The Koran or the Bible?

Dennis Prager has sparked a vigorous and sometimes unfortunately contentious debate about newly-elected representative Keith Ellison's stated intent to use the Koran when he's sworn in to office next month.  We've discussed this a lot in the office, and we don't all agree, actually.  Here's my thinking on this at this point - with two opinions.  (Call me indecisive, if you like.)

Two fundamental questions have to be answered before answering the question:  What is the nature of the ceremony?  What is the purpose of using the Bible?

The ceremony is clearly a secular one so the issue of religious expression is moot since it's not a religious ceremony.  Ellison's religion freedom isn't at issue here.  His First Amendment rights could be infringed only if the ceremony in question is religious.

As a friend of mine pointed out, the Constitution doesn't say anything about the use of the Bible or any book at the swearing in, so this isn't a Constitutional question.  There's no law for or against this custom so it's not a legal question.   It's a question of tradition and symbolism.  And we can only ask an elected official to observe the tradition, and we would hope that any elected official serving the people of the United States would respect the traditions that have served this country well and provided the philosophical foundations for our freedom.  It's perfectly legitimate to ask this of Ellison and that is what Prager has done. 

George Washington instigated the custom at his inauguration and many elected officials have followed suit, but I'm not aware of any explanation for the purpose of the Bible at an inauguration.  We do use the Bible in other situations where an oath is taken, so I use the purpose in those cases as precedent for the use of the Bible at a swearing-in ceremony.  I think the purpose of the Bible is to provide a higher authority to secure the oath being taken.  If that is the case, then I think there is an argument to allow the person to use the religious book they are beholden to as their higher authority.  Someone would obviously not feel any obligation to an authority they don't submit to.  But it could only be a religious book since secular books don't represent a higher authority.  Even some religious books, by their nature, don't have a higher authority.  So the possible books would be fairly narrow.

If the Bible is meant to be symbolic of the principles our country was founded on, as Prager argues, then he has a point.  But then why wouldn't an elected official be able to use any number of books beside the Bible that influenced our Founders and the principles they derived from these sources?  It wasn't only the Bible, though certainly the Bible was the primary religious source of influence on their thinking.

A similar course of reasoning to Prager's (and maybe this is what he's getting at) is the secular religion that has been recognized in our country since its founding.  This is described and documented well in Jon Meacham's book American Gospel.  The precedent is set in the Declaration of Independence when it acknowledges God as the source of the rights government must recognize.  This kind of religion is not enough to save anyone, but it has been an important influence in our country and our founding principles that inform our form of government.  This is the idea behind Thanksgiving and days of prayer and fasting.  It's what is invoked when a speech concludes "God bless the United States of America."  It's what motivated the Congress to sing "God Bless America" on the steps of the capitol after the attacks on September 11.  And clearly our secular religion has been based on Judeo-Christianity, and the Bible has been the source of the principles in our secular religion. 

So in that context, it seems to me that it is very legitimate, even preferable, to ask public officials to use the Bible, rather than another religious book, as a way of respecting and recognizing the foundations of our country and the principles we value, even revere.  George Washington's choice of the Bible probably represented this kind of thinking; it wasn't a personal expression of his own faith.  No other religious book could produce this kind of government.  It was a public expression of a book that has provided the undergirding for a form of government that has served our country very well for over 200 years.

The answer of what we should ask of Keith Ellison really depends on what the purpose of the book is at the ceremony.  My preference is that Ellison and others use the Bible or no book at all as a sign of respect for our heritage.  The impulse to cite individual rights is a reflex in our country; I think it would be preferable to approach this question from the perspective of respecting our country and history.  That kind of respect is what secures individual rights for the future.

Comments

[Robert Casteline]

As I stated in an earlier post, I think Praeger is wrong in his conclusion, while I respect the reasons. I think if, as you argue in one aspect of your post, that this is an inference towards a Higher Power, then it must be towards the HP that actually has influence in the indivual's life, not an HP of a contrary nature. I would suspect that Keith Ellison believes as most Muslims that Jesus was a prophet, but certainly Jesus was not the most important of the prophets. If, as most Muslims believe, Ellison thinks the Christian scriptures have been compromised in their authenticity, it would be absolutely wrong for him to swear to God on a book that he knows is flawed.

