How embarrassing and unAmerican. Prager should read up on his British History when Rothchild was elected to Parliamnent he could not take his seat because he would not take his oath on the Christian Bible. Eventually the requirement was waived, and Britain, unlike the United States, has an Established Church.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

That would definitely be a sight!  For a Jew, and Oath on Jesus' name would be relatively meaningless.

Similarly, for a Muslim, and oath on the Bible would be meaningless.

except for the fact that the actual swearing ceremony doesn't use any book - Bible or otherwise - I applaud the Honorable Representative for wanting to use the Koran because it would have meaning to him.

I'm happy to learn that no book is used in congressional swearing-in ceremonies. Thanks for the tip. It could get complicated. In the early 70s as a defendant in an Indian land occupation litigation, I witnessed this complexity first-hand. The federal magistrate, a staunch Republican, actually bent over backwards to accommodate us savages, and agreed to change the language of the oath to suit pagan religious standards. After the new language was hammered out in chambers, he came to the bench to explain it to the court. "...so we have agreed to use the term 'The Great White Spirit' in the oath in respect to Native American belief."

On cue, the particular defendant who was the first to be sworn in squared off with the magistrate and bellowed out "SINCE WHEN IS THE GREAT SPIRIT WHITE?

To his credit, the judge was beside himself with embarrassment - apologized profusely - he may have overdosed on James Fenimore Cooper as a child.

Neoboho

My first reaction to that video clip was to wonder if Prager would insist that a Jewish office-holder swear an oath on a New Testament -- and it didn't even occur to me that Prager himself might be Jewish. The real "shande" here is that his foreskin can't be forcibly reattached -- ideally with a staple gun -- and Prager sent off to Jones U. where he belongs.

(Pssssst! Obama's middle name is Hussein.)

But I think that was just a slip of the fingers; easy to do when his last name sounds so much like that.

I like to think that it is more like 80-20, unless one includes those that will ignore racism if it in necessary to deliver tax cuts.

global citizen

Prager's editorial touches on more than just religious freedom or freedom of speech or the Constitution. This editorial points out a new cleavage that exists in our society today- specifically, what do we consider America to be? What is America?

Is America a collection of white christians and some really nice real estate, needing protection above all else? If we believe that, then it's entirely appropriate to require Congressman-elect Keith Ellison to swear in on a Bible. After all, we're a Christian nation, and Islam, as a threat to Christianity, by definition threatens our country.

Or...is America more than just a well financed, well armed, and religiously motivated street gang? Is America a collection of beliefs that together constitute freedom, needing protection above all else? If we believe that, then it's not only wrong but a gross offense against America's beliefs to require Congressman-elect Keith Ellison to swear in on a Bible. After all, if we support freedom as a belief, then we support freedom for everyone, not just the Christians and the whites.

I really believe this is the fundamental debate, and I really want to see honesty here. I grew up believing that the Founding Fathers risked everything, including death, in order to oppose tyranny and give freedom a sanctuary. Like them, I place a higher priority on protecting freedom than people.

Some don't truly believe that, however, whether they admit it or not. Some believe countering a threat could require sacrificing civil liberties, to protect against another 9/11. Some essentially believe people should be placed ahead of freedom.

I and the Founding Fathers disagree. Our Founders very much placed freedom ahead of people- they knew by signing the Declaration of Independence and opposing the British Empire they risked their own lives and the lives of their fellow Americans. Fortunately it didn't come to that, but at the time of signing they didn't know how the Revolutionary War would turn out. They signed anyway, because they believed freedom was worth fighting and dying for- isn't that the definition of putting freedom ahead of everything else, including people?

A week or so ago, author Mel White (Religion Gone Bad) spoke to the gay community here in Charleston. A friend attended and asked, 'how can the religious right so openly advocate the violation of the fundamental principles of our nation's founding? How can they do it without at least tacitly admitting they are advocating for the radical reversal of our nation's structure?' The answer, according to Mel White, is that religious conservatives go back earlier than the nation's founding, to the landing of the Pilgrims on Plymouth Rock. At that time, the Pilgrims decreed the land of America a Christian nation. Everything since then, implicitly, has been a violation of that "original intent."

