The Occasional Observer

26 comments:

ManBeast said...

I happen to think that it's silly for someone who is not Christian to be sworn in with a Christain Bible. If the point of swearing over a bible is to make the oath more meaningful, why wouldn't you want the book to carry the weight of deeply held religious belief. If Keith Ellison wants to be sworn in with a koran because it will be more meaningful for him, I say let him.

Begin OccObs backlash here:

12/27/2006 8:58 AM

Fredo said...

If Keith Ellison thinks it would be more meaningful to be sworn in over a Fanny Farmer cookbook, would you still agree?

When a person swears an oath on the Bible, they do so because they are subject to God and his law. Your position is that the oath giver decides which law (or no law, e.g., Fanny Farmer) he will be subject to, which makes him master of the law rather than subject to it.

The fact is that the Bible, and no other book, represents the distillation of 2000 years of our culture's beliefs. It also represents the guiding moral force of our nation's founders, and that of its leaders for the past 200 years, as well as the faith of the vast majority of its current residents. It can not, and should not, be so easily swapped out for the flavor of the month.

Particularly when many of the admirers of this particular flavor (Islam) would like to see America destroyed. Or at least uprooted from its historical traditions (those that have led us to freedom, wealth, and safety) and replaced with something less vital.

12/28/2006 9:33 AM

dark commenteer said...

I agree w/ the beast here. It's a similar conundrum we face when we put Muslims, atheists or those of other beliefs on trial--what do they care if they lie under oath on a book that they care nothing about and do not believe in...

Don't know what the solution is, but in Minnesota it would seem that the larger problem is electing a Muslim. I personally have no problem with Keith Ellison and he may be aces as a human being and public servant but who knows about future candidates?

It is inevitable that we will have a large number of minority representatives in our government because of district lines. Those of similar cultures and heritage will tend to live in clusters and when their population rises to a certain level they will be a local majority and will be able to elect anyone they want.

So the real issue here is not what book Ellison was sworn in on, but rather how we are going to control the immigration situation so that we do not lose our unique American culture.

12/28/2006 10:08 AM

SheaHeyKid said...

Sorry for my recent absence, was away from work. Time to weigh in..

Two (somewhat) separate thoughts here: (1) America the melting pot, and (2) role of religion in US.

W.r.t. (1), it is clear that illegal immigration must be stopped. If the country collectively decides we do not have sufficient workers for a particular area of importance and more must be brought in, then a legal mechanism should be established. Chaotic illegal immigration undermines rule of law, is a security threat, and is unsustainable. I think we all agree here.

Legal immigration should also continue to whatever extent our country has sufficient resouces to continue to absorb people. The country was clearly founded via immigration (or emigration), and by attracting the top talent from all the world we will continue to guarantee our standing as the pre-eminent country in the world. However, the problem is how immigrants are folded into America. If we have true integration, where the new immigrants essentially adopt American way of life as their own, while simultaneously imparting a small portion of their culture, this is ok. This is what we've had for centuries, where "American" customs are some blend of Italian, British, German, Irish, etc. and now even some new unique American items. But in the case where all we have is segregation, where a new group refuses to integrate and wants to simply form their own country inside the US, this is unacceptable. First, if you like your own country so much that you want to retain your culture and not adopt that of US, then stay in your own country and make things better there. Don't come here unless you want to adopt American lifestyle. Second, it is unfair to expect that America should accept people who do not want to integrate into our culture.

Now, w.r.t. religion (and specifically Christianity) in US, this is more complicated. It is clear that the Founding Fathers had various degrees of personal religious beliefs. Looking at probably the two most important or influential founders, Adams was very devoutly Christian, while Jefferson was back and forth. However, both of them, as well as others, had a strong sense that while their personal beliefs were Christian, the government should not have a specific affiliation. Not to mention, Christian to them was decidedly non-Catholic, there was a strong sentiment against Catholicism, going so far as to require renouncing of certain specific Catholic beliefs in order to hold office in Virginia (which Jefferson abolished).