I remember Greg previously talking about prayers at a governmental gathering and people getting all bent out of shape because the Christian offered a Christian prayer. Greg noted that if the Buddhist prayed, he should give a Buddhist prayer; the Muslim, a Muslim one; etc, etc. How is this any different? If you are being asked to swear in a public forum, swear toward the HP that you honor and everyone else should chill out and just eat their spinach.

[Truth Seeker]

Good Day Melinda,

Thanks for the posting. I read the whole story about this over on a couple news stations and thought about it for a while. I see your position on it and I agree with much of what you are saying.

I wanted to add something else into the mix if I may? For an elected official to use a certain book has significant meaning. For elected officials in America it means that we pledge our oath on the Bible signifying that we adhere to the Judeo-Christian values, which I believe you alluded to in your post, upon which our government and way of life are based upon.

However, in this case, the elected official is pledging his oath on a book that is representing something that is foreign and contrary to our value system. For Islam, and nations who are Islamic, the Quran is representive of the Sharia law system, which is contrary to our system of laws on many points. Islamic law also is contrary and polar to democratic law.

So all that to say that many may not trust this elected official to uphold the laws of this land or to enact laws that are beneficial to this land, simply because he swoar an oath under the pretext of the Quran. If he were to go contrary, which I am not saying he will do, to the laws of this land, he can simply claim that he swore allegiance to the Quran and vis-a-vis Sharia law, and not to the Judeo-Christian values we hold dear.

Oaths and symbols have powerful meaning and this oath has a powerful meaning. what he places his hands on while taking the oath has powerful meaning. I would ask the elected official to take caution and to think about this before pledging on the Quran. This is a nation built on Christian principle, not Islamic principles, and to do dictate law otherwise would be fraudulant to those who elected him.

I do not hate those who adhere to the Islamic faith, nor do I wish to see them leave the country (before people attack me for being a bigot). I meerly bring this up to show that this is what happens when cultures mix and clash. Had I been an elected official in an Islamic nation (which many Islamic nations do not allow), I would most likely have to adhere to, or give sanction to the Islamic faith. We, as Americans, only ask that this representative, who speaks for us, to adhere to our traditions and standards.

Thanks again to you for the posting,

Blessings,

[(an) andrew from California]

Robert, while your argument of "to each his own" is not flawed, in and of itself, it does not speak toward the question of public service and the obligations one inherits when they seek a governmental public office.
Ellison's job is to serve his constituents. They voted for him to be their voice in chambers they to not have easy access to.

They should decide what book, if any, Ellison decides to swear by.

In the end, Jesus' words should still have relevance: Let your yes be yes and your no be no. In other words, don't swear by a book or an idol or a single hair on your head. Just be a man of good repute who does what he promises to do.

[(an) andrew from California]

Truth Seeker,
The swearing in ceremony does not bind the official to the rules within the book they swear to.
If this were the case, all of our elected officials who swore to a Bible would have to be sinless in order to be above reproach!

But what Ellison is doing is appealing to *his* Higher Deity. In this case, Allah. This does not mean that he will obey Sharia law over the American Constitution. It just means he appeals to Allah for help to serve the United States.
I know; as you pointed out, it is a contradictory stance to take in its very core, but it isn't that Ellison can say "hey, I swore allegiance to the Koran so I'm bound to chop off your hand for having stole something."

[Robert Casteline]

Andrew,

I know we are basically on the same page, so this is collegial. But if they elected him knowing what it was that he believed, then why would they complain? His available information shows that he is very upfront about his religious affiliation. They knew they were electing a committed Muslim. It's not difficult to think it through and accept that a bible will not be his choice of book.

I personally think that it would be very odd for the people to to decide what book he swears on. To go to an extreme, would the people be able to decide that the Satanic bible should be the book to swear in on if the people from that area are Satanists and the elected official were a Christian? They knew who they were electing and that in this area (religious) there was a disconnect from their values/ ideas.