They are free to believe that, and Prager obviously buys into that belief system. Let's be clear, however- by essentially advocating for a government based on religion, Prager advocates for a theocracy. And by advocating for a theocracy, Prager opposes the principles that founded this nation, and advocates a radical overthrow of our government.

So let's be honest and talk about the editorial in those terms- how Prager and others seek the overthrow of our government to install a Christian theocracy.

Of course Prager is just a bigot and islamophobe. We have nothing to worry about in terms of muslims putting the koran ahead of our constitution.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/29/nsharia29.xml

Islamic sharia law is gaining an increasing foothold in parts of Britain, a report claims.

Sharia, derived from several sources including the Koran, is applied to varying degrees in predominantly Muslim countries but it has no binding status in Britain.

However, the BBC Radio 4 programme Law in Action produced evidence yesterday that it was being used by some Muslims as an alternative to English criminal law. Aydarus Yusuf, 29, a youth worker from Somalia, recalled a stabbing case that was decided by an unofficial Somali "court" sitting in Woolwich, south-east London.

Mr Yusuf said a group of Somali youths were arrested on suspicion of stabbing another Somali teenager. The victim's family told the police it would be settled out of court and the suspects were released on bail. ...

Dr Prakash Shah, a senior lecturer in law at Queen Mary University of London, said such tribunals "could be more effective than the formal legal system".

In his book Islam in Britain, Patrick Sookhdeo, director of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity, says there is an "alternative parallel unofficial legal system" that operates in the Muslim community on a voluntary basis.

"Sharia courts now operate in most larger cities, with different sectarian and ethnic groups operating their own courts that cater to their specific needs according to their traditions," he says. These are based on sharia councils, set up in Britain to help Muslims solve family and personal problems. ...

Faizul Aqtab Siddiqi, a barrister and principal of Hijaz College Islamic University, near Nuneaton, Warwicks, said this type of court had advantages for Muslims. "It operates on a low budget, it operates on very small timescales and the process and the laws of evidence are far more lenient and it's less awesome an environment than the English courts," he said.

Mr Siddiqi predicted that there would be a formal network of Muslim courts within a decade.

Interestingly enough, here's what Jesus himself had to say about swearing oaths in the book of Matthew. I assume that the Lord would extend this admonition to include the Bible, as well:

33 "Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.'
34 But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne;
35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King.
36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black.
37 Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one."

amerika is all about the money. Our official holy book is the financial page of the Wall Street Journal. All hail Halliburton!

The Pilgrim argument is a new one to me, although appropriately seasonal.

I guess you don't hear it often as part of an informed audience, because it actually implies that, as Catholic residents of New Spain, we should be taking oaths to the Pope.

On that note, I hope Mr. Prager enjoys his trip to the ballpark at Chichen Itza. It's likely to be his last.

Britain doesn't know how to assimilate its Muslims. We're doing a bit better, I think and hope. (You'll let us know when Ellison sets up a Sharia court, I'm sure.)

That said, I just wish religion would stay as private as possible. Whatever gets you through the night, OK, but not in public. 

A more specific attribution would be Matthew 5:33-37, and Matthew 5 should be read and understood by all, whether they are Christian or not.

It is often referred to as "The Sermon on the Mount", and after reading it, I often wonder how so many get away with falsely claiming themselves to be Christian. The passage that follows the above citation is also noteworthy:

Matthew 5:38-44

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you...

Re the question "Who are the members of Congress who "claim no religious faith at all"...?"
------
Maybe MJ was referring to Congressmen based upon their actions vice their verbal claims.

For all he's done, I think our current president should have sworn his oath with his hand on Don Quixote...

Machiavelli

Prager represents a tiny radical fringe

Tiny fringe? I'm not so sure.

Let's bring a few Muslims to Newark airport, ask them to pray before getting on the plane, and see what happens...

On another note, just who is a member of the Congressional Aetheist Caucus? I missed that one. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Were I to be elected to any capacity within the American Government I believe my choice of document to take an oath on would be the U.S. Constitution, is that not the "holy scripture" of this great nation?

I think that religion becomes a waste when it's private. All of us come here because we like to debate and learn things.

The word "theology" means "the study of god" and how can we "study god" effectively in private?

The issue of abortion, for example, is intractable because even George Bush believes in late term abortion-- his bombs routinely destroy fully formed fetuses, ones that are over 200 months old!

