Los Angeles Times op-ed by the illustrious former Dutch Member of Parliament, Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
I wish I could say that what Ms. Ali says in her op-ed essay is a surprise, but I find that it isn't. I didn't specifically know that knowledge of the Holocaust is suppressed in the Islamic world, but now that I have the knowledge, I find that I fail to be shocked.
So Islamic theocracies don't teach their citizens about the Holocaust, call it a lie, which causes both the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Mein Kampf to be bestsellers in many Arab countries, and teach the former as fact in their schools. I knew about the popularity of Kampf and the Protocols already, which is a large part of why this revelation wasn't particularly surprising.
And that's scary. It's frightening that so many in the Arab and Muslim worlds are avid readers of Hitler and of anti-Semitic fabrications (that have been known to be such since the 1920s), but knowing that they could read these, particularly Mein Kampf, which details Hitler's plans, and then not accept that Hitler would, in fact, kill millions of Jews, shows a frightening form of doublethink. Arab culture and failing Arab governments wishing to distract their citizens from their failures blame the Jews for their ills, saying that a group of people that Muslims worldwide outnumber by 75 times is wholly bent on the destruction of Islam and is on the brink of bringing it about, without setbacks. This is creating such an awesome hatred of Jews and Judaism that the citizens of those Arab states simply will not believe the historical fact of the Holocaust, even when it is presented to them in all it's unholy horror.
And that, dear readers, is what's most frightening of all. An entire culture is convinced that it must destroy an entire other culture in order to survive. That is a recipe for war eternal.
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Muslim lawmaker to take oath of office on the Qur'an
Ireland Online, USA Today
To summarize: Keith Ellison, newly elected to Congress and soon to be the first Muslim to take high federal office in the United States, wishes to take his oath of office on his own holy book, the Qur'an, rather than the Christian Bible. For this, he has come under fire from Dennis Prager, a conservative columnist and talk radio host.
For this, I have to say that Mr. Prager is, with all due respect, manufacturing a controversy where none should exist. His Townhall column, which may be found here, appears to be simple pandering to his normal audience. At least, that's what I should hope it is; I would hate to think that someone in his position should be so profoundly ignorant of his own country's actual laws.
Because yes, not only would requiring a lawmaker to swear in on the Bible be unconstitutional; it is factually incorrect to say that it is so in the first place. Several points:
First and foremost, the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution guarantees religious liberty without interference from the government for all citizens, even Congressmen.
Secondly, the oath taken is to uphold the Constitution, not the Bible. What the oath-taker's hand is on doesn't change the nature of the oath. If it did, officials would be sworn in on a copy of the Constitution, which I think would be a better idea anyway.
Thirdly, forcing someone to take an oath on a book he does not care about would, if anything, cause the oath to have less effect; traditionally, to swear upon something is binding upon the oathtaker to give that thing up should he break the oath; hence swearing on one's honor. Symbolically, forcing Representative Ellison to swear on the Bible would mean he was saying that he would give up the Christian faith if the oath were broken. Since he has already done this (he converted to Islam from Catholicism), such an oath would mean nothing to him, and have no hold on him whatsoever. This is the last thing that someone who wishes to see an oath fulfilled should want.
Lastly, and most damaging to Prager's assertions, Congressmen are not sworn in on any book whatsoever, Bible or otherwise. Newly elected and reelected Senators and Congressmen simply raise their right hands in unison and swear to uphold the Constitution in a summary mass swearing-in. They can bring in any book to swear on that they wish, or none if they don't wish to swear on a book. The occasional photographs that one sees of a Congressman being "sworn in" on a large Bible by another official are simply photo-ops; they pose for the picture and are done, the official swearing-in having already been accomplished in the House chamber.
Therefore, this is all much ado about nothing. Representative Ellison can bring his Qur'an to the ceremony if he pleases, and there isn't anything anyone can do about it, not that anyone should. He is free to exercise his religion as he sees fit while serving in Congress as long as it does not interfere with his duties as a Congressman, and those duties do not include swearing in on the Holy Bible.
Incidentally, it shouldn't: The Bible itself forbids the taking of oaths.
To summarize: Keith Ellison, newly elected to Congress and soon to be the first Muslim to take high federal office in the United States, wishes to take his oath of office on his own holy book, the Qur'an, rather than the Christian Bible. For this, he has come under fire from Dennis Prager, a conservative columnist and talk radio host.
