prager university

[CanuckMA]

Here is dennis pragers column on the congressman swearing in on the Koran instead of the bible.

http://townhall.com/columnists/Denn...des_what_book_a_congressman_takes_his_oath_on


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.
Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. 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. 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. 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?

My star wars, footy pajamas are now on, so good night.

So I would not be able to use a Torah?

Only some of America regard the Xtian bible as their holiest book.

 

[Blade96]

So I would not be able to use a Torah?

Only some of America regard the Xtian bible as their holiest book.

good question considering you're Jewish, so by Bill's argument if you were in america you'd have to use the bible and who cared if you didnt follow that religion, you'd be forced to use that book.

 

[billc]

From the aricle on the bible:

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. 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.


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.

From me: At a minimum, tradition, and by not doing it the way everyone else has done it, it is disrespectful of that tradition.

 

[Tez3]

So I would not be able to use a Torah?

Only some of America regard the Xtian bible as their holiest book.

I imagine that would include a great many Native Americans?

 

[granfire]

From the aricle on the bible:

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. 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.


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.

From me: At a minimum, tradition, and by not doing it the way everyone else has done it, it is disrespectful of that tradition.

Stop and think of that for a second:
Swearing an oath on something that is not important or relevant in your believes, how good is that oath?!

 

[Tez3]

Bill, you seem to have simplified it all again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur'an_oath_controversy_of_the_110th_United_States_Congress


"The United States Congress does not officially swear anyone in using any holy book, "No Member of Congress is officially sworn in with a Bible. Under House rules, the official swearing-in ceremony is done in the House chambers, with the Speaker of the House administering the oath of office en masse. No Bibles or other holy books are used at all"



"In 1825, John Quincy Adams took the presidential oath using a law volume [that contained a copy of the Constitution] instead of a Bible, and in 1853, Franklin Pierce affirmed the oath rather than swearing it. Herbert Hoover, citing his Quaker beliefs, also affirmed his oath in 1929 but did use a Bible, according to the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies. Theodore Roosevelt used no Bible in taking his first oath of office in 1901, but did in 1905."[21] Other sources have noted that after John F. Kennedy was assassinated a Catholic Missal was used as no Bible could be found when Lyndon B. Johnson (who was not even Catholic himself, but a Disciple of Christ[26]) had to assume the Presidency"

"Prager's Nov. 28, 2006 article claimed that "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".[3] While for all of American history Jews elected to public office have indeed taken their oath on the Bible, several American members of Judaism elected to political office "have departed from the [Christian] Bible as well. Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle used the Tanakh when she took her oath in 2002, and Madeleine Kunin placed her hand on Jewish prayer books when she was sworn in as the first female governor of Vermont in 1985."[21] In the Federal Congress Debbie Wasserman Schultz also used a Tanakh (see above), as did Ed Koch (D-NY) who served in the US House from 1969 to 1977.[34] Likewise, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) who is now entering his seventeenth term of office, stated "he had never used a [Christian] Bible at his own swearing-in ceremonies."


Of course this is the bit I like.

"Mohammad Sarwar — the United Kingdom's first Muslim Member of Parliament — was elected in the 1997 general election. He swore the Oath of Allegiance on the Qur'an"[ with no notable controversy or criticismhttp://martialtalk.com/forum/#cite_note-Koch-33

 

[billc]

idn't swear by it, because I believe he was a Quaker. That's a very different story."[28] On "Hannity and Colmes" Prager stated "The only president who did not have a Bible was Theodore Roosevelt, first term, and it was because [President William] McKinley had just been shot. Every president used a Bible.

In the Federal Congress Debbie Wasserman Schultz also used a Tanakh (see above), as did Ed Koch (D-NY) who served in the US House from 1969 to 1977.[34] Likewise, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) who is now entering his seventeenth term of office, stated "he had never used a [Christian] Bible at his own swearing-in ceremonies."[34]

When asked about this Prager said these "Jewish officeholders who had insisted on the Hebrew Bible were "secularists" who didn't believe what was in it anyway."[33]

When confronted on November 30, 2006 CNN's Paula Zahn Now by Eugene Volokh with the fact that "[Associate] Justice [of the Supreme Court, Arthur] Goldberg used the Tanakh, the Jewish Bible." Prager responded "Justice Goldberg used [the] Old Testament, which is part of the American Bible." Volokh began to point out that the lack of New Testament in Goldberg's Bible proved that Prager's assertions were mistaken, but was cut off as the segment ran out of time.[28]

In his Dec. 5, 2006 article Prager again acknowledged some Jews had used the Tanakh, "Even the vast majority of Jews elected to office have used a Bible containing both the Old and New Testaments, even though Jews do not regard the New Testament as part of their Bible. A tiny number of Jews have used only the Old Testament. As a religious Jew, I of course understand their decision, but I disagree with it."[5]

 

[CanuckMA]

I would never get close to a Xtian bible. And Jews don't swear, they affirm. The idea of using your religious text is that you are taking your oath in the presence and the name of your G-d. If I have to use a Xtian bible might as well use a phone book.