But I agree that Christ's words are the best standard to set and hold to.

[Cruci-Fide]

I agree with the original post and with Truth Seeker's comments. If a person is going to use a book in an inauguration ceremony, it should be the Bible, the U.S. Constitution, or none at all.

Having read the Quran, however, I specifically object to its use due to its inherent contradiction to the laws, traditions, and principles of the United States of America.

We're involved in a war with Islamic terrorism. During World War II, I seriously doubt the U.S. citizenry would have allowed someone to take oath and possession of public office with their hand on Mein Kampf.

[Aaron Snell]

Great post, Melinda - very thoughtful. Thank you.

[Chad Winters]

interesting.....this really makes you think. On one hand I can see where making him swear on the Bible would be like making me swear on the Koran, something I would be loathe to do.

On the other hand...will atheists be able to use "On the Origin of Species" for swearing in?

[Tim]

At first glance, I think it's entirely legitimate for a non-Christian government official to swear in on the Holy Book or Higher Power of their own religion, and not use the Bible.

In this case, though, there's an additional twist: The Bible is a holy book in Islam, at least ostensibly. The Koran refers to the OT and the NT as the Torah, the Zabur (the psalms), and the Injil (the gospel), and affirms their divine source. So a Muslim should suffer no concerns of conscience in swearing on the Bible, though most would probably prefer the Koran.

But then, they also claim that the Bible we have is corrupted from the original, so that could be a source of their concern.

[Paul]

IMO he my use the book of his choice. His choice not to follow tradition is symbolic, indicating that he is NOT a Christian but a Muslim. He could have let the ceremony pass in the traditional form despite his personal conviction, as no doubt others have done before, but he chose not to do so.

America no longer has the Christian consensus that it once had, and other more important aspects of our law and government have already changed. It is to be expected that the symbols and rituals begin to catch up.

[alan aronson]

AAAARGGGGG!!!!!!!!! Pardon my bluntness, but does anyone around here read? The following information has been all over the electronic and print media - easily available and for the most part free. This entire affair is the result of the ignorant hip-shooting of one uninformed person who earns the shanda fer de goyim award for 2006. I urge everyone to actually read Dennis' article - his facts are wrong and the tone is mean-spirited and un-American.

!. There is no tradition as there is no book used at the actual swearing in ceremony which is done en mass on the House floor - the members raise their hands and take their oath of office. Some Members of the Congress have a second individual swearing in done as photo op, etc. This one is purely ceremonial and Jews have regularally used the Tanakh.

2. There is a Constitutional issue - it's called Article VI and the language is clear. "Clause 3. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/index.html

If you bookmark this you will always have a handy Constitutional reference. If Dennis had a handy reference to our Constitution he wouldn't have written his boneheaded article.

Here is a recent press release from the ADL: "ADL Statement on Dennis Prager's Attack On Muslim Congressman for Taking Oath of Office on Koran

New York, NY, December 1, 2006 � The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) issued the following statement in response to Dennis Prager�s November 28 online column, �America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on,� where he said that the first Muslim elected to Congress should not be permitted to take his oath of office on a Koran:

Dennis Prager�s argument that Representative-Elect Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, should not be permitted to take his oath of office on a Koran is, intolerant, misinformed and downright un-American.

Prager is flat-out wrong when he asserts that Representative Ellison�s use of a Koran would be �damaging to the fabric of American civilization.� To the contrary, the U.S. Constitution guarantees that, �no religious test shall ever be required� to hold public office in America. Members of Congress, like all Americans, should be free to observe their own religious practices without government interference or coercion.

Prager�s patriotic prattling is misinformed on the facts, too. 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. Members may, if they choose, also have a private ceremony with family and friends. At these unofficial ceremonies, Members frequently solemnize the event by taking an oath while holding a personal family Bible.

Prager ridiculously asserts that permitting Rep. Ellison to take the oath of office would �be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11.� What he fails to understand is that what truly unifies all Americans is a value system built on religious freedom and pluralism, not dogmatism and coercion.

