| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
"Koch Calls for Pundit's Ouster from Shoah Council":
Former New York City Mayor Edward Koch has called for Dennis Prager to resign or be removed from United States Holocaust Memorial Council, in response to the pundit's recent insistence that a Muslim congressman should not be sworn in using a Quran.
You know what else is a religion? Jedi Knight:
Umada and Yunyun, also known as John Wilkinson and Charlotte Law, want the UN to acknowledge "The Force" is worthy of being called a religion.
The couple claim to be part of the UK's fourth largest religious group, after 400,000 people recorded their faith as "Jedi" in the 2001 Census.
They say that as a religion, they deserve tolerance and respect. November the 16th is the annual International Day for Tolerance.
And as part of a global battle worthy of Luke Skywalker's efforts against the Empire, the band of self-styled Jedis want the UN to re-name the day as Interstellar Day of Tolerance.
More people claim their religion to be Jedi in England and Wales than those who follow Sikhism, Judaism and Buddhism. And the cause has global support.
There are also 70,000 Jedi knights in Australia, 53,000 in New Zealand, and 20,000 in Canada.
By Koch's reasoning, a congressman could be sworn in on a stack of Star Wars DVD's.
Koch can't deny that the vast majority of terrorists in the world state outright that they are intentionally blowing up planes, busses, resturants, etc. in the name of Islam. Koch can't deny that Muslim leaders hold no major rallies, marches, or vigils, in which their leaders say that anyone who purposely blows up a train, bus, restaurant, etc., in the name of Islam, is lost to Islam. Koch can't deny that religious leaders throughout the Arab world regularly appear on TV and urge Muslims to kill non-Muslims in the name of Islam.
So Koch has blinders on. Claiming that Islam is just like every other religion is ignorant to the point of absurdity.
Koch has made a mistake. He should own up to it.
#1
#2You're making an excellent point, Chuck. Thanks for posting this.
At the same time, it doesn't invalidate Prager's argument.
An oath is required by the Constitution, as you point out. And not all texts, religious or otherwise, are appropriate. Swearing on a stack of Star Wars DVDs would not be appropriate.
As I note in the article, claiming that Islam is just like every other religion is absurd at this point. Many of its leaders advocate killing of non-Muslims, from the pulpits of mosques. Taking an oath on the Koran, when the vast majority of terrorists say outright that they are killing in the name of Islam, and that they want to destroy the U.S. in the name of Islam, is far worse than swearing on a stack of Star Wars DVDs -- because the worldwide Muslim leadership has not disowned the terrorists. The worldwide Muslim leadership does not say that the terrorists are wrong in their interpretation of the Koran. The worldwide Muslim leadership does not deny that a Muslim who blows up a bus goes to heaven and gets 72 virgins.
Now if the Congressman would like to start holding rallies and vigils and marches in which he and other invited Muslim leaders state loudly that any Muslim who blows up a bus, restaurant, plane, etc. in the name of Islam, is lost to Islam, and will not go to heaven, and will not receive 72 virgins, that Congressman would be making a huge contribution and showing great leadership.
But -- that Congressman hasn't done anything like that -- has he? Why is that?
#3Unfortunately the Constitution is on Mr. Ellison's side and not Prager's. I personally think all of these threats and cat-calls against Prager are quiet unncessary. If anything he's learned a little about the Constitution as have many countless citizens.
I wonder in all the comments and posts I've looked at in the last couple of days why there are not questions for the people of Minnesota. Obviously he's their guy or he wouldn't have won the office. If we want to hold anyone accountable it would need to be the voters who voted for him.
Now, just because he's won the office does that mean he's now the posterchild to speak out against Islamic terrorists? He has the right to choose and we shouldn't read anything into that.
Finally, there is no directive in the Constitution that notes what is considered appropriate or inappropriate regarding sacred texts. Therefore, if a Jedi Knight ever does get elected to Congress a stack of Star Wars DVDs might be in order. This "bring your own book" thing is simply a photo op and every Congressman has a right to do what they wish including Mr. Ellison.
I've posted on this as well as my site and would love to have you visit.
#4Now, just because he’s won the office does that mean he’s now the posterchild to speak out against Islamic terrorists? He has the right to choose and we shouldn’t read anything into that.
Agreed. I don't expect Ellison to hold anti-terrorism rallies any more than I expect Jeb Bush or John Kerry to hold rallies to condemn the Catholic church for its failures in preventing priests from molesting children.
If Ellison wants to be the anti-terrorism poster child, great. But if he doesn't, that doesn't make him a terrorist.
#5I think we agree on the Constitution. I'm curious why you say that "He has the right to choose and we shouldn’t read anything into that." The man espouses a religion that has leaders worldwide who espouse killing non-Muslims in the name of their religion. Why shouldn't that be a subject for discussion? Why shouldn't he take a public stand against the use of Islam as a justification for killing non-Muslims?
Surely your presumption is that he is against blowing up planes, trains and busses in the name of Islam - correct? Why don't you want him to be asked to say so publicly, at a time when that would do so much good?
I hope you're not going to say that he may agree with the blowing up of planes, trains and busses in the name of Islam, and if so that's okay with you, in the name of multiculturalism.
