckuva lot of other people.
Somebody wanting to follow a different book, or no book at all, is not attacking you. In fact, by saying that they cannot swear on their own book of their on beliefs, you are attacking them.

With due respect, the moment where we construe someone else's observance of their faith as an attack on our own, we're no longer standing where the founding fathers were. The least you can do is acknowledge this, rather than attempting to wrap yourself in the flag and present your arguments as somehow defending "what we are and what we have always believed in and held dear".

If we are to require people who do not observe our faith to swear upon the symbols of our own in order that they might serve as elected officials, we're enforcing a version of the very dhimmitude we deplore when it's imposed on non-Muslims in lands where Muslims hold the keys to political power.

the camel has stuck his nose into the tent. Will we eventually be left on the outside? Does tradition mean anything anymore?

Not when 'tradition' means dominating others in ways we'd not appreciate having done to us.
The beauty of our system is that it allows EVERYONE's noses into the tent.

Does everything have to be re-evaluated because someone is offended at everything?

You seem to be the only one calling for a re-evaluation of the constitution here.

by his association with Calypso Louie's (white people are devils, Jews are wicked animals and America is pure evil) Black Muslims, and his campaign advocacy of those parts of the Democrat party agenda and rhetoric that evidences said contempt. Many Democrats that will put their hand on a Bible (despite the fact that it means no more to them than Maureen Dowd's columns) are equal in their contempt for America as Ellison.

The use of the Koran, given that come species of Minnesotans sent him up to DC to represent them and what they represent being as vile as it is, is irrelevant in that context.

Stay tuned for more on Ellison. It is possible that he may not finish his term due to some legal problems.

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com

I admit this is one of those stories I haven't really followed.

In general I figure oath taking is something special to that person taking the oath-it is their day, they can invite who they will, and make promises over whatever book they choose, provided they intend to keep the oath made.

Honestly what is most important here, is just what he, and anyone else being sworn in, thinks that oath means, and how they intend to keep it, while in office.

There obviously are some republicans up in arms, but is it that many? Granted the ones up in arms will be the ones getting the press rather than the ones who aren't, so in the end you are right that it provides a nice big club to beat the GOP over the head with.

Prager is far from a fool. He's right on the issues about 99% of the time. This just falls into the 1%. Give it a rest.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

He writes things that probably make him feel very good about himself, getting himself and his fans riled up, but it's all on emotion.

But, if Ann Coulter can have fans, then I guess he can, too.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge

I really liked one other thing about your old diary on the court. The idea of 2 out of three branches trumping the otehr depending on the circumstances. Courts give "opinions" after all, that the Executive and Legislative may or may not agree with.

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com

That really means something coming from you, thank you.

As for Prager, I don't say this because of this column. This goes back a year or two ago, when I'd read Town Hall every day. He and Coulter became the columnists I'd do my best to avoid reading, because they just kept doing this stuff.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge

It is one of the best. His tone and the fact that he discusses all issues in life and not just politics. That you associate him with Coulter is quite surprising to me. He is a Jew that loves Christian America, and I could go on. But one thing i think Republicans do not do enough of, that causes me to like Coulter is to draw sharp distinctions with liberals, not let them get away with their presumed self righteousness and call them out for what they are.

Prager is one of those people that I discovered in 2001 that helped make me realize I was a conservative.

But forget that for now.

I do want to say, though, that Prager desires clarity to agreement for agreement's sake, for that reason, which is why I also loathe political correctness, I want people to say and do what they believe in so that they can better be identified for what they are, and can be better opposed as a result.

I am glad Ellison is being what he is. The problem with ellison is that he got elected.

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com

everything else flows from that.

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com

The Constitution EMBODIES our civil traditions, and it openly calls for flexibility in how we swear in our elected officials.