Prager presents intolerant, ugly views. His comparison of Ellison�s desire to �choose his favorite book� to that of the right of a racist elected to public office to use Hitler�s Mein Kampf is outrageous. If Prager were merely a blogger and radio talk-show host trying to be relevant and provocative, these views might not merit a response. But as a newly-appointed member of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, Prager and his views must be held to a higher standard."

[William Wilcox]

Tempest in a teapot. Lord help us if people can't keep the conversation civil over a minor symbolic expression of committment to an oath.

[Robert Casteline]

Alan,

Try the decaf. It's just as good as the regular.

[alan aronson]

Hi Guys, this isn't a minor issue. There is a reason the Framers put section 3 in article VI. Dragging Mein Kampf into this was a hateful and dangerous thing. Dennis' second article is just the backing and filling of a person who stepped in it, realizes it and doesn't have the integrity to simply admit he screwed up.

Seeing Dennis go from a usually reasonable person to an off-the-rails wingnut over the past twenty years has been a sad experience.

BYW, hope you all caught Hugh's program yesterday - his cries of pain were music to my ears. Hugh is at least an honest person in that one can't listen to him without it being perfectly clear that he is a highly partisan commentator.

Now for a little more of that caffine.

[William Wilcox]

Actually, I think that Prager's response (see the "contentious" link above)to his critics was reasonable, although I don't necessarily agree with his position.

For another view expressing concern about Keith Ellison's committment to our Constitution see here:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53241

Much of this article seems like guilt by association but it is worth considering the implications of Islam influencing our national values and institutions.

I think Prager's main concern is about Ellison's committment to our Constitutional principles.

He says: "But neither I nor tens of millions of other Americans will watch in silence as the Bible is replaced with another religious text for the first time since George Washington brought a Bible to his swearing-in. It is not I, but Keith Ellison, who has engaged in disuniting the country. He can still help reunite it by simply bringing both books to his ceremonial swearing-in."

Once again, I don't buy Prager's argument against Ellison using the Quran, but his misgivings about Ellison's committment to the values that this country was founded on may be justified. I haven't looked into Ellison enough to know.

[Robert Casteline]

William,

Go here to answer your question: http://www.keithellison.org/

While I may disagree on positions, there is nothing there that leads me to believe he is antagonistic to US values.

[(an) andrew from California]

Robert,
you said, "Try the decaf. It's just as good as the regular."
Heresy!

:)

[Robert Casteline]

That was purely a recommendation for Alan. Who apparently dismissed it.

I am a coffee with chickoree man, myself, so you can't give me enough caffine. I am a fundamentalist when it comes to caffine.

[alan aronson]

"But neither I nor tens of millions of other Americans will watch in silence as the Bible is replaced with another religious text for the first time since George Washington brought a Bible to his swearing-in. It is not I, but Keith Ellison, who has engaged in disuniting the country. He can still help reunite it by simply bringing both books to his ceremonial swearing-in."

William, does it matter at all that prager is dead wrong and may well be lying? As this clim is in his second article he has to know better by now. Also ask youself this: He now admits that some Jews have chosen the Tanakh (I heard today that Senator smith of Oregon used the Book of Mormon) . He now has a real problem; why pick on the Muslim? After all the prior non-uses of the Bible didn't end Western Civilization.

BTW, World Net Daily isn't a good or reliable source of information. Ellison has the typical endorsements for a liberal Democrat and is pro-choice. Given the past few years, I am more concerned about the dedication of conservative Christians to our Constitution

Now for yet more caffine.

[Truth Seeker]

Alan,

Blessings to you brother! Thank you for your posting. I do agree with a few things you say, namely that Ellison does have the typical leftist approval and to some degree, not completely, I understand your concern for the conservatives, although I think many make the false claim that if you are conservative you are a Christian, and since conservatives screwed up the country all Christians are to blame.

I dont think you are making that claim but I wanted to caution people who read your post to make a difference. I myself am a Christian, first and foremost, with a politcal leaning of conservatism, but it is my beliefs that drive my political leaning and even than I disagree with the way the republicans have been acting, just as with the democrats.