Believe me, I understand tradition. Very likely more than you. But forcing non-Xtians to use your bible because of 'tradition' is downright insulting and I'd say verges on bigotry. It can also be viewed as setting a religious text.

Contrary to Prager's assertion, it is the Jews who used the Xtian bible that were secularist and did not care. The ones insisting on a Hebrew bible cared a lot more about religion.

 

[Tez3]

idn't swear by it, because I believe he was a Quaker. That's a very different story."[28] On "Hannity and Colmes" Prager stated "The only president who did not have a Bible was Theodore Roosevelt, first term, and it was because [President William] McKinley had just been shot. Every president used a Bible.

In the Federal Congress Debbie Wasserman Schultz also used a Tanakh (see above), as did Ed Koch (D-NY) who served in the US House from 1969 to 1977.[34] Likewise, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) who is now entering his seventeenth term of office, stated "he had never used a [Christian] Bible at his own swearing-in ceremonies."[34]

When asked about this Prager said these"Jewish officeholders who had insisted on the Hebrew Bible were "secularists" who didn't believe what was in it anyway."[33]

When confronted on November 30, 2006 CNN's Paula Zahn Now by Eugene Volokh with the fact that "[Associate] Justice [of the Supreme Court, Arthur] Goldberg used the Tanakh, the Jewish Bible." Prager responded "Justice Goldberg used [the] Old Testament, which is part of the American Bible." Volokh began to point out that the lack of New Testament in Goldberg's Bible proved that Prager's assertions were mistaken, but was cut off as the segment ran out of time.[28]

In his Dec. 5, 2006 article Prager again acknowledged some Jews had used the Tanakh, "Even the vast majority of Jews elected to office have used a Bible containing both the Old and New Testaments, even though Jews do not regard the New Testament as part of their Bible. A tiny number of Jews have used only the Old Testament. As a religious Jew, I of course understand their decision, but I disagree with it."[5]

What a ridiculous argument, firstly it's all Jews have used the Bible then when it's pointed out that some haven't so it's 'well they aren't real Jews'. If he really were a religious Jew he'd know that using a Bible would carry as much weight as a dictionary in making the oath religiously valid, it's truly a farce.

Nothing this man Prager says is anything other than glory and publicity seeking. He's laughable.

 

[billc]

He didn't say they weren't "real" jews, he said they were secular jews. State level office holders are not the same as federal office holders as each state has their own constitution and traditions and practices. In each case, at the federal level an element of judeo christian belief is part of the ceremony, and remember, these people are already sworn in so it is not a religous test. Praeger also does not say he should be kept from serving, it is, in my opinion a flaunting of tradition. The notion that other texts may start popping up in the ceremonies is also valid. We'll see what happens in the future, once that door is opened you never know what will walk in.

For example, now that Don't ask, don't tell has been repealed, the move for putting women in frontline infantry combat is starting up. Just heard that on the news. Change tradition slowly or you won't like what you get in the future.

 

[billc]

Well, communism, in its practice is evil. It has been tried around the world, by different cultures and has produced destruction on a massive scale. You do not see communim as evil. Howard Zinn answered the question with " I don't Know," you essentially did as well. That is two out of three of his points where you line up with liberal thinking. Would the world be a better or worse place without the United States having existed is a question that reveals a basic view of the united states and its contribution to the world. It doesn't seem that Zinn gave an on the one hand or other hand response, just " I don't Know." If you see the united states on balance as a positive force for good, the anwser is easy. the world would be worse off without its existence.
If you see america as no better, and in a lot of ways worse than other countries than an "I don't know," is probably an answer that best reflects that viewpoint. It is sort of an ink blot test.

 

[Tez3]

Well, communism, in its practice is evil. It has been tried around the world, by different cultures and has produced destruction on a massive scale. You do not see communim as evil. Howard Zinn answered the question with " I don't Know," you essentially did as well. That is two out of three of his points where you line up with liberal thinking. Would the world be a better or worse place without the United States having existed is a question that reveals a basic view of the united states and its contribution to the world. It doesn't seem that Zinn gave an on the one hand or other hand response, just " I don't Know." If you see the united states on balance as a positive force for good, the anwser is easy. the world would be worse off without its existence.
If you see america as no better, and in a lot of ways worse than other countries than an "I don't know," is probably an answer that best reflects that viewpoint. It is sort of an ink blot test.

Who is this aimed at and what are you actually saying?

 

[billc]

Sorry, responding to Elder.

 

[CanuckMA]

The notion that other texts may start popping up in the ceremonies is also valid. We'll see what happens in the future, once that door is opened you never know what will walk in.

Other text have been used in the past. Never was a problem.

 

[Tez3]

He didn't say they weren't "real" jews, he said they were secular jews. State level office holders are not the same as federal office holders as each state has their own constitution and traditions and practices. In each case, at the federal level an element of judeo christian belief is part of the ceremony, and remember, these people are already sworn in so it is not a religous test. Praeger also does not say he should be kept from serving, it is, in my opinion a flaunting of tradition. The notion that other texts may start popping up in the ceremonies is also valid. We'll see what happens in the future, once that door is opened you never know what will walk in.