I'm also surprised you'd want to demean your holy book, by having it used as a prop in our civil ceremonies by people who don't put the faith into it that you do, frankly.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge

the Constitution and agree with your factual criticisms. Being a high-powered lawyer who has had Christian clients from certain sects that refuse to swear, I have often advised the Clerk and Bench beforehand that my client would "affirm" either with or without the Bible.

I have also had clients and witnesses that were not Christian that swore on the Bible out of respect for our traditions.

I certainly agree that a congressperson should be able to use any book they want. I would not favor that in Court. If they eschew the Bible then have them swear without any book.

My antipathy is for this particvular man, not muslims generally at all, and those that elected him.

I basically agree with you.

Now as to my Holy Book, God chose to demean himself by becoming one of us lowly creatures so that we might have the life he intended for us when we were created. He chose to give us this book to lead men to Christ. So its not demeaning at all to present the book. There is power in the Book and the more often it is presented before men, the better.

But, as always I respect your opinion my friend, and nothing would make me happier than if you would "demean" it by reading it daily!!

smile

And btw, you should check out Prager's column archives. Some are brilliant, esp his series on jews and the civil war in this country between the left and right and, this one:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2006/08/01/world_opinion...

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com

I feel like I've just been slapped in the most friendly possible way for so badly misinterpreting the kind of reverence Christians give the Bible.

I feel like I really stepped in something there that I should have known better to avoid.

Well, I'm glad we're basically in agreement, and appreciate the smile, heh.

As for Prager, that is a fun column. It helps that his sweeping statements agree with me, heh. I just wish I could remember which columns were the ones that finally made me stop reading him.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge

Ah, but which translation will you use? The Living Constitution or the New Revised Scalito?
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge

Madhouse Thought and The Minority Report

I blog from work and would like to keep it that way!

Thanks

Madhouse Thought and The Minority Report

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com

served his country and loved it so much that he sold it out. There is nothing sacred about people serving in Congress. If one were looking to undermine America, and was part of a movement that had the long view of history, what better way to do it than in the politcal establishment.

John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.

his country.

Kennedy Offered to Help Soviets Thwart U.S. Policies, KGB Papers Show
By Kevin Mooney
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
November 02, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - While Soviet troops occupied Afghanistan in 1980, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) worked in close concert with high level Kremlin officials to alter the direction of U.S. policy, according to documents made available through a KGB defector.

Details concerning Kennedy's correspondence with KGB agents are included in the writings of the late Vasiliy Mitrokhin who defected to Britain in 1992. The Mitrokhin papers highlight a meeting that took place at the behest of Kennedy between former Sen. John Tunney (D-Calif.) and KGB agents in Moscow on March 5, 1980.

The exchange of information between Tunney and the KGB is included as part of a report Mitrokhin filed with the Cold War International History Project of the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington D.C. The former KGB man continued to work with British intelligence until the time of his death.

Noted Cold War author and researcher Herbert Romerstein told Cybercast News Service Mitrokhin was a "highly credible source" with vast knowledge of the now-closed KGB archives.

Prior to his defection, Mitrokhin made meticulous copies of KGB documents by hand, explained Romerstein, who headed the U.S. government's Office to Counter Soviet Disinformation and Active Measures during the 1980s.

The KGB defector smuggled out six cases of notes that formed the basis of his reporting.

The KGB files Mitrokhin retrieved indicate that Kennedy fixed the blame for heightened international tensions on the Carter White House, not on the Kremlin. Kennedy at the time was challenging incumbent Carter for the Democratic nomination for president.

Tunney told his KGB counterparts that Kennedy was impressed by the foreign policy statements made by then General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev. Kennedy saw in Brezhnev a leader who was firmly committed to the policy of "détente," the report said.

But, in Kennedy's estimation, the Carter administration had assumed an overly belligerent posture toward the Soviet Union after the invasion of Afghanistan, Mitrokhin wrote.