For this, I have to say that Mr. Prager is, with all due respect, manufacturing a controversy where none should exist. His Townhall column, which may be found here, appears to be simple pandering to his normal audience. At least, that's what I should hope it is; I would hate to think that someone in his position should be so profoundly ignorant of his own country's actual laws.
Because yes, not only would requiring a lawmaker to swear in on the Bible be unconstitutional; it is factually incorrect to say that it is so in the first place. Several points:
First and foremost, the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution guarantees religious liberty without interference from the government for all citizens, even Congressmen.
Secondly, the oath taken is to uphold the Constitution, not the Bible. What the oath-taker's hand is on doesn't change the nature of the oath. If it did, officials would be sworn in on a copy of the Constitution, which I think would be a better idea anyway.
Thirdly, forcing someone to take an oath on a book he does not care about would, if anything, cause the oath to have less effect; traditionally, to swear upon something is binding upon the oathtaker to give that thing up should he break the oath; hence swearing on one's honor. Symbolically, forcing Representative Ellison to swear on the Bible would mean he was saying that he would give up the Christian faith if the oath were broken. Since he has already done this (he converted to Islam from Catholicism), such an oath would mean nothing to him, and have no hold on him whatsoever. This is the last thing that someone who wishes to see an oath fulfilled should want.
Lastly, and most damaging to Prager's assertions, Congressmen are not sworn in on any book whatsoever, Bible or otherwise. Newly elected and reelected Senators and Congressmen simply raise their right hands in unison and swear to uphold the Constitution in a summary mass swearing-in. They can bring in any book to swear on that they wish, or none if they don't wish to swear on a book. The occasional photographs that one sees of a Congressman being "sworn in" on a large Bible by another official are simply photo-ops; they pose for the picture and are done, the official swearing-in having already been accomplished in the House chamber.
Therefore, this is all much ado about nothing. Representative Ellison can bring his Qur'an to the ceremony if he pleases, and there isn't anything anyone can do about it, not that anyone should. He is free to exercise his religion as he sees fit while serving in Congress as long as it does not interfere with his duties as a Congressman, and those duties do not include swearing in on the Holy Bible.
Incidentally, it shouldn't: The Bible itself forbids the taking of oaths.
Sunday, February 12, 2006
...and chaos ensues.
Melbourne Herald Sun, USA Today
Well, chaos did ensue, but not immediately from the source I predicted in my last post. Evidently, a Danish newspaper ran some political cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed in the course of criticizing the violence of Islamic extremists. Those same extremists decided to object to being characterized as hyperbelligerent thugs by... acting like hyperbelligerent thugs, torching embassies (without regard to what country the embassy was from, as long as it was Western), attacking U.S. military bases, and threatening to continue if the Danish government did not apologize, evidently due to a failure on their part to comprehend the nature of a free press, that is to say, the government is not responsible for it.
The basis for all this offense is supposedly that depicting the Prophet is blasphemy. Of course, there are two problems with this:
1.) The cartoonists in question are not Muslims and do not claim to be so far as I am aware, and therefore can't very well be held guilty of apostasy against Islam. Of course, not being subject to Islamic law is something that your average jihadi doesn't comprehend.
2.) Muslims don't seem to have much of a problem with such depictions in other places, at least when they aren't critical of Islam.
Of course, the irony is delicious.
And also of course, the Onion called it years ago.
Well, chaos did ensue, but not immediately from the source I predicted in my last post. Evidently, a Danish newspaper ran some political cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed in the course of criticizing the violence of Islamic extremists. Those same extremists decided to object to being characterized as hyperbelligerent thugs by... acting like hyperbelligerent thugs, torching embassies (without regard to what country the embassy was from, as long as it was Western), attacking U.S. military bases, and threatening to continue if the Danish government did not apologize, evidently due to a failure on their part to comprehend the nature of a free press, that is to say, the government is not responsible for it.
The basis for all this offense is supposedly that depicting the Prophet is blasphemy. Of course, there are two problems with this:
1.) The cartoonists in question are not Muslims and do not claim to be so far as I am aware, and therefore can't very well be held guilty of apostasy against Islam. Of course, not being subject to Islamic law is something that your average jihadi doesn't comprehend.
2.) Muslims don't seem to have much of a problem with such depictions in other places, at least when they aren't critical of Islam.
Of course, the irony is delicious.
And also of course, the Onion called it years ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)