I wasn’t really challanging you to defend Christianity, in all its nearly infinite variety. And I don’t believe thatr Jesus expected all his followers, all of the time, to “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.”
However, I’m not sure that it’s completely off topic. Dennis Prager was not only assuming that all of the US should be Christian, but that all should be his variety of Christian, not allowing for any variation such as Christians who would not swear on the Bible, or even Christians who might define the contents of “the Bible” differently (e.g., Protestants vs. Catholics – a Catholic might not want to swear on a copy of the Authorised Version).
Yes – that makes it even odder. He seems to think that the Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible are the same, and that all Jews would be happy to swear of an Christian Bible. All one big happy Judaeo-Christian family, with no differences within the family, and those terrible unAmerican Muslims who dare to have a different “bible” outside it.
(He’ll probably go ballistic when a Buddhist gets elected, and get apoplexy when – saints preserve us – an atheist appears in view.)
But he is not disapproving of Ellison alone; he dismisses any person who would not swear on the Bible. Perhaps Prager’s disapproval stems from the fact that he’s a bigoted moron.
I’m waiting for the day when a president or congressman has the balls to take the oath of office with a hand placed on a copy of the Constitution. Not some religious text.
I just want to add that Prager says nothing about the NOI in his column. The sand in his vagina seems to come solely from the fact that anyone would choose not to swear on the Bible. He actually says that Ellison “should not be allowed” to swear on a Qur’an (allowed by whom, I wonder) and says that anyone who won’t swear on the bible should not be allowed to run for office. Prager’s ignorance of the Constitution (which expressly FORBIDS elected officials from being forced to swear on the Bible) is rather shocking.
Fine, I’m not here to carry Prager’s water - or read his mind. But, for the sake of argiument, perhaps he feels denouncing something you defended as a college student, may be nothing but politically expediant bunk
Duke denounced the KKK & his segregationist beliefs, and though he was a lot more closely associated with his white hate group than Ellison was with NoI, most of us (with the exception of his most hardline supporters) didn’t believe him.
Well then Prager is more than free to denounce that. Still, Ellison was elected by his consituents and none of these reasons should disallow him from serving the people of his district.
You said he was affiliated with the NOI. He wasn’t. Yes, while he was in college he wrote some stuff defending Farrakhan but he claims he was unaware of Fraakhan’s anti-semitism back then. In any case, he has had no association since then and has never defended the anti-semitism. Not only that, but his current Sunni faith itself condemns the NOI.
As a Twin Cities resident, I followed Ellison’s campaign fairly closely and he has always been consistent in condemning NOI beliefs. He’s had to defend himself against his college mistake a lot and he always comes off as quite reasonable, contrite and mature about it, imo. His demeanor and his politics are quite mainstream. He’s no raving radical. I’ve heard more than one person comment on how “normal” he seems after seeing him speak or be interviewed.
I agree with **Diogenes **here. The article says absolutely nothing about the NoI and everything about the Bible being the only book a Congressman should swear upon. This has little to do about Ellison, per se, so much as it has to do wtih anyone who would “dare” to request to swear in on a Koran. It’s a thinly veiled anti-Muslim rant, and he should be condemned unconditionally for fostering such bigotry.
This whole oath with the Koran could be very interesting. As I understand it, the custom is that one must raise his right hand and place his left hand on the scriptures.