In my opinion, religion, as most people know it, is a social activity and Nietzsche opened up my eyes by talking about the "real priests" who, like Christ and MLK, use "spirtual warfare" against the "well to do" and the "powerful" in order to dispel arrogance and bring about peace.

-M

From the NYT:

"Mr. Ellison said he had not really thought about the swearing-in ceremony and had tried to keep the campaign focused on issues rather than his religion."

Hmmm...looking more likely Prager was telling a porky.

Expect wild rejoicing in Wingnuttia if he doesn't , in fact, swear on the Koran.

This devil worshipper is going to demand to swear on the Devil's Dictionary.

Hard to plumb the depths of bigotry but I think this kind of nonsense will not harm Rep. Ellison but will the attackers.

Anybody counting on big Bible sales for the next election as many thought likely after the previous presidential contest might consider selling Bible hawkers short. Bible pounding seems to be going out of style for politicians. Who'd a thunk it?

Best, Terry

December 1, 2006 - 11:09am Tom Wright said:

Didn't Glenn Beck beat Prager to the bigot punch by asking Ellison how he could be trusted?

Right Wing bigotry is like jello- somehow there always seems to be room for more.

-Dave Adams-

If the Bible is America's holiest book, then I'd like to know what America's second-holiest book is. While we're at it, we should ask Mr. Prager what to list the third, fourth, and fifth as well.

-Dave Adams-

You'd let Bush desecrate ~Mad Magazine~? You Philistine!

They'd probably be searched pretty thoroughly and their bags would be taken apart and searched too.  But I seriously doubt anyone would go on a Prageresque rant about it.

The point is that Muslims, particularly young Muslim men, represent an elevated risk factor for terrorism.  As such, I'm fine with subjecting Muslims to a heightened level of scrutiny and don't really care if it's not fair.

Swearing an oath represents no such risk and attaching so much importance to it that you go off on a rant is pretty unhinged behavior.

Shucks, aint as hard to say "Makyuveli" as to read it, I'll tell you that.

first time I have laughed reading at this excellent comment site. Thanks, Dan.

England still has an established church headed by the Monarch, the Anglican Church. Mary, James II daughter, and her husband William the Orange were Protestants. England of the 17th Century and America were both very anti-Catholic seeing that Church as the enemy of both freedom and enlightenment.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

What exactly does that entail?

Agreed. I haven't seen it anywhere either.

Thanks! I just about spewed my coffee. I remember the cover of Bush as Alfred P. Newman. It was a perfect match.

NeoLotus
********
- Making judgements without intellectual justification is prejudice.
- We do not act rightly because we have virture, we have virtue because we act rightly.
- To know a truth well, one must have fought it out.

I'm glad you brought up that part about "no religious test" because I never hear it discussed and those who claim that the 1st amendment doesn't really separate church and state never mention how specifically the Constitution forbids a religious test for office.

You are correct, of course, but the key to the English decision was that no one was to be forced to adhere to any religion. I think that Catholics were forbidden to hold government office for quite a while after the Glorious Revolution, but that was a matter of state more than a matter of religion. The Catholics didn't give up trying to force the English to become Catholic until some time later.

Our Constitution was written to prevent the establishment of any religion because several states had established religions, unfortunately different ones, and there was a big fear that there would be religious-based conflict as each tried to become the established religion of the U.S. That was headed off by simply removing the possible prize for everyone.

Also, unless I remember wrong, William of Orange accepted the Crown of England, Scotland and Ireland along with his wife at least partly because the he was involved in trying to stop the French Catholic Louis XIV from conquering the low countries. Louis XIV had recently revoked the Edict of Nantes and was giving the Protestant Huegonauts a great deal of trouble because of their religion. By taking the Crown of England, William and Mary were able to bring England into that war on the side of the Protestants.

What do you mean by this?

Let's bring a few Muslims to Newark airport, ask them to pray before getting on the plane, and see what happens...

Please answer these questions:

 What is the last thing a muslim suicide bomber says before pulling the pin on the bomb? 

     Answer:  God is Great!  (In Arabic)

  When is the last time you heard of a Methodist beheading a person while a pal videotaped it?  OK, leave out the video -- the only beheaders lately are muslim fanatics.  They do this out of religious fervor, so they will "go immediately to heaven where they will find 70 virgins waiting for them!"