As another example, while President, Adams signed a treaty with Barbary Muslim pirates in Tripoli. (one of the worst examples in our history of conceding to terrorists, btw.) But in any case, Adams signed in full a document with the following article: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." (Musselmen are Muslims.)

I have a hard time determining what the Founders would have said w.r.t. swearing in on Koran. On the one hand, they were Christian, majority of country is Christian, and they believed the Bible and Christianity to be superior to all other religions. So in that vein perhaps they would have opposed use of Koran. On the other hand, they also intentionally tried to separate their own personal views from "official" government policy, and wanted separation of church and state. My best guess is they would be disappointed to see country losing its founding Christian principles, but at the same time wouldn't implement policy to force it. Back on the other hand though, here's an interesting quote from Adams: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

12/28/2006 11:45 AM

Fredo said...

D.C.--

what do they care if they lie under oath on a book that they care nothing about and do not believe in

They care because they are in a society founded upon Biblical principles (directly and indirectly), and they know that the wheels of justice will determine their fate whether they believe in Biblical traditions or not. Once we agree that someone should only be held to account for what that individual believes in, we are opening an establishment clause nightmare that will never end.
If Rep. Ellison had demanded that Moussaoui were tried by an Islamic court under the laws of Sharia, because as a believing Muslim only such a court could bind his conscience, would you go for that argument?

And here is the interesting thing about religious freedom: it flourishes under the stability provided by a society that knows its own roots. A Christian society that shares a certain world view can be incredibly tolerant of others who would prefer to practice another religion. A society that has no common world view, and has one Muslim faction demanding to be judged under Sharia and not under American jurisprudence (look it up--this is inevitably what happens when a large enough % of the population becomes Muslim) will become a decidedly intolerant place to be.

Of course, at the end of the day, you're right, the problem is our immigration policy, which is blind to the importance of assimilation and maintaining a cultural identity. We should confront that problem. But we should not start down the path of accomodating people who would seek to unwind traditions that bind this nation together in its institutions of government-- what Muslims want to do in their free time is up to them, but not what they do with the government owned by the American people.

12/28/2006 12:30 PM

Fredo said...

SHK-

Your quote from Adams re: the barbary wars is interesting. To put it in context, when he says it wasn't "founded on the Christian religion" in any way, it is important to remember that he was contrasting it with various states that were founded directly on the Christian religion. In such states, power was vested in the government directly by ecclesiastical leaders, or, at a minimum, by leaders who claimed divine right but would not subject themselves to the clergy. In this sense, we were not founded on the Chrisitan religion. In the sense that our citizens, who own the country, were bound together by a morality that derived directly from Christian teaching, we are most certainly founded upon the Christian tradition.

In fact, to use the protagonist from your own example, consider some more quotes from John Adams:

“The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity…I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and the attributes of God.”
[June 28, 1813; Letter to Thomas Jefferson]

“We recognize no Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!”
[April 18, 1775, on the eve of the Revolutionary War after a British major ordered John Adams, John Hancock, and those with them to disperse in “the name of George the Sovereign King of England." ]

“[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
[letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress]

"Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell."
[John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817]

12/28/2006 12:46 PM

SheaHeyKid said...

Adams clearly believed in Christianity as the most superior religion, and that a people who abided by Christian ideals would be the most tolerant and successful society. This is true of many of the Founders. That said, I believe that Adams would hope that this would be the choice of the citizenry, but would not force it upon them. He would probably believe that if the country turned its back on Christian ideals it would be doomed to failure, but I don't think he would enact legislation to mandate it. Adams was very much one to try to effect change by persuasion and discussion, to convince people to change themselves. He probably realized that unless Christianity was something the people practiced because they truly believed in it, it would not succeed as a guiding principle, so to force it upon them would do no good. I'd have to imagine that knowing that (among other reasons) their forefathers left England to avoid state-instituted religion, if the Founders truly wanted a specific religion to officially guide the nation's laws they would've incorporated text to that effect in the official documents.

