Comments on: Should Keith Ellison Be Sworn In With the Quran?

By: this is rediculous

this is rediculous — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 18:42:51 +0000

pragers comments are a slap in the face to america
he is compleatly out of hand comparing another religions holy book to that of a rascist hate group
lets stop and think for a second. what is the point of being swore in on the bible. it’s because this can almost assure that the people swearing on it will uphold their oath. because of ellisons religious belifs i strongly belive the quran is a better choice. we live in the land of the free, not the land of the christians.

By: NT White

NT White — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 21:56:35 +0000

Some nominally Christian groups (such as the Religious Society of Friends, aka Quakers, in which I was raised) hold that swearing on a bible is wrong. From the Quaker perspective, the truth is holy and swearing on a bible is “taking the name of the Lord in vain”.

Obviously, you can put your hand on whatever you want for the ceremonial photo-op, but that is not the issue. The issue is that some “conservatives” want everyone to swear on a Judeo-Christian holy book. My perspective (which I get from a Christian upbringing) is that this is wrong, although in our secular society I respect the right of others to do this sort of wrong. I think the underlying “conservative” argument is that people who do not identify as their version of Christian or Jewish should not publicly acknowledge their beliefs.

If this (our US of A) were a Judeo-Christian theocracy run according to my beliefs, many Jews and Christians would find their practices outlawed. Thank God it is not so, eh? Viva tolerance, folks.

By: egrubs

egrubs — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 15:54:40 +0000

It doesn’t matter to you, and it does matter to her. That’s what freedom is all about. It allows for the tolerant and the biggoted. It’s a beautiful thing, but it can get muddy.

By: Ken Pirok

Ken Pirok — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 09:22:19 +0000

My understanding and opinion is that “the foundation of this country is based on” NO certain or specific religion. It explicitely is not based on Judeo-Christian values. It is also not based on the Koran. At the same time, it’s based on the freedom to worship and express either or any religious values…seriously…read the Constitution.

I’m going to research this myself. Sounds like people are believing a lot of myths and popular misconceptions.

But in the end, who cares what text someone uses, if any? It doesn’t matter to me, and it should’t matter to you. That’s what freedom is all about.

By: Laura

Laura — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 05:58:47 +0000

He should not be allowed to swear on the koran. The foundation of this country is based on Judeo-Christian values. Whoever doesn’t like it, can lump it.

By: vwcat

vwcat — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 01:19:18 +0000

Prager is doing this just to harass Ellison because he is muslim. and a democrat. Mostly the last. if he was a republican muslim, prager would defend his rights.
hypocrit. These guys make me sick.

By: GreenDreams

GreenDreams — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 00:03:32 +0000

The Bible is no longer used to swear in witnesses in court, sworn testimony before Congress (which I’ve done four times) or for swearing in political leaders. Let’s get past this us vs. them mentality. We have a secular form of government, thank God.

By: Uncle Joe McCarthy

Uncle Joe McCarthy — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 23:01:59 +0000

prager is a pseudo intellectual bufoon desperately seeking ratings

By: Ragsly

Ragsly — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 21:11:29 +0000

Prager is clearly unfamiliar with the concept of logic.

His brain does not understand how one thing might effect another. HE thinks he gets it, and that’s what’s bothersome.

Idiots need to keep quiet. But he never shuts up.

http://ragsly.blogspot.com

By: Mike P.

Mike P. — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 20:24:49 +0000

Hmm. So I guess Joe Lieberman should be forced to swear on the New Testament as well? Seems odd Mr. Prager would find anything offensive about the use of the Quran – well, other than the fact that as noted, no book is actually harmed during the swearing in ceremony.

By: grognard

grognard — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 20:15:38 +0000

The idea behind oath taking on a religious text is that you incur the wrath of the deity if you break your oath. By definition that religious text must be one that has meaning to you. In other words taking an oath on a pad of sticky notes is not going to have that same ramifications as an oath on a Koran or Bible or any other religious text. In short Prager has no idea what he is talking about.

By: Pyst

Pyst — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 20:10:52 +0000

“Should Keith Ellison Be Sworn In With the Quran?”

Absoloutely, if thats what he chooses.

Personally I’d swear my oath to the constitution being that I’m agnostic. But being that I’m agnostic I doubt I’d have a prayer (hehe joke there) of even getting elected.

By: JoeC

JoeC — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 20:07:29 +0000

Yet another example of polarized contemporary politics, making something out of a non-issue. The U.S. Constitution says something about no religious test for office. Although Prager has had some good points in the past, his stance on this one doesn’t suit him.

By: Sam

Sam — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 20:06:37 +0000

What is really more important is that our elected leaders do wha they swear to do: defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States.

By: Shaun

Shaun — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 20:00:01 +0000

Dayton:

It is a story if only because there are people like Praeger who need to be called out because they judge people by their faith, and if that faith does not comport with their carefully proscribed views they are considered godless and unpatriotic heathens. Got that?

By: Paul in Austin

Paul in Austin — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 19:30:06 +0000

Another point of view is that Prager and others are sincere.
What would you say to them if they were in front of you and a dozen reporters?
How would you craft your language to be persuasive and mininimize confrontation?

Dennis, this is an increasingly diverse and multicultural society. History has confirmed that we are stronger and more resilient when we embrace honorable, industrious and devout people to join our society. It is in our interest that moderate Muslim around the world are convinced that we respect and honor their spiritual choices. As long as their personal spiritual path is not in conflict with our Constitution why would it be important that the Bible be a test of their suitability to serve the constituents who elected them?

By: Tom Wolper

Tom Wolper — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 19:24:53 +0000

When Prager asks which book a hypothetical racist would use to swear in, is he ignoring all the advocates of slavery and Jim Crow? In that case, the answer would be the bible.

By: Dayton

Dayton — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 19:20:40 +0000

I was going to write something about this; but Eural wrote it much better than I ever could.

Why is this a story? Who is pushing this?

THERE IS NO BOOK USED DURING THE OFFICIAL SWEARING IN..STOP…END OF STORY…STOP

Shaun Mullen, please respond.

By: Joe

Joe — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 19:07:06 +0000

My own feeling about this is that it’s an example of 21st Century polarization, posturing politics. Parties use it to whip up the base; radio hosts use it to get audiences and callers going. I use it to look at people who do this and consider arguments — mostly the ones that they OPPOSE. I turns me off and almost always makes me decide on the side of the people who they are demonizing. I can’t tell you how much I detest it. And with a name like “Gandelman” I ain’t a Muslim..

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 19:03:35 +0000

there is nothing to this story except a half-cocked, manufactured controversy based on inaccurate and false assertions which are easily checked and discredited

Welcome to Republican politics.