I'll go one better:  When is the last time you heard of an ATHEIST beheading someone?

Now, to move on.  When is the last time you heard a prominent muslim leader decrying beheadings, suicide bombings, and other violence in the name of Islam?  Once, last week?  Yes, we have all heard a random cleric saying that it is not a good thing, but considering the level of violence all over the world being done in the name of Islam, we all have to admit that there is no great condemnation from any significant numbers of Muslim leaders.

So.  Imagine this:  You are getting ready to get on an airplane with your wife and two children, ages 6 and 8.  They are all looking forward to the big trip.  In the waiting area this is what you see:

5 or 6 Muslims get on their knees and pray. (I also heard they shouted something about Allah, but since I don't know this for sure I will not say that it happened).  They slowly board the plane, but don't sit together, and don't sit in their assigned seats. 

What in the hell are you supposed to think?  What person wouldn't be frightened?  In my opinion,  this fear is not a discrimination against Islam; it is a reaction to the only thing that most of us SEE of Islam on a daily basis.   Is it fair?  NO. 

 It also isn't fair to blow people up who are just going about their business, or going on a trip with their families, but, after yelling "God is great," muslims manage to do it almost every day of the year.  It is THEY who do it and claim Islam as the reason.  And who among them says they are wrong, and will go -- not to heaven with the virgins, but to hell?  What Muslims can we listen to for reassurance?   How many people politely say nothing so they won't show an anti-islam tendency before they are ripped to shreds?

I feel certain that if those same clerics boarded the plane without their preambles the flight would have gone on without interruption, but who knows?

As an atheist myself, and as someone who is on the side of this new Congressman being able to swear his oath in any way he wishes, and who routinely calls out the christianistas who have done so much on their own to give religion a bad name; I can only say that until Muslims step up to the plate and put a stop to the barbaric behavior done in their religion's name -- they are their own worst enemies! 

Jan Knaus

I suppose that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

Without religious rehetoric, the civil rights movement wouldn't have succeded-- based on my opinion but I do agree with you that the moral foundation was obvious without needing religion to clarify it.

I love theology for its never ending poems and philosophy. Here are some lovely MLK snippets:

FAITH
Those of us who call the name of Jesus Christ find something at the center of our faith which forever reminds us that God is on the side of truth and justice. Good Friday may occupy the throne for a day, but ultimately it must give way to the triumph of Easter. Evil may so shape events that Caesar will occupy a palace and Christ a cross but that same Christ arose and split history into A.D. and B.C., so that even the life of Caesar must be dated by his name. Yes, "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." There is something in this universe which justifics William Cullen Bryant in saying, "Truth crushed to earth will rise again." So in Montgomery, Alabama, we can walk and never get weary, because we know that there will be a great camp meeting in the promised land of freedom and justice.

Another I like:

GOD AND HUMAN WORTH
Now let me hasten to say that while all of the three aforementioned points are basic, they represent Christianity's minimal declaration of human unity. In the final analysis, says the Christian ethic, every man must be respected because God loves him. The worth of an individual does not lie in the measure of his intellect, his racial origin, or his social position. Human worth lies in relatedness to God. An individual has value because he has value to God. Whenever this is recognized, "whiteness" and "blackness" pass away as determinants in a relatinoship and "son" and "brother" are substituted.

These are two things I grabbed out of A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Another memoriable quote is: "I've seen the promised land, I may not get there with you..." since it might have predicted his assasination.

As I sit here and think about the words I typed in, my mind smiles and wrinkles my hope! I wish that everyone intuitively understood your point that the civil rights movement was "morally obvious" but, unfortunately, that's not the case and we're constantly dividing and conquering each other instead of trusting and embracing each other.

Love conquers all!

Mr Yusuf said a group of Somali youths were arrested on suspicion of stabbing another Somali teenager. The victim's family told the police it would be settled out of court and the suspects were released on bail. ...

Since no mention was given in the article of the method used for settling the matter out of court, it seems claiming there was an application of Sharia law is a big assumption on the part of the Telegraph.  Even if Sharia law was applied, without knowledge of the punishment, no value judgement can rationally be made regarding its use in this instance.  If it succeeded in straightening up a few youths without their incarceration, then it was a big plus for the UK.

