Nov. 30, 2006
Swearing In By The Koran?
NRO: The Constitution Protects Multiculturalism
-
(AP)
-
Interactive The Fundamentals Of Islam Learn about the Muslim religion and find out where the largest Muslim populations live in the U.S. and around the world.
-
Interactive Campaign 2006 Complete coverage and analysis of Senate and key House races, plus gubernatorial elections.
The U.S. Constitution is a multiculturalist document. Not in all senses, of course: It tries to forge a common national culture as well as tolerating other cultures. But it is indeed multiculturalist in important ways.
We shouldn't forget that when we're tempted to categorically condemn supposedly multiculturalist changes to our constitutional practices.
Consider what Dennis Prager — whose work I often much like — wrote in his most recent column:
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.
He should not be allowed to do so — not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.
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.
This argument both mistakes the purpose of the oath, and misunderstands the Constitution. In fact, it calls for the violation of some of the Constitution's multiculturalist provisions.
To begin with, the oath is a religious ritual, both in its origins and its use by the devout today. The oath invokes God as a witness to one's promise, as a means of making the promise more weighty on the oathtaker's conscience.
This is why, for instance, the Federal Rules of Evidence, dealing with the related subject of the courtroom oath, state, "Before testifying, every witness shall be required to declare that the witness will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation administered in a form calculated to awaken the witness' conscience and impress the witness' mind with the duty to do so."
If you want the oath to be maximally effective, then it is indeed entirely true that "all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book." That book is the one that will most impress the oathtaker's mind with the duty to comply with the oath.
Of course, some might care less about making the oath more effective, and more about using the oath to reinforce traditional American values, in which they include respect for the Bible (the "only ... book" "America is interested in") over other holy books. That, I take it, is part of Prager's argument, especially when he goes on to say, "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."
Yet this would literally violate the Constitution's provision that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." For the devout, taking an oath upon a religious book is a religious act. Requiring the performance of a religious act using the holy book of a particular religion is a religious test. If Congress were indeed to take the view that "If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book [the Bible], don't serve in Congress," it would be imposing an unconstitutional religious test.
By Eugene Volokh
Reprinted with permission from National Review Online.
 | America's Premier Site for Conservative News, Analysis, and Opinion. |
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- next
See all 84 CommentsMuslims countrys who sympathize with Islamic terrorists don't put their terrorist murders in jail.
The US government has never bombed Lebanon, Palestine (which never has been a country) or Chechnya. The US bombed Iraq and Afghanistan after Islamic terrorists attacked the US on 9/11.
Hisbollah did murder 249 US marines in the bombing of the marine barracks in Lebanon. They were in Lebanon as peace-keepers. The US did nothing about those murders, but we couldn't just forget about 9/11
However that doesn't mean to me that American people are bad. They are still the most generous people on Earth!
They donated millions of dollars to help people (and many Muslims) when the Tsunami struck Muslim Indonesia...because generosity and charity (a pillar of Islam) knows no cultural boundaries.
Likewise many Muslim gov't including 3rd world Indonesia sent aid to Hurricane victims of Katrina. They said they were returning the favor and helping Americans rebuild knowing 1st hand the misery and hopelessness.
Over a BILLION dollars were given to the victims by the Muslim countries of the Middle East including Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan, Indonesia, Turkey, etc...(who sometimes wouldn't spend that amount money on their own people).
Are you willing to see the good which overwhelmes the sporadic and sensationalistic 'terrorism' (overlooking MUCH LARGER STATE TERRORISM)?
Again sorry for the lecture and tone...but I get very passionate about my faith and will be willing to defend it and its inherent spiritual peace it gives me.
Peace.
Andy
Oh but he wasn't a Muslim, a jew, a hindu, or agnostic was he? He was a self-proclaimed Christian and made it known many times to be doing God's work against the 'oppressive' government.
Your dismissal of McVeigh as a "murderer" and "criminal" and not to give the same "criminal" regard to those Muslim terrorist speaks volumes...However unlike McVeigh neither was he bombed by the US gov't or his brethren killed by the US gov't in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Chechnya, etc.