Anyway, blessings

[William Wilcox]

As I said, I don't necessarily agree with Prager's take on this issue. I see no evidence that he is lying and not sincere however. He has presented his reasons. You either agree or disagree. If you actually have evidence of lying (intentional mis-statements designed to deceive), you can present it for consideration but it is not necessary to the issue under discussion.

The World Net Daily article is, as I said, clearly trying to establish guilt by association which is certainly not sufficient to make the concern valid. It seems to me that the article did however reflect concerns similar to those Prager is expressing.

I think that the important larger issue is the potential impact of a growing Islamic presence in our nation.

[alan aronson]

Hi William, i suspect intentional disception because this thought appears in his second article as well as in the first.

First article: "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."

" When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book,..."

Second article: "...for the first time in American history, a person elected to Congress has rejected the Bible for another religious text when taking his oath of office (whether ceremonial or actual -- more on this below)." A statement which he contradicts further down.

He has to know by now that he wrong on the history and yet he persists.

I will agree with your concern, however I believe the problem, to the extent it exists, isn't an Islamic presence, rather an Islamist presence. I am simply being consistent here. Our national experience with our own home-grown Christianists has not been a happy one and the last thing we need are more social conservatives. However a pro-choice Muslim endorsed by the Sierra Club and all sorts of unions seems to make a pretty positive case for the possibilities of assimilation.

Thanks for the blessings Truth Seeker. I understand that not all conservatives are Christians, however I am still puzzled that you all have been so docile in the face of the Bush Administration's assault on our Constitutional rights. I understand the far greater risk to our fundamental rights that the various Canadian Student Associations pose, but still, even a half-hearted pro forma bleat would have been better then nothing.

[William Wilcox]

Alan,

You have pointed out one of the reasons Prager's argument is not convincing. You have not established intent to deceive. It is clear you don't trust Prager or agree with him.

I am concerned about the impact of a growing Islamic presence in our nation. That would include Wahhabism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi

I think that it is important to consider this question seriously and in detail (not here though). Europe is certainly feeling the effects. That is not to say that the impact in this country will be the same.

Off topic but since you mentioned Christianist, here are some things for you to consider:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism

http://www.article6blog.com/2006/11/28/words-and-what-matters/

http://www.article6blog.com/2006/12/01/a-little-bit-more-on-words-cult-and-christianist/

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/11/christianist.html

[Francis Beckwith]

The great irony in all this is that if Mr. Ellison were in Saudi Arabia and his conversion were in reverse (from Islam to Christianity), he would be without a head, removed by an autocratic regime on the authority of a book on which he wants to swear his allegience to a Constitution whose principles of religious liberty this book rejects.

[alan aronson]

Hi William, the first article may have been dashed off in a white heat and hence the failure to do even the most basic fact checking one would expect from a person of Prager's prominence (wish we all could make half a million a year for not doing what our jobs demand). The second article was written after it had become well known that he was dead wrong; the only plausible alternative to deliberate deception is probably worse.

Thanks for the links, I bookmarked the blog and will add it to my regular list of reading.

Perhaps this, http://chronicle.com/free/v50/i30/30b01601.htm
explains where our politics went off the rails.

I'm not sure what Francis' point is. Theologically, Saudi Arabia is where much of Europe was a few hundred years ago. Fortunately for us, the process of secularization in the West gave us a Constitution that took us in the opposite direction of the social conservatives who run too much of the Muslim world. We should look at Mr. Ellison's liberalism as a reason for hope.

[Ed Darrell]

Ellison has a rather lengthy record in the Minnesota state legislature. The failure of Prager and others to address any serious issues demonstrates their desire to simply make splashy news story by stretching the truth. Prager appears to be in the business now of only selling copies, not in discerning anything of value to the nation.

Consequently, Ellison's oath to "uphold and defend the Constitution," and his willingness to take it, make him a much greater patriot than Dennis Prager. To what does Prager swear allegiance? We know it's not the nation, and not the truth.