In Kennedy's view, "the atmosphere of tension and hostility towards the whole Soviet people was being fuelled by Carter" as well as by some key advisors, the Pentagon and the U.S. military industrial complex, the Mitrokhin report states.

Throughout the meeting Tunney remained focused on the separation between Kennedy's proposals and the official stance of the Carter White House. While official U.S. policy called for the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan, Kennedy avoided "touching the question of the legality of the presence of Soviet troops," Mitrokhin reported.

Instead, Kennedy relayed through his envoy, Tunney, his support for a withdrawal of Soviet forces that would be coupled with policy directives that "guaranteed non-interference" by competing foreign powers in the internal affairs of Afghanistan.

Since there was intense disagreement between Kennedy and the administration on policy toward the Soviets, Tunney told the KGB that the Massachusetts senator had concluded "it was his duty to take action himself, which could force the Carter administration to act to de-escalate the crisis," Mitrokhin wrote.

In 1980 Kennedy lost to Carter in the Democratic primary, and the incumbent in turn lost to Ronald Reagan in the general election.

As was previously reported by the Cybercast News Service Kennedy also subsequently made overtures to Soviet officials aimed at thwarting Reagan's military buildup in the 1980s.

Kennedy had offered to help the Soviets organize a public relations campaign in the U.S. that would dilute support for Reagan's policies. Once again, it was Tunney who traveled to Moscow on Kennedy's behalf to relay the senator's proposals.

The particulars of Kennedy's proposals are discussed in a letter dated May 14, 1983, that was sent from the head of the KGB to Yuri Andropov, who was then general secretary. Romerstein acquired a copy of the letter from a contact in Moscow who had access to the Kremlin archives.

"The letter speaks to the degree of opposition and the lack of understanding liberals like Kennedy had toward Reagan's policies," said Lee Edwards, a distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

"Reagan knew we had to build up our armed forces before we could apply pressure to the Soviets." The notion of fighting to win the Cold War was an alien concept to liberals like Kennedy, Edwards added, because they had grown accustomed to the policies of containment.

A copy of the letter is reproduced in a new book entitled "The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism." The author, Paul Kengor is a professor of political science at Grove City College.

The pattern of behavior should concern members of both political parties, Kengor said, because it shows Kennedy was willing to work against American foreign policy, regardless of who occupied the White House.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200611/PO...

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com

point remains valid regardless.

John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.

His dad held secret meetings with the Nazis, pledged that America would not enter the war, and expressed his sympathy with Hitler's attempts to deal with the Jewish 'problem'.

(NB, his sympathy with Hitler's Jewish policy was expressed BEFORE the holocaust but after Kristallnacht.)

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com

of Islam" given his membership in same and his admiration for Crazy Louie and the Black Muslims.

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com

become such a big part of the population that it becomes common to have them in office. You can lecture me all you like about tolerance etc. But one thing I can see with my own eyes is that EVERY single nation with a population of anything higher than about 10% muslim starts to have all sorts of troubles, violence, and muslims trying to force their culture on others.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

greatest commitment to judeo-christian values in its founding documents and system of government, in its culture and in its people is also the greatest nation the world has ever seen from the standpoint of economic prosperity, ability to afford to defend itself against barbarians and dictatorships that can rape its people and other people for wealth to pursue conquest, the greatest personal freedom, and willingness to sacrifice in money and lives for the liberation and well being of other nations.

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com

You have to learn to express yourself!
:-)

See The World In HinzSight!
Political HinzSight

Sounds to me like he was itching for a fight, if he announced this WITHOUT CHECKING FIRST. Give me a break.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge

A response to my many critics - and a solution
By Dennis Prager
Tuesday, December 5, 2006

excerpt

I 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. Had he originally announced that he would do that, I would have written a different column -- filled with praise of him. And there would be a lot less cursing and anger in America.

read the whole thing

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=a_response_to_my...

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com

Signed, Sealed, Delivered... it’s yours!???!

Madhouse Thought and The Minority Report