Remember the mujahadeen proclaimed as "freedom fighters" by Pres. Reagan to use them as proxies against Soviets only to call them terrorists after the proxies turned on them for their support of Israel.
"There are still many terrorists who murdered innocents and never even served a day in jail because Islam sympathised with them and let them walk around scot free."
LOL. Islam is not a living entity...it can't put people in jail anymore that it can let them out. :)
Here are some murderers and facts to ponder:
Number of people killed by Muslim terrorists in the last 50 years: Less than 5,000.
Number of Muslims killed by US gov't under Bush only: 600,000+ (just think of Shock and Awe). And before crying they were "liberated" ask Iraqis if they feel liberated.
I think you need to continue reading THE RIGHT sources. You're of researching from sites that match your pre-existing notion of Islam, morality, spirituality, civilization, etc...
Keep looking and challenge you're pre-judgements. I've read many websites and books from detractors of Islam (and trust me, some of the arguments used against Muslims and Islam are the same recycled arguments used for millenia from Europe which always have viewed Muslims from a prism of threat and hostility...)
If your are truly "objective" as you say, then God will help you find it, otherwise if you've made up your mind then there is nothing I can do to help. Sorry...
I found this one tradition of Prophet Muhammad instructing Ali, his nephew:
In Islamic rules of warfare, one isn't to take a life out of anger, and this is reflected in a tradition in which Ali (Muhammad's nephew) forced himself to refrain from killing a man whom he defeated in battle, simply because he realized that anger would motivate his action. Of course, Saddam isn't much of a Muslim. For whatever reason, there's an atmosphere of chaos and apathy in many of the Arab states. Maybe it's a vacuum left after European control, who knows. It's politics, not religion.
Peace and goodnight.
Exactly the Meccans were routed. The largest, well-armed army of Arabia with 1,200 men and hundreds of horses routed by a ragtag group of Muslims numbering 1/4 their size (313 badly armed). The night before the battle, Prophet Muhammad humbled himself all night crying to God and beseeching his help, "Oh Allah (God) if we were to lose this battle, then there would be no one left to carry on your message to the people. You've chosen me as your messenger and you're the best protector and judge."
In another instance when he entered Mecca victorious over the powerful Meccan-pagan army (the very people who drove him out of his home and killed and tortured his disciples) he lowered his head in respect and offered a blanket amnesty FORGIVING his OPPRESSORS. Upon seeing this (which wasn't the custom of the time since to victor belongs the spoils), many idolaters converted to Islam.
I kid you not, go look up this indeputable facts in any well-respected historical books.
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:0rUjiaPE77EJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Badr+badr muslims numbering&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
Not to mention the fact that so many peaceful and toerant muslims celebrated when 9/11 happened.
And to quote me the bible is a waste of time. I really don't care about the bible. It has no realtion to anything happening in the world today.
Sounds just like Hitler and the Nazis to me."
With the exception that 6 million people weren't butchered, put into the oven, their blood wasn't running as high as horses knees as in the Crusades, women and children weren't killed in their homes as in the Inquisition, entire peoples weren't eradicated with small pox and violently converted under guns as during the Christian Conquistadors in Central and South America.
So yeah I'd wear differential signs anytime (during the 700s century by an UNISLAMIC ruler al-Mutawakkil) than be gunned down, getting a disease, my land robbed of gold, or driven out of my land!!!!!!!
I love it how you quote the Koran trying to prove its "violence" when what you're actually doing is proving the ways it actually limits violence by punishing the mischief-makers and criminals. Does or does not the federal gov't have a death penalty for criminals and imprisonment for those who fight the US gov't?
The verse IS NOT saying kill randomly those who are innocent or disbelievers who are NOT fighting you.
But your focus on the holy Koran is amusing since you overlook the Bible because "Christian fanatics" didn't attack the US (Oh yea, David Koresh's fight was against the Mexican gov't? And Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols attacked a Canadian gov't buidling because of their Jewish faith! LoL.)
Consider Bible 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
However unlike you, I understand the context...so I know if properly understood, both the original Gospel and the holy Koran's message can be perverted.
I love it how you quote the Koran trying to prove its "violence" when what you're actually doing is proving the ways it actually limits violence by punishing the mischief-makers and criminals. Does or does not the federal gov't have a death penalty for criminals and imprisonment for those who fight the US gov't?
