Mike the Mad Biologist

Thank you, Dennis Prager for your anti-Muslim bigotry: at least we know where the modern conservatives really stand. Despite Article IV of the U.S. Constitution which states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States”, Prager has his knickers in a twist over Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison’s intention to use a copy of the Koran instead of a Christian Bible while being sworn into office. Prager spews:

Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

He should not be allowed to do so — not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism — my culture trumps America’s culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

Actually, the whole point of the Bible is to underscore the solemnity of the oath so that the officemaker will be more likely to follow that oath. It really doesn’t matter what the particular book is: the Christian Bible, the Koran, or the Hebrew Bible. Funny, I should mention the Hebrew Bible, because Prager, as usual, is always willing to misappropriate Judaism for the Glory of the Conservative Movement. He claims that Jews have always sworn their oaths of office over Christian Bibles, when, in fact, that is simply not true.

Does Prager really think that using a different religious text will cause the Republic to collapse? Of course, after five years of watching the Republicans wipe their ass with the Constitution, maybe our country really is that fragile…

Update: Of course, the whole issue is moot because the oath of office isn’t sworn over any religious book. Also, over at AmericaBlog, John has some similar thoughts.

Comments

#1 Jeff
November 28, 2006

How can any rational human being even respond to that kind of stupidity? It is times like this that I think that the internet should have a minimun IQ requirment.
#2 Halcyon
November 28, 2006

Just a slight note, it’s Article VI of the Constitution not Article IV (Which is the Full Faith and Credit, etc)
#3 Tyler DiPietro
November 28, 2006

Even if Dennis Prager’s column is his typical dosage of right-wing “exclusion for all but me” bigotry, at least we can give him points for honesty. He is openly admitting that he thinks his convictions and preferences be enforced at the expense of the personal freedom and conscience of everyone else. Most Christianist bigots aren’t so upfront.

Oh, and this:

He claims that Jews have always sworn their oaths of office over Christian Bibles, when, in fact, that is simply not true.

Surprise!
#4 Tyler DiPietro
November 28, 2006

Sorry, a couple of noticeable gaffes in the last post:

1. In the second sentence, it should actually read “He is openly admitting that he thinks his convictions and preferences should be enforced at the expense of the personal freedom and conscience of everyone else.”

2. I implied that Dennis Prager was a “Christianist”, which isn’t fair since he isn’t a Christian. So I shall change the terminology to “Ultra-Orthodox Jew who aligns himself with Christianists so he can get on TV.”
#5 skunqesh
November 28, 2006

He knows damn well what he’s doing. He’s playing to his base. This kind of crap gives fundies that itchy little twinkle deep down in their ‘naughty spot’. He’s preening for their bloodlust, and it works. Sheeit mon, ain’t this the same tact used by Mullah Pat Robertson, et al?
Better this piece of human waste be put in very hot spotlight to exhort his venomous screeds. Rants that nutty are just a few degrees from finding their melting point.

Sunlight and fresh air is the best fix for mold.

i’m gonna go git drunk.

buuurrpp!
#6 llewelly
November 28, 2006

How can any rational human being even respond to that kind of stupidity? It is times like this that I think that the internet should have a minimun IQ requirment.

The social function of the internet is to bring out into public view the myriad vile monstrosities so many have so long practiced in obscurity.
#7 Grady
November 29, 2006

Prage doesn’t spew about Muslims any more than you spew about Christians, Mike.

You really can’t see that, can you?
#8 BethL
November 29, 2006

“Prage doesn’t spew about Muslims any more than you spew about Christians, Mike.

You really can’t see that, can you?”

Ouch. Having read this blog for several months, I’d have to say that’s simply not true. Sure, Mike “spews” about (fundamentalist right-wing) Christians, but he doesn’t generalize an entire religion. (In case you didn’t realize, Christianity encompasses more than the bigots whose stupidity he frequently updates us on, and he does make the distinction.

My view? I am tolerant of other cultures and faiths. I am not tolerant of bigotry and senseless stupidity at the expense of others, no matter what their heritage or beliefs.

On the upside, Prage’s blather would make a great classroom exercise for identifiying fallacies.
#9 BethL
November 29, 2006

I think I need to clarify my previous post.
By fundamentalist right-wing Christian, I also do not mean everyone who falls into that group. I mean the people who use their faith to push other faiths out of the picture (i.e. faith-based funding for which Jews need not apply).
#10 Joshua
November 29, 2006

Right, and that distinction is why we’re talking about Christianists rather than Christians, although Mike didn’t even use that term. In fact, he said nothing at all about Christians in this post! He’s criticising exactly one person: Dennis Prager. (Who’s not even a Christian, apparently.)

This whole business does raise an interesting question, though. Should an atheist ever win election to public office (unlikely to happen any time soon, I know), what would he swear on? Me, I’d pick the Constitution, but it’s something to ponder.
#11 Boo
November 29, 2006

An athiest should swear on Origin of Species, just cause it would really cheese off Prager’s ilk.
#12 stogoe
November 29, 2006

I’d probably pick the Constitution, or nothing, but if I was feeling wacky that day, maybe I’d ask for Hitchhiker’s Guide or A People’s History of the United States.
#13 stevemb
November 29, 2006

The way most Congresscritters treat the oath, they might as well swear them in on a roll of toilet paper.
#14 Gerard Harbison
November 29, 2006

Not all modern conservatives agree with Prager. Some of us know Franklin Pierce and Herbert Hoover didn’t even swear the oath of office, and Theodore Roosevelt didn’t swear it on a bible.
#15 Edward
November 29, 2006

Herbert Hoover was a Quaker. Quakers, in general, do not believe in taking oaths, in part because doing so creates a double standard of truth and is therfore fundamentally dishonest. There are also other Christian sects that refuse to take oaths.

Also, swearing on the Origin of Secies is just plain wrong because that, in essence, makes scientific theory appear as dogma.
#16 Bloing
November 29, 2006

Mike, it is obvious you were raised to hate Christians.

I know, because I was raised in a Jewish neighborhood. I know what a “GOY” REALLY is.

Mad Biologist: Particularly my Catholic relatives. Moron. I don’t hate Christians. I oppose people who attempt to force me to worship their religion.
#17 Rev. BigDumbChimp
December 1, 2006

Legion be thy name, troll be thy species.
#18 Stine
December 1, 2006

Gee, Mike has Catholic relatives. Of course, Christians are scum, but they must be some of the “good ones”.

Reminds me of the old guy who hates blacks, but says to the black guy he meets, your’e OK though.
#19 hikaye
October 2, 2008

thanks wery good.