What of Ellison's very serious political views? He's in favor of small businesses, sponsoring a "drive-off" criminalization that makes failure to pay for gasoline an offense that leads to suspension of a driver's license; he's active in trying to end lead poisoning; he's a strong advocate of public schools.

Must we assume, as Prager suggests, that these are anti-American positions? Is Prager opposed to small business and in favor of small larceny instead? Is Prager in favor of poisoning small children? Is Prager opposed to education? Those would be scurrilous allegations -- but they are no less fair than his allegations against Ellison.

Prager's the one who needs to be called to task on this.

[John]

"AAAARGGGGG!!!!!!!!! "

Is that the blog form of the "Dean Scream"?

[John]

Francis' point that Sharia is totally alive and in full force in Saudi Arabia. Perhaps you missed the press coverage during the First Gulf War when our chaplains in Saudi Arabia were referred to as 'moral officers' rather than chaplains so as not to offend the Saudi 'sensibilities'.

"Theologically, Saudi Arabia is where much of Europe was a few hundred years ago. " What do you mean? Are saying Saudi Arabia is secular?

[alan aronson]

Hi John, thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment on how lazy and dishonest the media can be. If you hear the actual recording of the whole event you will hear that his voice was modulated to match that of the audience which was loud - he needed to raise his voice to be heard over the crowd. The audience noise is turned down in order to make a story.

Thank you Ed for reminding us that Mr. Ellison should be judged the way anyone else in his position is - by his record.

I caught Prager yesterday and his defense has been reduced to a "he should bring both books" whine. An intellectually honest person would have simply admitted he screwed up and apologized.

[alan aronson]

"'Theologically, Saudi Arabia is where much of Europe was a few hundred years ago. " What do you mean? Are saying Saudi Arabia is secular?"

John, few usually means a small but indefinite number; certainly more then two, which I would have termed "a couple". During the first half of the 17th century Europe was consumed with a religious war and the previous centuries to that were also full of religious strife.

The Peace of Westphalia was in 1648 - 358 years ago well within the deinition for "few". The United States Declaration of Independence and our Constitution was the result of the secularization coming from the Enlightenment. A period of conservative reaction to the excesses of the French Revolution plagued the Continent during the early 19th century.

In what way was Europe secular in the early 16th century?

[John]

Will Mr. Ellison be changing his name to follow his conversion and if not, why not?

[alan aronson]

This article from the Forward has some interesting information on this topic.
http://www.forward.com/articles/koch-calls-for-pundits-ouster-from-shoah-council/

[Patrick, Holland MA]

Alan
with respect to your affinity for secularism over and against religion, I offer the following quotes by Herbert Schlossberg in "Idols for Destruction"

“Of all the misleading interpretations of this complex age, few are more so than the common one that secularism means the replacement of a world view that is religious with one that is not.” (p.273)

“All social phenomena…constitute systems of faith, not being based on logical or empirical demonstration, and all seek to respond to the most basic problems of human existence. Thus, all normal adults are religious.” (273)

You truly are, in the stricted sense, a fundamentalists. I have no problem with that. You are fundamentally wrong about pretty much everything - but your are a strudent fundamentalist! Alan Falwell?? I LIKE IT!

[Patrick, Holland MA]

Sorry about the horrible spelling!

[alan aronson]

Patrick, secularism means as much the freedom of religion as it does the freedom from religion. The quotes you provide seem way too reductionistic to me. After all, I was defending the right of a person to use whatsoever text he wished for a ceremony. BTW, I sense more then a little idolatry in the way the Bible has been treated in all this.

[William Wilcox]

Wandering off topic....An interesting excerpt from Rallying the Really Human Things by Vigen Guroian:

http://www.isi.org/books/bookdetail.aspx?id=91d0aeac-ac9f-4dae-81ab-05d6a1e79bb5

on G.K. Chesterton contrasting secular humanism and Christian humanism:

www.isi.org/books/content/365chap1.pdf

[Patrick, Holland MA]

Alan
in order for secularism to attain its goals, it must marginalize "relgion" and relegate to feeling and peference as opposed to the supposed "knowledge" conferred by science. ONly in this way can our children be systematically dogmatized to the more dehumanizing byproducts of secularism, like abortion, sesxual promiscuity and even slavery. Secularism will eventually collapse into anarchy.