The verse IS NOT saying kill randomly those who are innocent or disbelievers who are NOT fighting you.
But your focus on the holy Koran is amusing since you overlook the Bible because "Christian fanatics" didn't attack the US (Oh yea, David Koresh's fight was against the Mexican gov't? And Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols attacked a Canadian gov't buidling because of their Jewish faith! LoL.)
Consider Bible 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
However unlike you, I understand the context...so I know if properly understood, both the original Gospel and the holy Koran's message can be used by anyone to find justification for their fight.
I say again that the uS military and US government is not a religion.
No one is comparing a religion to a "military."
I'm comparing your absurd generalization when Muslims protest (albeit only 1%) and overwhelmingly peacefully (though the likes of FoxNews like to portray it as violent b/c of one churchburning and one nun dead) to that of the generalization of US military invading a Muslim country and killing thousands with SHOCK AND AWE and then you have the audacity of lecturing me about my religion being violent?
West produced the greatest wars and killings in human history, World War I and World War II killing over 50,000,000 HUMAN beings. Islam never produced the Holocaust. IT never produced the Inquisition, the thousands of witch-burnings, the bloody colonialist murders and plundering of their wealth.
Muhammad was enraged at their criticism. When he heard the verses composed by Asma Bint Marwan he was infuriated and screamed aloud, "Will no one rid me of this daughter of Marwan!" That very night a gang of Muslims set out to do the dirty deed. They broke into the poets' house. She was lying in in her bedroom suckling her newborn child, while her other small children slept nearby. The Muslims tore the newborn infant off her breast and hacked it to pieces before her very eyes. They then made her watch the murder of all four of her children, before raping and then stabbing her repeatedly to death. After the murder when the Muslims went to inform the Prophet, he said "You have done a service to Allah and his Messenger, her life was not worth even two goats!"
Muhammad, the founder of Islam, traveled to Medina in 622 A.D. to attract followers to his new faith. When the Jews of Medina refused to convert and rejected Muhammad, two of the major Jewish tribes were expelled; in 627, Muhammad's followers killed between 600 and 900 of the men, and divided the surviving Jewish women and children amongst themselves.
The Muslim attitude toward Jews is reflected in various verses throughout the Koran, According to the Koran, the Jews try to introduce corruption (5:64), have always been disobedient (5:78), and are enemies of Allah, the Prophet and the angels (2:97-98).
He gave orders that any of their houses of worship built after the advent of Islam were to be destroyed and that one-tenth of their homes be confiscated. If the place was spacious enough, it was to be converted into a mosque. If it was not suitable for a mosque, it was to be made an open space. He commanded that wooden images of devils be nailed to the doors of their homes to distinguish them from the homes of Muslims.
Sounds just like Hitler and the Nazis to me.
[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
5.51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.
This is what the Koran as spoken through the prophet says about Jews and Christians and non-believers.
The Pope was speaking at a college and he is German so I really don't see what that has to do with anything.
Of course, it can't be the muslims fault that people around the world find them violent and intolerant of others, can it?
As for "And then the Islamic community going on a rampage over the Pope's speech makes my case on its own."
Your case? And what's that? They are violent? Then the American military going on a rampage in attacking Iraq and threatening Syria and Iran...all countries that haven't attacked it, so they may "pre-empt" a future attack is also proof of inherent American gov't violent ways.
And lets not forget the generalization of the military that sextually tortures and kills its victims in Abu Gharaib. How many more Abu Ghraibs, torture, secret prisons in Europe, Guantanamo Bays are there that the American people don't know about?
The fact of course there were anti-pope protests directly as a result of Ratzinger's comment, but by far and LARGE THEY WERE PEACEFUL. But oh yea, peaceful protests don't make it on the news. Only violence and one death here, one church-fire there makes it. Did you read the news of Florida's Muslims collecting money to rebuilt the doors of the only church that was attacked? Oh I forgot how could you, that doesn't make the news!!!
The world really misses John Paul II, there was a true, humble Christian man who actually respected Muslims and backed that respect with kind deeds such as kissing the holy Koran.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- next
See all 84 Comments