#6quote :I don’t expect Ellison to hold anti-terrorism rallies any more than I expect Jeb Bush or John Kerry to hold rallies to condemn the Catholic church for its failures in preventing priests from molesting children.
would then every christian senator after taking office be required to take a public stance condemning christian atrocities everywhere? are we supposed to apologise for others merely because some people think that we belong to the bad creed irrespective of our actual affiliations? are we setting out trying to prove we are not what someone else thinks we are?
#7Chuck and ElementarySchoolTeacher,
This is a very literal example of how a well-intentioned pro-multiculti position is found useful by those who want to destroy Democracy. Sukirti has stated on this site that he is a Maoist. He does not deny that he has advocated the use of parliamentary systems to destroy those same systems and install Communism. He gladly espouses your view.
Multiculturalism, however well-intentioned, is (often inadvertently) an attack on the culture that has made this country such a great place to live.
#8vik, you really do not respond to my queries, you are just merely launching into a vituperative against me.
quote:Multiculturalism, however well-intentioned, is (often inadvertently) an attack on the culture that has made this country such a great place to live.
anyone who says this is nothing great except a fascist. i think the united states is in serious danger of people like you.
#9I just quoted you. I don't see how you can object to me quoting things you said about yourself.
#10My dear Vik,
These are the qualifications and requirements for an US Senator:
17th Amendment to the US Constitution:
No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.
Oath of Office:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
That's it.
As long as the Senator complies with the oath, there should be no problem.
I wonder how it was for the first Jewish Senator David Levy Yulee when he might have refused to take the oath on a bible containing both the Old and New Testaments.
What about atheists and agnostics? Do they not have the right to serve if duly elected by their respective constituancies?
I imagine that it will be tough for the first Scientologist.
But the people have spoken, and their fairly elected choice does not need to defend himself; that's what campaigns are for!
QED
#11Hi A.M.,
I agree with you on the Constitution. But there is more to keeping America great than just doing what the Constitution says to do and not doing what it says to not do.
Swearing people in on a bunch of Star Wars DVDs, is a good example of something that is not ruled out by the Constitution, but which is a de facto mockery of the Constitution and of the Democratic/Capitalist/Judeo-Christian culture which has made this country such a great place to live.
But the people have spoken, and their fairly elected choice does not need to defend himself; that’s what campaigns are for!
It would be a different world if most people abided by that. But as you know politicians are questioned in every way in every media outlet, as long as they're in office.
Please see my post #5 in this thread.
#12This is a very literal example of how a well-intentioned pro-multiculti position is found useful by those who want to destroy Democracy. Sukirti has stated on this site that he is a Maoist. He does not deny that he has advocated the use of parliamentary systems to destroy those same systems and install Communism. He gladly espouses your view.
I'm not sure what your point is. Am I supposed to be concerned because someone I disagree with on other issues agrees with me on a particular point?
Your concern about efforts to "destroy Democracy" would be more convincing if you weren't defending Dennis Prager's unconstitutional argument. Subverting the very basis of our Democracy is an attempt to destroy it.
Multiculturalism, however well-intentioned, is (often inadvertently) an attack on the culture that has made this country such a great place to live.
There are a number of cultures that have made this country such a great place to live. A hundred years ago people were making your same arguments about Jews, Catholics, blacks, Irish and Italian immigrants, and so on. All of those groups have contributed to making this country such a great place to live.
I certainly don't think American culture should embrace extremists who wish to replace our government with a theocracy, but as far as I am aware Keith Ellison's positions are entirely within the mainstream of American politics. (In fact, the Jihadists hate him!)
#13Dear Vik,
I think you know my position on Islamofascists, however not every Muslim is an Islamofascist. Some are culturally Muslim, just as there are a lot of Jews who are non-observant and even agnostic/atheistic, but consider themselves culturally Jewish (there seems to be lots of them in your neck of the woods). In fact, I even know Jews who do not support Israel and some Muslims who do!
We have had only one Catholic president because of a fear by Protestants that the Pope would have too a great aninfluence over the executive office! Sen. Ted Kennedy and Sen. John Kerry are Catholics but consistantly vote against generally accepted Catholic doctrine.
Interestingly enough, Julia Sweeney was recently on Craig Ferguson's
Late Late Show and said that she did not believe in God but went to church because she was culturally a Catholic.
(Craig said that if her priests knew that, she would be in trouble!) But the point /or lack of rather than concentrating on ability and service.
One's professed faith is not a slam-dunk on how he or she will legislate.
Look, the majority of the country is Christian and there will be a lot of scrutiny by that sector.
our legislative body is supposed to reflect and represent the constituants.
Are Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and others to be barred from elected office because they won't take their oath on a bible? They're citizens, too!
If they're not barred from citizenship, they have every right to pursue elected office as long as they comply with the qualification and requirements.
You have no right to advocate to curtail one of the most important benefits and responsibilities of US citizenship because of one's faith.
may the Force be with you!
A.M.
#14Chuck,
It's not unconstitutional to defend our way of life.