Or have you forgotten Richard Reid, the shoe bomber?  His youthful incarceration resulted in his conversion to a radical strain of Islam.  Is this what you'd have preferred for these Somali youths?

One should recognize that Prager is also questioning us voters in the 5th District of Minnesota who endorsed, nominated, and elected Ellison, in the full knowledge that he was a native of Detroit Michigan, a grad of the U of Minnesota Law School, a Defense Attorney, and a member of the Hennepin County delegation to the State Legislature in St. Paul, and that he was also a Muslim. If we didn't know that when the 5th District DFL Convention picked him out of a group of about 12 well known local political activists and office holders, we had lots of time to learn over the late spring, summer, and into the fall. We think we made an enlightened decision.

We have a district that is perhaps the most progressive in the whole country. In recent years Sabo, who held the seat from 1978 -- regularly got 72-75% of the vote. Some years the Republicans don't even bother to nominate anyone. What we wanted last spring was someone young enough to stay in DC for thirty years, acquire seniority, perhaps become chair of something critical, and in addition, we wanted our member to be unique, and be able to play in the various caucuses. I suspect Ellison will be in both the Black Caucus and the Progressive Caucus and perhaps others. We are a district that is perhaps 85% white, down from the mid 90's a decade or so ago -- and that change is mostly due to Hmong, Vietnamese and Somali refugees who have re-located here. Thus the logic of someone who relates to accomodating the differences such relocation and new American Identity building requires. And a good many of us were also taking issue with the pattern of essentially outsiders defining others. By what expert knowledge does Prager and all the others propose to tell us what Islam, particularly the sub-set of Black Muslim from Detroit, but established politically and professionally, really represent? Maybe more to the point -- what was the thinking of the DFL voters of the 5th District who made choices and elected him from a well qualified field. Afterall, we did it on purpose.

Prager (and those who follow his line) need to know that Ellison asked for a Forum at the Jewish Community Center to discuss anything they wanted to discuss. He appeared at several candidate forums in Temples, Synagogues and various churches, including many Black Churches. He answered all questions. He was endorsed by the Star-Tribune as well as the Jewish Weekly. He got backing from DFL Feminist Groups -- from the DFL Progressives. He had massive support from organized labor. And he had unamous support from the DFL members of the State Legislature withwhom he had worked for the past three sessions. This questioning seems to suggest Prager is willing to dismiss all the parts of this support for Ellison as somehow very misguided -- What does Prager know about us? And as to oaths --- well, he has taken at least four, one when he was sworn in to the Minnesota Bar and for practice before the State Supreme Court, and three while being sworn into the State Legislature. Any problem with those????

I am sure you are aware that dancing is condemned only by the conservative baptist groups.  These are the ones that used to be out in the wilderness, but seem to dominate the business today.

What exactly does that entail?

An affirmation as opposed to an oath, you mean? Largely saying "I do solemnly affirm" rather than "I do solemnly swear" and omitting "so help me God," or "as God is my witness" (neither of which is an official part of the presidential oath anyway).

The distinction is largely lost on us today, but swearing an oath implies that you are swearing on something sacred, and some religious groups object to that -- notably Quakers and Mennonites. The idea is that expressed in James 5:12,

Above all, my brothers, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your "Yes" be yes, and your "No," no, or you will be condemned.

In other words, the position is that there is no need to swear an oath, because we should hold ourselves to the standard that our word is always good, and that our promises are always binding. Prior to 18th century legal reforms, this refusal to swear an oath was a problem for these believers; they could not testify in court, and they were sometimes imprisoned for refusing to swear loyalty oaths. But someone eventually came up with the idea of permitting solemn affirmations to be used in place of an oath, and that is the tradition adopted in the US Constitution.

These men were Muslim religious leaders flying home after attending a convention of 150 imams. They sat in their seats, which were not together. Honestly, I would not be alarmed seeing a group of Muslims praying in the airport (aside from all else, would a terrorist group pray in the terminal before boarding the plane they were going to stealthily attack?). Would you be frightened if you happened upon a KKK rally where the speaker was spewing their particular brand of threatening hate?