Again, I think Adams and others believed that without some sort of moral code, and preferentially Christianity, the country would go to hell in a handbasket. So they would clearly prefer this to be the guiding principle, and would probably speak at volumes to influence whoever would listen today, but my guess is that they intentionally stopped short of mandating this to be so in the official documents for a reason.

12/28/2006 1:17 PM

SheaHeyKid said...

All that said, I don't think I like the idea of swearing in on the Koran. I understand MB and DC's points, that if the goal is to add some force behind the oath, then each person should swear on something they truly believe in. However, I would look at it differently. I would say that each person should be legally bound to uphold whatever oath they are swearing to (which should provide force enough), and that the Bible should be used as the book for all. For those people sworn in who are Christian, it will add that much more to the oath. For those sworn in who are not Christian, it will simply serve as a symbolic reminder of the guiding founding principles (and majority religion today) of the country.

12/28/2006 1:37 PM

Fredo said...

Bingo.

12/28/2006 3:21 PM

dark commenteer said...

My point about the problem of swearing on the Bible is not so much that we need to concede to every whim or individual belief system. I find it rather ridiculous that we still believe that the symbol of the Bible will make any non-God-fearing individual tell the truth.

What we should do for these situations is have oaths given on the US Constitution with the clarified understanding that lying will not send you to hell but rather prison for disobeying the laws of this country.

Yes, we have been founded on Christian ideals. As SHK pointed out, Catholicism used to be frowned upon and practically outlawed so we can see how our founding fathers altered their beliefs to "chill out" a touch. I'm clearly not the most religious person, but I do embrace the beliefs we have been founded upon. However, we have to accept the fact that this country cannot force religious beliefs on others when this would violate their Constitutional rights.

Theres gotta be some middle ground that allows us to maintain our value system that we were founded upon, yet continue to allow other groups to enter this country and participate as citizens. This is the dilemma we face...

12/28/2006 5:01 PM

ManBeast said...

Sorry, I still disagree. Fredo, I find your example of Fanny Farmer's Cookbook silly. If a district elects someone who wants to be sworn in with Fanny Farmer's Cookbook, we have bigger problems. There are actually to swearing-in events - an offical one with no Bible and a ceremonial one with (typically) a Bible. It's very clear that the founding fathers wanted separation of Church and State.

"Your position is that the oath giver decides which law (or no law, e.g., Fanny Farmer) he will be subject to, which makes him master of the law rather than subject to it."

The last time I checked, there was no law stating that members of Congress are to be sworn in with a Bible.

It also represents the guiding moral force of our nation's founders, and that of its leaders for the past 200 years, as well as the faith of the vast majority of its current residents. It can not, and should not, be so easily swapped out for the flavor of the month.

Yes, it was/is the guiding force and the majority religion, but allowing someone to use a holy book in a ceremonial event to give it more personal meaning and weight doesn't detracts from the guiding principals or change established law. Forcing the use of one religion's doctrine in government is the problem with Muslim nations.

All the previous points about illegal immigration - I'm right there with all of you. John Howard, the PM of Austrilia, put it very well. Read here what he said.

12/28/2006 5:08 PM

ManBeast said...

Sorry. Still catching up with the posts. I just read them all in detail again. Fredo, your argument about Muslims demanding judgement under Sharia law rather than the law of land doesn't apply to a ceremony. Ellison isn't demanding different treatment under the law, just that a ceremony (not an official event) be altered to so that it is more meaningful. This suggests to me that he is taking the oath seriously. If he didn't care, he would just use a Bible. I don't and never will advocate different treatment under the law.

12/28/2006 5:22 PM

SheaHeyKid said...