For example, now that Don't ask, don't tell has been repealed, the move for putting women in frontline infantry combat is starting up. Just heard that on the news. Change tradition slowly or you won't like what you get in the future.

I'm sorry but you are talking from a country who's 'traditions' are younger than my garden wall. We have tradtions but can change them as you can see by allowing a Moslum PM to take his oath on the Koran, nobody thought it odd, in fact it would have been odd if he had not.
Our armed forces have been taking gays legally for a long time now, no problems and our army and navy are considerable older and have far more 'traditions' than yours.

For a young country America is very staid and prudish as well as being old fashioned, where's the revolutionary fire you had when you started, to be new, to be free from 'traditions', to be your own country?

 

[granfire]

Frankly, I think they ought to swear on the constitution, I don't care if God or their Mother-in-law helps them...

 

[Blade96]

I'm sorry but you are talking from a country who's 'traditions' are younger than my garden wall.

For a young country America is very staid and prudish as well as being old fashioned, where's the revolutionary fire you had when you started, to be new, to be free from 'traditions', to be your own country?

Newfoundland has traditions that are older than America. and we're just a little tiny island.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

For a young country America is very staid and prudish as well as being old fashioned, where's the revolutionary fire you had when you started, to be new, to be free from 'traditions', to be your own country?

Not everything needs to, or should, change.

 

[Tez3]

Not everything needs to, or should, change.

One should be open minded about change, sometimes it's needful, sometimes it's not.
To get entrenched though isn't a good thing. If some people hadn't thought change was a good thing would you still have segregation?

 

[elder999]

the communists who committed evil will more than likely not believe they are actually doing evil, the same with most evil actions. Talk to anyone who is involved with criminals, they will probably tell you the same thing.

Remember that.

I want to address this first, though, because it demonstrates a distinct lack of critical thinking on your part, and just downright lazy thinking on Prager’s fault:

Howard Zinn answered the question with " I don't Know," you essentially did as well. That is two out of three of his points where you line up with liberal thinking. Would the world be a better or worse place without the United States having existed is a question that reveals a basic view of the united states and its contribution to the world. It doesn't seem that Zinn gave an on the one hand or other hand response, just " I don't Know." If you see the united states on balance as a positive force for good, the anwser is easy. the world would be worse off without its existence.

If you see america as no better, and in a lot of ways worse than other countries than an "I don't know," is probably an answer that best reflects that viewpoint. It is sort of an ink blot test.

It is no sort of ink blot test at all.

I demonstrated up thread just one of the ways that the world might be better off without the United States ever having been,and how the world might not have needed the U.S.’s contribution. With a little imagination, it’s easy to recognize that if we’d remained British colonies, slavery would have been abolished in 1815, and there would have been no civil war. The British-as in the government of Great Britain, not colonial authorities-also never broke a treaty they made with the Indians-just ask the Mohawk Nation.

One really cannot answer a positive question from a negative supposition, though-any more than we can answer that the world would be better off without having had Nazi Germany, and the unifying influence of their enmity in WWII. “I don’t know” means just that, I don’t know, and how could he? The question is only meant to prejudice the weak minded against Howard Zinn……those of us who can think for ourselves aren't about to wave the flag with our chin, like Hannity:the United States is the greatest, best country God ever gave to man."
Please.

Well, communism, in its practice is evil. It has been tried around the world, by different cultures and has produced destruction on a massive scale. You do not see communim as evil.

Communism, is evil, you can see it in its results. the men who led the communist movements didn't call themselves capitalists, and we didn't have the Union of Capitalist republics. They also didn't set up gulags and death camps because of Adam Smith and the wealth of nations. Adios.

Yes-much evil was done in the name of communism, but are the evils and depredations of Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and their followers the evils of communism, or just those of men? As a case in point, communism is supposed to be a classless society, but none of those places was ever truly “classless.” Indeed, the Soviet Union (of Socialist Republics) made the distinction of calling itself “socialist” because Marx and Lenin called socialism a transitional step towards communism. In the meantime, they were never truly “communist,” they just claimed to be, and that’s what we called them.

On another front, I can list a long line of evils, including gulags and death camps (what you might call “Indian Reservations&#8221 done almost entirely y in the name of capitalism-as well as depredations like mass poisonings, both chronic and acute, as well as their cover ups. I could start, in fact, with Love Canal, in my home state of New York, and continue right through the Bhopal disaster-neither in itself willfully evil or intentional, but their intentional cover up and years long litigations to avoid responsibility were. One can also look to our government’s direct interference in places like Iran-the deliberate unseating of a democratically elected government and replacement with an oppressive monarch that ultimately led to the student uprisings, installation of theocracy and all our current troubles with Iran-just one case of the evil capitalism has sewn being reaped by us all.