So, freedom of religion is now another of the freedoms that we have to give up in this scary WOT. Oh, wait, if it’s a group of Baptist preachers praying or Catholic priests praying then no problem. It’s not like Christians ever committed any violent acts (and I haven't heard many Christian preachers denouncing the abortion or anti-gay extremists, either). It is only Muslims who are suspect. And, really, the praying to Allah was just a clue that they were Arabs anyway. From AP: “An airport police report said the flight's captain had already decided he wanted the men off the plane after the passenger passed a flight attendant a note pointing out ‘Arabic men.’” So, it isn’t religion but ethnicity that is suspect.

There are probably more Christian terrists in this country than any other brand, though the FBI says the animal-loving and tree-hugging groups are the most dangerous (gotta watch them elfs). Chances are, terrists ain’t going to be the cause of your demise. Walking down the street, slipping in the tub or choking on a McNugget are greater risks. In my neighborhood Mexican-Americans commit most robberies and gang crimes. Now if I could just get the police to shake down any and every Latino kid that approaches too close to my family I wouldn’t worry about them getting jacked.

Brilliant, Sara. I'm a 5th district voter too and I concur completely with what you've written.

"When is the last time you heard of a Methodist beheading a person while a pal videotaped it?"

the US media protects the "Christain Image" by calling those who do stupid things here, in Christ's name, "cults."

I've worshipped in mosques as part of interfaith outreaches and, surely, my worship experience with muslims was no different than with christians.

I'll go one better:  When is the last time you heard of an ATHEIST beheading someone?

I have no idea the religious affiliation of all the mass murderer/psychopathic wackos out there. I imagine there's a range of religious justification to a very aetheistic one. Sure, in Iraq we've seen beheadings with some kind of Muslim affiliation, but there are plenty of killings in our own country that have nothing to do with any religion.

When is the last time you heard a prominent muslim leader decrying beheadings, suicide bombings, and other violence in the name of Islam?

My assumption is we don't hear this because we never get an alternative perspective from the media in this country. I think there are plenty of Muslims decrying this -- doesn't make the 6pm news. 

5 or 6 Muslims get on their knees and pray. (I also heard they shouted something about Allah, but since I don't know this for sure I will not say that it happened).  They slowly board the plane, but don't sit together, and don't sit in their assigned seats. 

What in the hell are you supposed to think?

(In some ways, this speaks more to a lack of confidence in airport security than anything else. If we were sure security was tight, who really cares if people are praying?)

My original point was only that it's not a radical fringe that has anti-Muslim beliefs. Your comments back up that statement.

You said yourself, this reaction is against "what we see" about Islam -- what we see is mediated, by the press, by television news. It's a reaction to a perception created by the media, not necessarily to the truth. 

I disagree that the solution is simply Muslims "stepping up to the plate." It's more complicated than that. It's like saying the Post Office should "step up to the plate" and stop people from busting into their offices and shooting everyone. Or schools should "step up" and prevent kids from shooting their fellow students.

Also, the whole issue of terrorism plays into some real fears in our psyche -- fears of "the other." Even if Muslims leaders "stepped up" as you say, I'm not sure how much that would even change things. Certainly not when you have, say, a White House using those fears for propaganda and political gains.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Jan, with all due respect, you have a distorted view of Muslims, one that perhaps comes from not knowing any personally, and gathering your opinon solely from the news media. Your post shows that you view all Muslims as a monolithic bloc, as an 'other' group of religous fanatics, which does a great disservice to those of us who are moderate, American, and who have no association nor approval for extremist Muslim groups.

The faulty premise of your argument is shown when another group is substituted--by your logic, all moderate Christians should 'step up to the plate' and put a stop to Pat Robertson, Randall Terry, Fred Phelps, etc., which clearly shows the futility of such well-meaning sentiment.

Neither Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison or, for that matter, Lincoln, were in any way religious. There is no evidence that any of them even accepted the divinity of Christ.

Their goal was more like freedom from religion than freedom of it.

Americans tend to be ignorant of American history.  I've heard so many groups claim the original intent of the protection of the non-establishment clause.  The fact is, the clause is derived from a similar requirement in the Virginia at that time.  It was written by Thomas Jefferson. 

It protected a cult.  That is right, it wasn't called a cult at that time, but in today's language it would clearly be a cult.  The cult wanted to avoid having to pay taxes to IN ANY WAY benefit the official church of Virginia, which was the Church of England (Episcopalian).  The point of the law was that this cult would NOT have to support a church it disagreed with.

