I just received this today. I went onto this website, and wrote a letter saying Madonna SHOULD be allowed to air on Thanksgiving (sure, it was a little after the fact…shhhh! Don’t tell anyone).
First, it begins with the usual twaddle:
Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your entire email list of family and friends.
A first for America...The Koran replaces the Bible at swearing-in oath
What book will America base it's values on, the Bible or the Koran?
Bad news: America bases it’s values on English common law, which was in effect by the 7th century, two centuries prior to Christianity arriving.
America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on By Dennis Prager - Tuesday, November 28, 2006 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.
That pesky ole First Amendment in action.He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.
No, it loosens the stranglehold of your religion.First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- my culture trumps America's culture.
Fucktard. America IS a mulitcutural oasis.
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.
First Amendment again. Man, how annoying.Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is.
Any more than we should give a hoot about your book.
Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.
Apparently, these idiots haven’t read the Constitution. ‘No religious oaths will be required to hold office’. Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress.
Ummm…Strom Thurmond? Trent Lott? David Duke? Howzabout Woodrow Wilson?
Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison's right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?
Easy. Mein Kampf isn’t a religious book. Playing the race card, and badly too.Of course, Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either.
Jews believe in the Talmud. Which parts are contained in the bible. Short version: nobody had a choice. In a free country, that’s a BAD thing.
Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible. Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of "Dianetics" by L. Ron Hubbard.
I say we dump the whole religious swearing in thing altogether. It violates the Separation of Church and State.So why are we allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done -- choose his own most revered book for his oath?
Maybe because it’s the 21st century? We need to scotch this stupid tradition anywhoways.
The answer is obvious -- Ellison is a Muslim. And whoever decides these matters, not to mention virtually every editorial page in America, is not going to offend a Muslim. In fact, many of these people argue it will be a good thing because Muslims around the world will see what an open society America is and how much Americans honor Muslims and the Koran.
It is a good thing in some ways. This argument appeals to all those who believe that one of the greatest goals of America is to be loved by the world, and especially by Muslims because then fewer Muslims will hate us (and therefore fewer will bomb us).
Really, playing the racism card again. Wait: you’re against people LOVING us? But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible. In fact, the opposite is more likely: Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America.
Oh, sure, they’ll be lining up with bombs in hand, sniffing weakness. Islamicization? Are we even living in the same country?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. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11. It is hard to believe that this is the legacy most Muslim Americans want to bequeath to America. But if it is, it is not only Europe that is in trouble. (End Commentary)
“Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel” – Samuel Johnson
“I have often expressed my sentiments that every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience. “George Washington, letter to the General Committee of the United Baptist Churches in Virginia, May, 1789
Let’s get this straight: I’m against the concept of theocracy. The bible played a role in the days of our Founders, but by NO MEANS are we beholden to that ancient book of fables. Ninety percent of the morals we live by have been in good standing in other countries that have never drunk deeply of the draught of Christianity. Secular countries have LESSER rates of crime, and higher instances of morality.
This is the weary old canard again: hate the difference. I’m not a big fan of Islam, by any stretch: I am also against Christianity. Invoking the looming sceptre of ‘Islamofascism’ is a fascist manuever, in and of itself. Fearmongering like this is a piss-poor effort to put the heel on the neck of the populace.
Using this as my barometer, I came up with six out of fourteen signs that this is blackshirt propaganda.
Count ‘em yourself, and see what you come up with.