ejmoosa

A Response to Dennis Prager on Keith Ellison

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2006/12/05/a_response_to_my_many_critics_-_and_a_solution

If you read the above link, you will learn what Mr. Prager thinks on whether Keith Ellison, who is to be sworn in to Congress, should take his oath on the Bible or the Koran.

Prager discusses the history of using the Bible, since Washington brought it to his swearing in, and declares it a great tradition. If Pager thought more of the Bible, he would probably want to keep it away from politicians. There has been numerous cases of men swearing in on the Bible, only to go on and rape(physically and literally), pillage, and plunder the American people.

And were we to follow the idea that the majority decides what elected officials swear their oaths with, what occurs when a small community in YouPickit, America, elects a majority of muslims or hindus or wiccans, and decides to use another book. Will it now be up to the majority of the state to fix this great wrong? And if the state goes majority non-christian, will it now be up to the feds to fix things?

Mr. Prager considers this country as one not of individuals with individual rights, but as a collective. Consider this passage:

"I am for no law to be passed to prevent Keith Ellison or anyone else from bringing any book he wants to his swearing-in, whether actual or ceremonial. 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. Had he originally announced that he would do that, I would have written a different column -- filled with praise of him. And there would be a lot less cursing and anger in America."

Prager declares that by swearing in on the Koran, as should be Ellison's right, that he is disuniting the country. This must be the same magical effect that occurs when the Ten Commandments are removed from the courthouse. Prager's belief should be strong enough to not need the endorsement of any government, as we all know that governments do not last indefinitely while God is forever and always, amen. God is certainly not in need of the endorsement from anyone. He can stand on His own.

Prager should spend time with some other notable politicians and discuss how they could have taken oaths on the Bible, and they gone on to what they did to the America public. We can start with Mark Foley, and work backwards to William J. Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and Johnson for starters.

Ellison is not, in the end, responsible to millions of Americans who watch in silence as the Koran is used for the swearing in. Ellison, is, in the end, only responsible to his God. It is unfortunate that more politicians do not feel the same. We would have a better country in the end. Declaring that we as individuals are responsible to mobs of Americans, most who have never even read the Bible, would be a terrible belief for us all, and the Founders of our nation would be severely disappointed.

Labels: Prager Ellison Bible Koran

posted by EJ @ 9:06 AM