There is little evidence that Jefferson accepted ANY divinity, but he was a pragmatic man.  He realized, as many opponents of religious nonsense before and after, that it isn't politic to make this widely known.  Still, he was an occasional defender of the weak, so he sided with the cult against the establishment.  So the Virginia religious freedom act prohibited FORCED SUPPORT for religion.

The cult?  Baptists.

So, it is all about FREEDOM FROM religions with which you disagree. 

Excellent use of religious rhetoric.  Jefferson was no fool.

Absolutely. You just said a mouthful! It is the same reason that Iraqi's have no reason to trust us, or our presence there. Experience has taught Iraqi's this. No one could sensibly say that their fear and distrust is because of discrimination against Americans -- it is based on what they have seen and lived through.

Jan Knaus

Widen your horizons...Poke around on this blog for a while: Aquol

Thanks for the link; it looks interesting. I have to admit that my buttons get pushed whenever religion comes into the discussion. I should probably just not join in on those discussions.

Jan Knaus

Civil Rights did not need religion for a moral foundation. I recall almost no Bible-quoting during King's efforts.

Historian Claybourne Carson is editing MLK's papers.  He's been doing so for about 20 years now.  Asked what he had learned about King, Carson replied, "He was a minister."  That was something he'd never fully appreciated about King and something that, in Carson's view, was fundamental to understanding him. 

You're welcome, I figured you'd appreciate the link.  While there, you might want to look at their blogroll links too.

yes, as a matter of fact, i do traverse the elliptic... 

I agree that MLK, etc. had a religious approach. I don't agree that Civil Rights would never have happened absent the religious angle.

One of the professors at the U of M really floored me with his talk about the "institutions of our society."

Love it or hate it, the church has always been one of those institutions although it can be both healing and cancerous-- just like everything else.

I would never say that MLK "had a religious approach" because I think that the "institution of religion [read philosophy]" allowed him to be who he was and do what he did.

Other individuals, obviously, thrive in government-- our secular instituion and the melting pot.

Yes, MLK both found a home for his talents in church and polished his skills of oratory in the pulpit. He was shaped by, and shaped, American Baptist thinking.

I emphasized the non-religious end of the spectrum because I look for examples of the reflexive "religion as the source of ethics" school. We can't be completely inclusive, politically, unless we accept that ethics predates religion and can arise and evolve independently of religion. In this case, that Civil Rights was obviously moral to some non-religious doesn't mean those people formed their ethics because religion was one of our persistent institutions. I argue it's the other way around--religion codifies our pre-existing morality. Evidence for this is the use of Biblical passage to justify White Supremacy positions. That is, one can find the morality one needs in scripture.

However, a culture's ethics has effects that can be measured, so they are not arbitrary. Put another way, cultural relativism does not preclude judgements of the value of certain ethical systems. We can both give full civil rights to an individual and judge him as a failure to society. Similarly, we can offer respect to various ethics and religions and still decide their results are good or bad.

We have concluded that guaranteeing Equal Rights, Declaration-style, and various Rights in the Bill of Rights, is sound policy, yielding a healthy society. This is why these things feel right; a very long history of testing both ends of the hierarchy structure has led to a population that enjoyed the results of, first, the Magna carta, and later, the Enlightenment, followed by the various Revolutions.

Other populations have not experienced this particular history; we have trouble finding agreed meaning of various words like "freedom" and "liberty" with other cultures.

If you check, you will find that the Roman Catholic Church retains a network of courts throughout the world, the ones in Great Britain continue a tradition that started about the same time as the King's courts.

The jurisdiction of those courts is usually the result of negotiation between the Curia and the local government. Revolutionary France eliminated them and they returned within two decades, but with more limited jurisdictions.

Those courts are active in the U.S. Ask any Catholic who has tried to get a religious divorce. Their other jurisdictions at this time I am unaware of, but they'll expand as far as the local government lets them.

I am sure that other hierarchical churches have similar court systems, if less extensive.

So the Sharia courts differ from other religious courts throughout European and European-descended nations in what way? They do not become a problem until they take on the trappings of government churches, meaning having police with arrest powers and the power to imprison or otherwise forceably punish miscreants. They can only do that if they become the established church of a nation, and then if the government extends the power of government courts to the church courts.

Religious courts such as the Sharia courts and the Catholic courts are well within the European tradition.