MB, great link to John Howard article. Just another reminder of how solid that guy is. He is absolutely correct in stating that segregation, rather than integration or assimilation, leads to attacks and other problems. Even as left wing a rag as NYT agrees that part of the reason that there have been uprisings by Muslim population in France but not US is precisely segregation (France) vs. integration (U.S.) The only way immigration works is if through true assimilation.

By the same token, when I'm traveling in a foreign country I don't expect people to speak English or adopt my customs. If I choose to travel abroad, I have to choose to accept and abide by their customs. If I don't like those customs, I don't go there! If people want to come to the US because they like what we stand for, great. If they simply want to come here to avoid a bad situation in their own country, and not adopt our principles, too bad, that's unacceptable.

12/28/2006 6:00 PM

Fredo said...

Forcing the use of one religion's doctrine in government is the problem with Muslim nations.


That is a problem, but one of their lesser problems. That they encourage jihad and the murder of innocent Westerners is their real problem. At least as far as Americans should be concerned.

A substatial portion of the religion/ideology in question is at war with our society and our state. They are plotting and, when possible, acting to destroy us. While many would disagree with my assessment, I would argue that jihad and anti-Western/Christian sentiment is part of the essence of Islam, not merely an anachronism (that is a much bigger discussion so I will not attempt to make the case here).

Given that premise, it is suicidal for this country to treat Islam as though it were on equal footing with Christianity, even leaving our country's heritage aside. The Koran is cited by our enemies as a reason to destroy America. Ahmedinidejadineidnjad repeats "Death to America" on a weekly basis, and his support comes from ardent Muslims. As far as I am concerned, Islam and the Koran are religion/holy book non grata at U.S. government events. That said, I will concede that the bill of rights allows for Muslims to practice their faith in their homes and communities. But our immigration policy must address the fact that Islam is at war with the West.

While this may sound harsh to your ears, remember: this would not be the first time that Americans have found it necessary to banish certain ideologies from the public square, and we do it to this very day (think neo-Nazis).

Americans love freedom, but they know when that freedom is being abused by our enemies.

Point #2:

D.C. seems focused on swearing on a book b/c that will ensure the validity of the oath. I hope we aren't relying on the moral pull of the Bible to ensure truthfulness, or (as Beast says) we've got bigger problems. I doubt it's more likely that the congressman will tell the truth b/c he swears on the Bible, the Koran, or the Fanny Farmer cookbook.

The point is that the Bible accurately represents the heritage and the values of our society, the one that Congressman Ellison intends to govern, so he best recognize that before he takes his oath.

Point #3:

It's very clear that the founding fathers wanted separation of Church and State

This is not as cut and dry as you think. For one, the Founders took great pains to avoid one Church (e.g., Episcopalianism) from becoming the national religion. This was to prevent factions from competing for power, and also to prevent the government from becoming intertwined with the heirarchies within the various churches (thus protecting the churches, not the state!). But nowhere will you find anything in the Constitution that prohibits people from discussing religion or the importance of religion in the public square. Public schools taught theology for a long, long time in America.

Separation of Church and state is not in the Constitution. It is a phrase that was taken from a private letter written by Jefferson and later used by the Supreme Court when they synthesized a new doctrine, hundreds of years after the birth of the Republic: a doctrine stating that the secularization of the public square is required by the Constitution. The founders would not have accepted this, as many Americans today do not.

This is not the historical understanding of the establishment clause, but has been a court-enforced invention of the last 40 years.

Last Point:

The last time I checked, there was no law stating that members of Congress are to be sworn in with a Bible.


Ceremony is extremely important. If it were not, we wouldn't being having this discussion. Whether it is a ceremonial rite (with a long tradition) or law does not change the substance of the debate.

12/28/2006 6:29 PM

ManBeast said...

Point #1: While I agree with much of what you said, I'm not ready to say that every Muslim (including Keith Ellison) is at war with America and that we should completely ban Islam. Take a look at India. They have one of the world's largest Muslim populations and are relatively peaceful and friendly to the west.

