Last I heard this country has Freedom of Speech. Dennis Prager has exercised it by writing an article at Townhall.com in which he deplores the idea of recently elected Congressman Keith Ellison, D-Minn swearing in on a copy of the Koran instead of a Bible. Dennis expressed his feelings and since writing the article has taken many hits from people on both sides of the aisle.
I feel that Mr. Prager made some good points in his article. The folowing for example:
Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison's right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?
There must be lines drawn or society will fall apart. Is this one of those places where the line should be drawn? I think so. Not because I am a hate filled Christian do I believe this but because common sense tells us that there will be those in the future that will demand more and more untill there is no line at all.
Dennis Prager has, since his initial posting on Townhall authored a rebuttal to his critics. In it he says:
My belief that the Bible should be present at any oath (or affirmation) of office has nothing whatsoever to do with the religion of the office holder. And it never has until Keith Ellison's decision to substitute a different text for the Bible. Many office holders who do not believe in the Bible at all or who reject some part have nevertheless used the Bible at their swearing-in (I noted this in my column). Even the vast majority of Jews elected to office have used a Bible containing both the Old and New Testaments, even though Jews do not regard the New Testament as part of their Bible. A tiny number of Jews have used only the Old Testament. As a religious Jew, I of course understand their decision, but I disagree with it.
The following is from - Mark Memmott's posting at USA Today
Today, the Council on American-Islamic Relations said Prager should lose his presidential appointment to the United States Holocaust Memorial Council because of "his intolerant views toward Islam in American Society."
- prying1 sez: How intolerant can you get. Wake up CAIR. You are in America . We have Free Speech. -
Update: A certain Mr. Douglas V. Gibbs of Political Pistachio fame placed a link in the comments that I feel is worth bringing up into the post. If this debate interests you please click here. Feel free to leave a comment there as well as here. Debate is good for America.
P.S. I love the closing lines on the video.
Technorati Tags -
Dennis Prager -