Tashbih Sayyed, a prominent Muslim who is active in working for the assimilation of Islam into American society, has told me that "Islam is not a religion, it's a political ideology." Needless to say, it isn't a political ideology of democracy, freedom of speech, and equal rights for women or for non-Muslims - as any examination of Sharia societies today will demonstrate.
It's not unconstitutional to require people who swear an oath to defend the Constitution, to avoid doing so on a document that is considered by most of its followers worldwide, to be the basis of a political ideology that opposes the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.
Have you seen Glenn Beck's "The Extremist Agenda" yet? It aired on CNN Headline news, and got excellent ratings. It's available via YouTube here. (Over 140,000 YouTube views, with a 4 out of 5-star rating).
#15A.M.,
If they’re not barred from citizenship, they have every right to pursue elected office as long as they comply with the qualification and requirements.
I agree. Please see my comment #14.
#16Didn't anyone notice my big error?
I meant to say Representative rather than Senator when addressing the topic of Representative-elect Ellison! So my research was correct for the Senate but not the House of Representatives - althought my point remains the same.
By-the-way, I was reading his biography in Wikipedia (Wikipedia should be taken with several grains of salt - but sometimes a good beginning) and Mr. Ellison, raised as a Catholic, has had ties with the Nation of Islam and renounced them as racist and anti-semitic. (I still dislike the term anti-semitic when Arabs are also semites. Judeo-phobic is more to the point.)
My Muslim neighbors from the Middle East said that the Nation of Islam is an embarrassment to Islam and is not recognized by the mainstream Muslims. Interesting.
#17It’s not unconstitutional to defend our way of life.
Oh brother.
I thought you were interested in a real discussion. If it's your intention to offer empty platitudes instead of facts, I'm going to have to bow out.
#18Chuck,
Did you read the rest of my comment #14? It offers a very substantial reply to your argument.
You're getting into ad hominem remarks here - accusing me of being "not interested in a real discussion." I like to participate in debates based on facts, not on questions about a person's motives.
From answers.com: Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.
#19Did you read the rest of my comment #14? It offers a very substantial reply to your argument.
I disagree. If that's your idea of a "very substantial reply," then I don't think it's worth my time to continue this discussion, because I'm only going to get platitudes and non-sequiturs in return.
#20Well, if that's your notion of a rebuttal, then it looks like you don't have any facts to back a rebuttal up with.
#21From WorldNetDaily:
...within days of being elected, Ellison held a workshop on politics for a group closely affiliated with a radical Islamic school that preaches no Muslim can pledge loyalty to the Constitution or make laws outside the laws of the Quran, which the school's leaders assert is the "supreme law" of the land, trumping all man-made laws including the U.S. Constitution.
A black convert to orthodox Sunni Islam, Ellison spoke to the North American Imams Federation, or NAIF, at the group's Nov. 19 conference in Minneapolis.
His talk flowed into a breakout session listed on the agenda simply as "American Open University," according to the conference program. It turns out the university is a "distance-learning" center based in Alexandria, Va., and known to local law enforcement as "Wahhabi Online."
Later that day, Ellison met with NAIF's president, Omar Ahmad Shahin, who lectures at the same American Open University. (He also met at the time with New York imam Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.) The radical Islamic school trains many of NAIF's more than 150 members, who control mosques across America.
American Open University supports Sharia, or Islamic law. And its founder and chairman, Jaafar Sheikh Idris, has denounced the U.S system of democracy as "the antithesis of Islam" and argued no man has the right to make laws outside Allah's laws expressed in the Quran.
#22I respect Mr. Prager immensely but he is far off base on this, as I believe are you. The Constitution does not require any oath, but an 'oath or affirmation'. I can't believe that that language is not deliberate. People should be able to swear by whatever they most hold dear. In John Quincy Adams' case it was on a copy of the Constitution itself and not on the Bible.
Having said that if my elected official was going to swear his oath of office on the Koran, I would want to know what he meant by it and unless he was very forthright about rejecting some of the Koran's supremacist notions I would campaign actively against him. Similarly, officials should be able to swear an oath on Mein Kampf. Should they? Of course not. Should they be able to? Absolutely. It's a great way to get to know their priorities.
If we don't have the power as a nation to elect dangerous people, how will we ever have the power to unelect them?
Merry Christmas to you and thank you for your writing.
Marc
#23I did not knew where to write this. 1.5 percent of Pakistani Christian would be celeberating Christmas today. it is official holiday in Pakistan today. Can you think any Christian country would ever celebret Nov-Roz or Eid. Happy Christmas to you all.
#24I think that Prager's argument would be that by swearing on a Koran, Ellison would be affirming that he places Sharia law ahead of the U.S. Constitution and laws.
I don't know that I agree with that. Certainly, if Ellison violated his oath he wouldn't be entitled to claim the fact that he made it with his hand on a Koran not a Bible. The whole point is to require an oath, and using scripture was to have the oath made on something the individual considers holy, or before God. If he doesn't hold the object sacred, what significance does it have?
Do Prager and his apologists not realize that Prager's argument ("If you are incapable of taking an oath on [the Christian Bible], don't serve in Congress") is blatantly unconstitutional? Or do they simply not care?
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."