Point #2: If swearing over a Bible (or any other holy book) has no effect on the validity of the oath, then why worry so much about which holy book? Or, why do it at all?

I agree that the Bible (most) accurately represents the common values on which our society is based, but the oath isn't about upholding the laws of Christianity, it's about upholding the laws of the United States. Some of these law are in conflict with those of the Bible, but I believe they should still be upheld. For example, it is legal for women to have abortions. While I strongly disagree with the law, it should be upheld until it can be changed. If you don't think laws should be upheld if you don't agree with them, you're contradicting your earlier argument about Muslims wanting to be judged by Sharia law.

Point #3: a) I never said it was in the Constitution. b) I never said people shouldn't be allowed to talk about religion and its importance in the public square. c) Separation of Church and State is as much to protect the government as it is to protect the church. If religion has too much influence on government, you end up with theocracies - the very problem in the Middle East.

Point #4: Ceremony is important, but it is very different than law. You argued that by allowing Ellision to use a koran, "the oath giver decides which law (or no law, e.g., Fanny Farmer) he will be subject to, which makes him master of the law rather than subject to it." This is not a question of law. Refer back to my response on point #2. The job is to uphold the law of the land, not the law of one particular religion even if the values and tradition on which the law are based are derived from it.

12/28/2006 7:31 PM

SheaHeyKid said...

Certainly a difficult and interesting set of issues. I think part of the difficulty is that each of the Founding Fathers seems to have uttered conflicting thoughts at various times in their lives. It is undeniable that the vast majority of the Founders and early Americans were (non-Catholic) Christians, and got their work ethic and moral values system from Christianity. The influence of Christianity on this country's founding is certainly unique and should be appropriately reflected.

However, we are then left to answer the following questions. Why didn't the founders explicitly write the Bible or some element of Christianity into their documents? Why didn't they require certain religious views in order to hold office (and in contrast they actually abolished such litmus tests where they previously existed in certain states)? Any why are quotes against established religion (particularly Catholicism) from the Founding Fathers so readily available? I think it is because of the dichotomy in many of them: while they personally held Christian beliefs and felt it to be the best system, they were also scared of the potential of abuse of power by any authority (government, religious, corporate, etc.)

W.r.t. immigration policy and Muslims, this is also an interesting area. Completely removing all Muslims from US and preventing further immigration would not be in keeping with founding principles of US (unless we were certain that 100% of all Muslims were a threat to US, which I don't believe to be the case. If it were, we would have been attacked one hundred times over from within our own walls by now. However, I also think the number of so-called "radical extremists" is much larger than the libs would have you believe, thereby casting doubt on whether they are truly extremist or more mainstream in their religion.) Here is an interesting relevant quote from Adams to Jefferson: "I do not like the reappearance of the Jesuits.... Shall we not have regular swarms of them here, in as many disguises as only a king of the gipsies can assume, dressed as printers, publishers, writers and schoolmasters? If ever there was a body of men who merited damnation on earth and in Hell, it is this society of Loyola's. Nevertheless, we are compelled by our system of religious toleration to offer them an asylum." On the other hand, to succumb to P.C. and "America apologists" and naively turn our heads to the fact that for far too many Muslims this is a holy war that will only end when all people are converted to "true believers" by the sword would be dangerous and misguided. So I partially agree with fredo, I think our immigration policy at any time must be mindful of the threats of the day, but I'm not sure what the right balance and solution is.

12/28/2006 8:14 PM

Fredo said...

Beasty,

I'm not ready to say that every Muslim (including Keith Ellison) is at war with America and that we should completely ban Islam.

I'm with you on both points. I'm not looking to ban Islam, just not include it as part of the fabric of our ceremonial/public society. And it is merely a substantial portion of Muslims who subscribe to the "West is evil" mentality, certainly not all of them.

