Reading the “talk about it” comments to the OP’s linked story, I got a (scary) education as to the intellect of those who agree with Prager. “Jesus was the 1st American” and “My forefathers died for the right have only one Bible sworn on.” Brilliant. A bit shaky on both history and the simple fact that there’s more than one canon called “Bible” in Christianity.
It is possible to be a strong supporter of Israel without opposing Islam.
There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution to prevent them from swearing on The Book of Mormon. There is also nothing to prevent other Christians from swearing on other texts such as The Book of Common Prayer. or Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.
We were too filled with unimaginable national and personal grief to even notice then. Despite his mistakes, Kennedy was an unusually popular President while he was in office.
According to John Seigenthaler, Sr. of the First Amendment Center in Nashville, Eisenhower was sworn into office the second time on a Bible from the faith that he had been raised in. It was a Watchtower Bible. Eisenhower’s mother, I believe, was a Jehovah’s Witness and so was Ike in his early years. He joined the Presbyterian Church later in life.
I honestly think that Praeger has to be trolling. I used to watch his television show and he wasn’t a stupid man then. It’s possible that dementia has set in, I suppose. Have his other columns been this ignorant lately?
It might have been more considerate of his forefathers to die for that right a bit sooner…
The irony! It burns!!!
There’s no legal reason they couldn’t, but there’s no reason they would need to, either. It’s not like the Book of Mormon holds a superior position to the Bible; they’re both considered equal “Testaments of Jesus Christ.” And I suspect most Mormons would prefer to be sworn in on the Bible (Monty’s comments aside, I think most Mormons would probably just swear the oath rather than do the affirmation, but I know a few who agree with him about the “no swearing oaths” thing). Being sworn in on a Book of Mormon would just be needlessly emphasizing the differences between Mormons and orthodox Christians.
According to post 14 and a couple posts before it, that particular comment appears to be satire. If it’s not, then it’s definitely true that the commenter’s brain drooled out his eyelids years ago, but it reads like biting sarcasm to me.
Still, the other 546 comments (last I checked) seemed to be in overwhelming agreement. I’m thinking that with 99% of them “satire” ends with Police Story.
Yeah, this is true, but the kind of hard-line supporters like Prager (Or Michael Savage, another jerk) always seem to be anti-Muslim as well. These guys are the ones that turn to the conservative Christians, allying with anyone that is against the Muslims. Strange bedfellows, and all that.
Do you mean “Police Squad”, the comedy with Leslie Nielsen? “Police Story” was a serious show back in the late 1970s, if I recall; pretty good show. An anthology, but one of the episodes was popular enough to launch a regular spin-off show – I think. Am I misremembering that? Maybe I should start a thread in Cafe Society. What was the spin-off? I’m thinking it was “Police Woman”. Yeah, right now I’d bet money on that.
A fair number of people, either because of the teachings of their church or because of their own understanding, do not swear oaths or do not swear oaths involving God or holy books. It isn’t all that weird, at least not in North Georgia.
Er, okay, this may not be representative of normalcy now that I think of it.
I encountered a large number of them because I practiced law in a jurisdiction where the practice was for the lawyers to swear in their own witnesses. This means you give the oath, not the baliff like on TV. I learned to find out first and give to oath accordingly. It is embarrassing to have a witness refuse to make an oath, and it is upsetting to the witness who is already in an unfamiliar environment, and it makes the jury think the witness is unreliable, and it amuses the judge to see you sweat. So for many reasons, you learn this quickly.
Some people just won’t take them and will have nothing to do with the book but will affirm, some people will take them and use the book as long as you don’t actually say anything about God. There are a number of variations. After a while you start just having everybody affirm to tell you the truth. Or at least I did. It’s all “sworn testimony” when the Court of Appeals gets it.
A lot of people also like the book, raised hand thing because it gives them some kind of ritualistic comfort in a (to them anyway) fairly scary environment.
Huh. I managed to wade through the first hundred or so and I saw a decent proportion of people arguing against the stupidity. Their posts were the ones displaying a good grasp of language skills, I might add.
I saw a pattern of a handful of posters each making a few attempts to inject some reason and facts into the conversation, only to get shouted down by the mob (who never respond to the substance of anything but just rave about “liberals” being in league with the terrorists.) One or two masochists will soldier on for a while but more of them just throw up and their arms and leave. There isn’t any give and take on that board. Those people are insane.
Wow. Years ago, I used to listen to a program on the radio hosted by Dennis Prager called “Religion on the Line”. He would bring together representatives of various religions into a round table discussion of a different topic each week. I really admired the man for providing a show that allowed civilized discussion of the difference of religious viewpoints.
In reading this article, and reflecting upon the show I used to listen to, I can only hope that there are actually two Dennis Pragers; the man I used to admire and this theocracy-loving nutjob. To realize that they are the same man is horribly disappointing.
Especially nonsensical is the argument, “What would stop him from swearing on a copy of Mein Kampf?”
How about his freaking constituents? The people from Ellison’s district elected him knowing he was a Muslim. If they object to having a Muslim or a Neo-Nazi represent them, the time to do so is during the election.
I find it somewhat amusing that a Congressman will affirm to uphold the constitution while placing his hand on a book that calls for a discriminatory legal code amongst its followers.
Dude, I want to be a Morman! Do I get to talk to fishes and swim really fast and stuff? Also, the women are all really pretty and only wear seashells (if that).
You mean like when they swear by a Bible that endorses slavery and says that women should be submissive to their husbands?
That’s a Merman. But what’s the fun of having all those women wearing sea-shells, if you and the women are fishes from the waist down?
Shit. Anyone offering to do that is guarnteed my vote!
The New Testament while perhaps accepting slavery, does not promote it. As far as wifely submission goes, that is merely a recomendation for Christians only. There is nothing political or subversive to the powers that be at the time of writing or the US Constitution in the New Testament. After all, the US Constitution and its amendments were drafted right under the noses of a Christian majority.
The Koran on the other hand lays out specific laws to be applied to non adherents.