Thread: A first for America...The Koran replaces the Bible

if he swears on the koran is he vowing to carry out killing all Christians as 'his' religon preaches?

that could really bite if you are one of his constituent especially if you voted for this idiot!

MountainDog's

This is America and we have certain values, if you don't like it here get the hell out!

Americans are becoming as angry as I've ever seen them. Talk about the pressure cooker in Mexico needing an outlet......I think someone better turn down the heat right here in the US of A !!

As MountainDog said, "This is America, if you don't like it, then get the hell out"

Well said, MoutainDog.

Originally Posted by Sindawe

Who the heck voted for this idiot anyway?
If he refuses to take his oath on the Bible tell him to go away.

For MountainDog and all others who feel that the swearing in of office should be done with a Bible, and those who decline barred from taking office. I direct your attention to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.

[quote:2tuu833j]The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

[/quote:2tuu833j]
I'm sure that you find that a convincing argument, but it ceases to hold water when you consider that the same men who added that provision to the Constitution and who we know to have been well familiar with Islam (which was at the time called Muhammatism) saw absolutely no problem with requiring elected officials to take their oath with a hand on the Bible. So clearly their intent was not what you would like to pretend that it was.

Furthermore (and this is important), the Bible is also held to be a holy book by Islam. So if the Bible is held to be a holy book by both Islam and Christianity, why would a Muslim refuse to swear on that book which is common to both religions? I'll tell you why: Many of the "Muslims" in this country are not Muslims at all, but rather are angry activists who have created a totally new religion unrecognizable to mainstream Islam. Is the Nation of Islam truly Islamist? Did Malcolm X's insane religious rants in which he claimed that white people were created from baboons by "black scientists" Islamist? They were not, any more than the "Christians" of the Aryan Nation are true Christians.

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.

This just may end up being the straw that breaks the camel's back for the United States and the American people. It may be just the thing that turns the tide in this country with a wave of Americanism not seen in many of our lifetimes.

There is hope even in the darkest of moments, especially when it comes to the American people.

Originally Posted by LegalUSCitizen

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.

This just may end up being the straw that breaks the camel's back for the United States and the American people. It may be just the thing that turns the tide in this country with a wave of Americanism not seen in many of our lifetimes.

There is hope even in the darkest of moments, especially when it comes to the American people.

unfortunately i disagree. middle class America is still living with the very complacent mindset 'it can't happen here, to us.

I know it's difficult Lone_Patriot, but you need to stay strong, and realize that you are not really a "Lone" Patriot. We are here with you, and if you watch the number of people joining ALIPAC alone on a daily basis and a weekly basis.....it should be proof to you just how "not alone" you really are.

Chin up, Patriot!!

Maybe it should be this way...If you are NOT AN AMERICAN...you cannot hold office, and I don't mean just being born in this country. And if you deceive that you are when you are not...automatically gives you 20 years in prison for holding an office when you are not loyal to this country or American citizens. If your actions prove to serve another people or country OTHER THAN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA...you should be counted as a traitor of this country and its citizens.

I don't care if this is politically correct or not....that PC bull is going to be the end of this country. We have had our problems in the past...but now we have massive illegals overtaking our country...and massive foreigners being let into this country...and schools teaching to HATE AMERICANS!!! ITS TIME TO GET RID OF THE PC...AND START SPEAKING THE TRUTH ABOUT THINGS! You can lie and swear to tell the truth (even on the bible)...but again here is OUR CULTURE BEING ABUSED AGAIN. Government officials have always USED THE BIBLE...and maybe there was provision, so that religion...isn't the topic, so WHY DO WE HAVE TO CHANGE NOW??? Because someone from another culture decides he doesn't like it????? Or if an Anti American runs...and doesn't believe in our constitution he can change that too???? YOU know, like the ACLU...! I agree with Lou Dobbs, they need to drop the A from their name(American) or maybe they could add one AACLU ...ANTI AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION! Thats what it should really say!!! IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT ....DON'T RUN!

This would put many of our current officals behind bars!!!!!!!
There are so many evil men/women that would take something good and wonderful....OUR DEMOCRACY... and forsake it! So they definately deserve to be in prison!!!

Crockett,
I would appreciate your input concerning the Treaty of Tripoli as it affects this issue. Also in light of the Constitutional Amendment is there a thing that citizens can do? What's legal is not always right, but the courts play that way.

Art. 11. 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 tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

Ellison is using this to push the Muslim agenda politically. Despite what many think most moderate Muslims will tell you that they respect the Bible and consider it Holy. So just what is his problem? It's not a Holy book to him?

I expect he will push the race card too. The Nation of Islam is a radical bunch, we know this with Farrakhan and now if you all notice the New Black Panther Party is highly visible cohort to the Nation of Islam. They make their living crying racism. Didn't we get tired of seeing them during the Cynthia McKinney fiaso? Didn't every one of them we saw go by Muslim names?

Minnesota really messed up and Ellison needs to go.

Originally Posted by loservillelabor

Crockett,
I would appreciate your input concerning the Treaty of Tripoli as it affects this issue. Also in light of the Constitutional Amendment is there a thing that citizens can do? What's legal is not always right, but the courts play that way.

Art. 11. 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 tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

Well, the Treaty of Tripoli was an odd duck. for one thing, of the copies of that treaty that were made public, on version contains the verbiage stating that the US was not founded on the Christian religion while another has no such verbiage. Speculation has ranged from that one or another was a forgery to the more probable explanation thatthere were actually two versions, one of which was meant for the eyes of the Muslim Barbary Pirates and another of which was meant for the eyes of the folks back home, who would have bristled at such verbiage. Being a very early treaty authored by a new government that was somewhat unsophisitcated in international diplomacy, it may well be that it was felt that the language was necessary to appease Tripoli while being meaningless for domestic purposes. The article seemed glaringly unnecessary, however, which may lend some traction to claims that it was a later addition for whatever reason. Whatever the case, the treaty was valid for only a short period of time before being replaced by a separate treaty that contained no language relative to religion.

I don't know that a Constitutional amendment is necessary. For some of these contentious issues in which the vote cannot be assured, it is probably best to let sleeping dogs lie. The fact is that we still have a national chapel, still begin every session of Congress with a prayer, and stil prominently feature such religious symbols as the giving of the Law to Moses on various edifices in DC, as well as both inside and outside the Supreme Court.