As to your point #3 a&b (on separation of church and state), I'm glad we see it the same way. I agree with you on point 3c as well, I was just pointing out the lesser known fact that many of our contemporaries forget about--the separation was intended to benefit both church and state, not one over the other.

Your point 4 is interesting, you write "The job is to uphold the law of the land, not the law of one particular religion even if the values and tradition on which the law are based are derived from it."

The job of the legislator is actually about crafting, not merely upholding the law. Which is exactly why, in representative government, the legislator should share (or at least recognize and implement) the world view of his constituents. There is the additional question of what should be done when the constituents have abandoned the world view that has led to the prosperity and safety of the society, but that is for another day.

As to your most stirring dissent, point #2:

"If swearing over a Bible (or any other holy book) has no effect on the validity of the oath, then why worry so much about which holy book? Or, why do it at all?"

This, I thought, was what I had taken great pains to explain earlier. It is important that we recognize our common heritage. The bible is a big, not a small part of our country's heritage. Swearing on the bible is a longstanding, meaningful tradition in the eyes of most Americans. When we throw out meaningful, longstanding traditions to placate someone who would prefer to swear on the book of our enemy, as we open the gates of power for him to enter, it rubs me the wrong way.

12/28/2006 8:33 PM

Fredo said...

SHK:

"Completely removing all Muslims from US and preventing further immigration would not be in keeping with founding principles of US"

Certainly removal of Muslims would be thorny. Many are citizens and could never be removed. Those who are legal resident aliens presumably are at the mercy of I.C.E. and our immigration policy.

Preventing further Muslim immigration is certainly within the bounds of the federal government's power and responsibilty. Your wrote:

"I think our immigration policy at any time must be mindful of the threats of the day, but I'm not sure what the right balance and solution is."

The right balance places the life and property of American citizens first. If, as you state, there is a meaningful threat to America as a result of jihadists, and we cannot quantify that threat nor differentiate between the enemy and peaceful Muslims, I think we have a duty to call a halt to Muslim immigration until such time as the jihadist and the peaceful Muslim can be discerned one from the other.

As for Adams comments on Jesuits, I can only assume that is meant to bait me. If the Muslims were coming here to practice Islam free from the persecution of Muslim governments, that would have been the same situation as the Jesuits escaping the persecution of the Directory. In such a circumstance, if modern day Muslims wanted to pray and preach in our midst, and that only, I would certainly agree that we were obligated to take them regardless of my feeling that Islam is a false and dangerous religion(much the same as Adams' feelings about the Jesuits). If however, the Jesuits were coming here, and a sizeable subset of them were known to be engaged in an active plot to destroy property and life, do you think Adams would have held the same opinion? At some point, it ceases to be about freedom of religion and becomes a matter of sheer security.

And back to the issue at hand, lets return to matters ceremonial. While Adams was willing to admit Jesuits who were essentially refugees, anyone care to venture a guess as to whether he would have supported them taking their oath of citizenship in Latin? Or how about with their right hand on a rosary, or say, the documents of Trent, instead of the bible? My guess? Adams would have said, "we're willing to let you in to save you from the guillotine, but let's not get stupid..."

12/28/2006 9:01 PM

Fredo said...

SHK:

Why didn't the founders explicitly write the Bible or some element of Christianity into their documents? Why didn't they require certain religious views in order to hold office (and in contrast they actually abolished such litmus tests where they previously existed in certain states)? And why are quotes against established religion (particularly Catholicism) from the Founding Fathers so readily available?

The short answer is b/c "established religion" means something very different to modern ears than it did to them. To them, it meant the system they were used to, where every citizen was required to be a member of the Church of England, and the government exercised substantive control over the church itself.

To the ACLU and other of our contemporaries (like the S.C.), established religion can now be construed to mean a public prayer before a high school football game, the 10 commandments in the courtroom, or even "in God we trust" on our currency. The tentacles of godlessness grow.

Actually you're questions are very interesting (I suspect you already know many of the counterarguments), but you've stoked my interest in doing a post on that topic later. Keep your eyes open.