To allege that the bible is truth and whatever contradicts it is false is not idolatry. It is a propositional statement that can be argued.

[alan aronson]

Hi Patrick, do you really long for the good old days when all Europe had Christian rulers? If a secular state was good enough for Jefferson and Adams. it's good enough for me.

The secularism you protest is a straw man and we had all of the evils you list in spades when Europe was Christian.

Hi William, checked out the link.
"Man can be defined as an animal that makes dogmas." Or man may be defined as an animal with a highly developed ability to manipulate symbols and who also knows that one day he will die. This seems to create a bit of angst in some folks and if dogmas provide comfort, well that's ok, I guess. Meanwhile, for better or worse, things move on.

"At the Creation, God did not say: I will make the seas with clean water,
not polluted water, and the land arable and not desert because it would be a disaster
for the environment otherwise. He made the seas clean and the land habitable
because it was good that they be so."

Forget for a moment the slur on the world's deserts; what is it about the views in this article that lead those who subscribe to it to vote for those who are in the service of men who would sacrifice clean water and land to the profit of a few?

Dennis Prager resonates to the sentiments in your linked article and yet writes a horrible, bigoted article about Muslims. The fruits of this line of thought have not been so sweet. Time to recalibrate.

[Patrick, Holland MA]

Alan
it was Christianity that rescued mankind from a total collapse into the nihilism conceived in the so called enlightenment.

By the way, my straw man is built from the same material as the secular regimes of HItler, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Howard Dean (oops, not yet!)

I do not insist on Christian rulers, but for a system like our founding fathers that recognized rights do not come from man and do not end with man.

By the way, as a secularist, you can use the term evil, but it means nothing other than your sentiments. Evil and good are non entities in secularism and only the will to power counts. If you want to insist on good and evil, you will have to cancel your membership to the secular times.

[Fred Psimas]

Islamic and Christian beliefs are too different to both inhabit the same planet for long. This is because Islamic beliefs are intolerant and the practice of Islam is to convert, ensalve, or kill non believers. Islam does not include practicing values of love or forgiveness, which is very much a part American laws. Hence, we have laws that provide for rehabilitation of criminals and we as a culture struggle with the death penalty. Muslim cultured countries do not struggle with these issues. This single event is challenging the beliefs, values, and historical heritage that this country was founded on. Freedom of religon, as defined by our forefathers, was not intended to embrace all religons including satanism, withcraft, islam etc... George Washington set the precedent and was sworn into office by placing his hand on a Bible, not a comic book, not a satanic bible, not a Quran. This does have meaning. Its about time we stop trying to be everything for everyone in this country and start believing in something. If you live here accept the values and beliefs of our culture or get the hell out. Speak and learn english, thats the language. Do not expect our culture to accept every religion. This means you can practice satanism or islam as long as you abide our laws, but do not expect to be allowed to have a leadership position in our country. A practicing Muslim, does can only have allegiance to his Quaran and Islamic laws which are contrary to our nations laws. It is true that we have laws that the Pope may not agree with, these laws such as those regrading abortion are issues our culture struggles with. We struggle with these issues because the origin of Americas belief and value system is Christian. Our American government and laws reflect the values of love, tolerance, and forgiveness. However, there can be no tolerance from a practicing muslim because Islam is not a tolerant religion. Islam is not a peaceful religion. Islam is not a forgiving religion. The Christian and Islamic religions can coexist from a Christian view but not from a Islamic view. A Christian will forgive and try to love the Muslim. However, a Muslim will seek to convert, enslave, or kill the Christian. Because of this we as a Christian country will allow muslims to live here, practice their religon, and take an oath to government office on the Quran, These things will never happen in a Muslim country or culture. Wake up America! You are being converted. Say goodbye to freedom of religion and our values here because in one hundred years the Muslims will conquer America and one by one our Freedoms will be taken away and replaced with Muslim beliefs based on the Quran!