As described in this dire warning by a stalwart defender of American culture:
Wow. Maybe you should try breathing into a paper bag until the hyperventalation subsides, Dennis.
Or, if you can’t find a paper bag, feel free to use plastic.
Wow.
It’s hard to know where to begin.
Oh, wait, I know where: Dennis is a fucking moron.
Dag, yo. I bet the folks at al-Qaeda are feeling pretty silly now. Blowing up buildings, sending their best fighters on suicide missions, and all they needed to do was to get someone elected to Congress so they could swear in on the Koran.
Maybe they could’ve even arranged to be sworn in before providing evidence at a trial; no need to waste all that money on campaigning!
Shame the Founders didn’t see this simple threat to their design so they could’ve taken steps against it, but I guess this America thing’s had a good run, and probably been lucky to avoid heathens in Congress for this long.
:rolleyes:
That’s truly bizarre. Near as I can make it out, the basis for the columnist’s rant is the claim that the Bible is the official American book of swearing-in.
Probably a stupid question – is there any legal basis for that assertion at all? Surely not, and if so, we really oughta fix that.
Do those members of Congress who affirm rather than swear use a Bible at all?
Yeah, you’re fine to believe in the Koran in your personal life, but you’d sure as hell better be a Christian if you want to play a part in government!
I’d use a rolleyes, but that’s for unimportant things. This guy’s a bigoted moron.
Seems to me that this Dennis Prager moron hasn’t read the Constitution which he undoubtedly holds sacred.
Last paragraph of Article VI, United States Constitution:
Seems to me that making someone swear on a holy book that is not their own is pretty close to a “religious test”.
After all, atheists get to do an affirmation or some such, so why can’t Muslims swear on the Koran, or Jews on the Torah, etc…
The point of the bible at the swearing-in is to solemnize it, not to affirm any kind of religion.
Reading the comments to the article on the site are withering what remains of my soul, so read them at your own risk.
Of course there’s no legal basis for Dennis’ latest idiocy. The Constitution expressly prohibts religious tests for office, and expressly allows the use of an affirmation instead of an oath in order to accomodate people with religious objections to the latter.
In any case, given Congresscritters’ record for taking the oath of office seriously, they might as well swear them in on a copy of The Book of the Sub-Genius
while playing “Yakity Sax”.
We don’t swear, particularly with the Torah. We “do so affirm” as the poster mentioned above.
That’s a dare, right? Because of your quote, I went ahead and read a few. After reading the first two, I wanted to ask “What’s wrong with those comments?” Then I read the third one:
My brane shrunk too sizes that day.
I’d like to think that Dennis Prager’s article was meant as satire, in the style of Jonathan Swift. The alternative is that Prager is a complete idiot.
Actually, I think the third one is a parody (For my sake, please let it be a parody!). So the first two/three were alright. I was beginning to think that maybe there was a reasonable audience for this guy.
Then I read further down the page.
I think you’ve been whooshed – the phrase “green flat-universe centering earth” rather gives it away.
Let’s pray on a stack of Sagan, Dawkins, and Gardner that it is.
I don’t think Prager would know the meaning of “satire” without a dictionary. Or even then.
A reform Jew would probably also swear on the Bible, just one without the New Testament.
By the way, it may come as a surprise to some of you that Prager is Jewish. My step-mother gave me one of his books over ten years ago. It wasn’t my cup of tea but it was interesting. As I recall it was essays that answered moral questions. His answers were religiously (Old Testament) based but there was no evidence of the assholish bigotry he has been showing lately. The man is an embarrassment.
The aftermath of 9/11 keeps on exposing an endless, and growing seam of ignorance that never ceases to shock me.
I wonder though, the assertion that Jews have to swear on the Bible - is that true?
It’s burningly stupid, of course. But also IMO it doesn’t make any sense. (Surprise!)
If you wanted a person to take a binding oath to do a particular thing, wouldn’t you want that person to take the oath in a way that would make it binding on him or her? Assuming we’re talking about a person of faith who considers it A Big Deal to swear/affirm an oath before their God and/or on their holy scripture – well then, heck, it’s by their God and their holy scripture I want the oath taken. As a Christian, demanding that I take an oath by Cthulu’s Big Book is silly – I don’t believe in it and I’d no more feel bound by it than if I was swearing on the IKEA catalog.
The guy’s not a Christian; he’s a Muslim. If he feels that it is appropriate to take a faith-based oath, then certainly he should take it in light of the faith he actually practices. An oath taken any other way will certainly mean less and may in fact be meaningless – if he would take it at all, which he probably wouldn’t (as neither would I).
I suppose you’re right. All the more is the pity that I couldn’t distinguish it from all of the genuine fucknuttery that was posted.