12/28/2006 9:38 PM

Fredo said...

20 posts!

Nice work boys. Let me know how to bottle the enthusiasm. What made this one so interesting? Hmmm....

12/28/2006 9:39 PM

ManBeast said...

My final comment on this topic is this link to Michael Medved's article on this topic.

12/28/2006 10:01 PM

SheaHeyKid said...

To points in fredo's last two comments:

1. Although I don't think Adams (and his contemporaries) viewed Jesuits and other Catholics as a threat in the same vein that we now see islamofascists, I think they did view them as a threat. From what I gather from various comments they made, it seems they blamed the Pope and Catholics in large part for many of the wars, and were very distrustful of the concentration of power in Rome. So to some extent at least, they did have a large distrust and distaste for Catholic church.

2. Your most recent post captures the essence of the internal struggle I have on this issue. On the one hand, even though as a Catholic I prefer to elect leaders who reflect those views, I appreciate the reasoning behind and value of avoiding an "official" or required religion. On the other hand, when you give an inch people take a mile and the result is the slippery slope you allude to, wherein people now clamor to remove *all* references to God and faith. You hear people requesting "under God" to be removed from Pledge, no mention of God on currency, liberal press loves nothing more than taking shots at Catholics, Christians, and most established religions, erosion of respect for life, etc. So this is where I agree it's dangerous to have a government or society which is completely silent on the issue.

On another point, interesting post response (copied here) as a follow-up to the link MB just posted from Medved. This person's response mirrors comments from DC way above:

"Since the Constitution has no requirements for any books to be held during the swearing-in ceremony I don't think that Ellison should be told what he may, or may not, hold in his hand. No force of law should be applied in an issue of individual choice.

On the other hand, people should take note of what Ellison regards as his ultimate values. Islam is totally incompatible with western values of individualism and liberty. There is no way to reconcile "peace through submission" with "the pursuit of happiness".

Therefore, Mr. Ellison is also incompatible with those values and people should judge him for that. A true Muslim cannot separate mosque and state because the law is derived from religion.

While it is highly unlikely that Ellison will attempt to impose Sharia on America it must be remembered that Muslims are obligated to extend the influence of their religion to any authority under their control. His first loyalty cannot be to the Constitution, it must be to Allah.

That is where the danger of Mr. Ellison lies, not in the book that he holds but in the values he holds."

12/28/2006 10:28 PM

SheaHeyKid said...

Sorry, one other point. To fredo's question about the interest in this topic, I think it's because this small group represents a nice microcosm of larger Republican party and struggle it will face in '08 to solidify itself. There are clearly a wide range of primary issues comprising Republican party, including: pure fiscal conservatives (free market all the way, any help for citizens be damned); pure social conservatives (which often is in contrast with fiscal conservatives on entitlement programs and gov't role in welfare of citizens); libertarians (definitely in contrast with SoCons on many issues, who want gov't to take a stand); neocons (less relevant in '08 based on near complete failure of their predictions about post-war Iraq); and hybrid blends.

12/28/2006 10:34 PM

Fredo said...

Beast,

If it's any consolation to you, I found your arguments much more compelling that Medved's.

12/28/2006 10:49 PM

Fredo said...

From SHK's cite:
"While it is highly unlikely that Ellison will attempt to impose Sharia on America ..."

That is only so because there aren't enough Muslims here yet. The magic number is 10%. Once they are 10% of the population, demands for special treatment begin. Then come the riots, a la Paris '06. Once they're at 20%, they've got you by the neck. That's when the politicans openly support Sharia. Before that point, its "lay low and put on a happy face."

12/28/2006 10:53 PM

ManBeast said...

Thanks Fredo, but why would I need consoling when I'm right? ;)

I think the number of comments on this thread (and others with many comments) occured because we don't agree. Many of the comments on other posts are just one of us offering a hearty "harumph".

12/28/2006 11:06 PM