Thought of the Day from Jerry Fuhrman (From On High):
Isn't it odd that the very people who whine and moan about Christians intruding on that wall of separation between church and state are the same people who have been thundering of late that Muslim Congressman-to-be Keith Ellison is justified in his use of the Koran in a Congressional ceremony?
5 comments:
Speaking out against religious intolerance is not the same thing as promoting a religion. I suppose religious conservatives are for religion in government, as long as it's THEIR religion.
Don't conservatives also believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution? The Constitution that contains the Establishment clause? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." If religion is going to be involved, Rep-Elect Ellison should have the right to choose his own.
The point is the hypocrisy involved.
What hypocrisy? Tradition requires Rep. Ellison to swear in on a Holy text, and the right insists that it be the Bible. Many who are defenders of the wall between church and state would prefer that no religious symbol be involved, but that's not the issue at hand. He is complying with that tradition, but doing it in his way. Perhaps your point is correct, that they shouldn't use any text at all.
My point being the hypocrisy in the original "thought for the day."
jmuduke:
In fact, tradition doesn't require him to swearo n any book, and in fact his official swearing in will NOT be on a book.
The book will be used for a "ceremonial picture" with Pelosi, and he could use anything he wanted there. But It's fine that he uses the Koran for a fake ceremony, even if the Koran says that a Muslim oath does not have to be followed if breaking it will advance the cause of Islam.
Still, I liked Glenn Beck's comment that we probably would be better off having congresmen swear on their favorite pornographic magazine, it might have more meaning to them.
Post a Comment