Professor Bainbridge...on law, politics, religion, culture & food

As I understand it, Ellison doesn’t have to take any oath at all. The Constitution says (Article VI), “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned… shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution”. Everywhere else that an Oath is required, the Constitution likewise says “or Affirmation”. Some religions forbade the taking of oaths (I believe the Quakers did); the Constitution specifically allowed those people the option of “affirming” their intent to uphold the Constitution, instead of swearing an oath.

And if Ellison can’t be required to swear an oath at all, I don’t see how he can be required to swear on a bible.

Not to mention that Article VI continues, “...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

It seems to me that requiring a congressman to swear on a Bible would amount to imposing a religious test; it amounts to insisting that he acknowledge the Bible as spiritually authoritative.

I’m a Prager fan, by and large, and taking one thing with another. But here I think he’s talking out his butt.

The US Code requires the words of the oath/affirmation, but does not require that anything be there to “swear on”. I presume he could just raise his right hand or left or hold his nose for that matter.  But the words are required by law.  If he refuses to swear or affirm and takes office he will be breaking the law.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00003331----000-.html

Hey professor, we’re talking Prager here, in Townhall.com.

Why waste your time?

Or do you feel either the author or the “publication” has a shred of credibility?

You could spend 23 hours a day pointing out wacky crap on LGF or DU, but does that make folks question them, or you?

Prager’s argument strikes me as fundamentally misguided

It appears you have a propensity for understatment. Prager’s argument pretty much flies in the face of everything our Country was founded to stand for.

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.

That wasn’t placed in the Constitution simply to fill space. The lack of a religious test was put in there specifically to counter the sort of muddled thinking that guides Mr Prager’s writing.

Freedom of religion (which is important) aside, what even is that value of an oath sworn on a holy book (a portion of one) that someone doesn’t accept?

For example if a non-Christian swears by the Bible, they might as well be swearing by the telephone book, and if an athiest is required to say “so help me God” they might as well be saying “so help me Flying Spaghetti Monster”.

Freedom of religion (which is important) aside, what even is that value of an oath sworn on a holy book (a portion of one) that someone doesn’t accept?

For example if a non-Christian swears by the Bible, they might as well be swearing by the telephone book, and if an athiest is required to say “so help me God” they might as well be saying “so help me Flying Spaghetti Monster”.

"Freedom of religion (which is important) aside, what even is that value of an oath sworn on a holy book (a portion of one) that someone doesn’t accept?”

None. Which is why non-Christians have generally not sworn an oath at all, but have merely made an affirmation as provided in the Constitution.

These days I’m not sure what the value of an oath is even when taken by Christians. People used to think that if you broke your oath you went to hell. This was what gave the statement made under oath its added credibility. Not even devout Christians believe this now, so the oath has largely lost its usefulness.

From a purely political point of view, the swearing on the Koran is great for the USA because it promotes the notion of an assimilated Islam that participates, according to the “rules laid down,” in our halls of power and under our Constitution.

A tangential question here for various Christian believers to answer… How indifferent are you to the particular version or translation of the Bible that you swear on? Eg, how many Catholics would refuse to use a King James, how many Protestants (other than Anglicans/ Lutherans) would baulk at a Jerusalem Bible that included the Apocrypha, how many of either would reject the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation?

Interestingly in the context of discussing the no religious test provision the North Carolina Ratifying Convention actually discussed non Christian oaths

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions52.html

“And if none but Christians or Jews could be examined upon oath, many innocent persons might suffer for want of the testimony of others. In regard to the form of an oath, that ought to be governed by the religion of the person taking it. ... A very remarkable instance also happened in England, about forty years ago, of a person who was admitted to take an oath according to the rites of his own country, though he was a heathen. He was an East Indian, who had a great suit in chancery, and his answer upon oath to a bill filed against him was absolutely necessary. Not believing either in the Old or New Testament, he could not be sworn in the accustomed manner, but was sworn according to the form of the Gentoo religion, which he professed, by touching the foot of a priest. It appeared that, according to the tenets of this religion, its members believed in a Supreme Being, and in a future state of rewards and punishments. It was accordingly held by the judges, upon great consideration, that the oath ought to be received; they considering that it was probable those of that religion were equally bound in conscience by an oath according to their form of swearing, as they themselves were by one of theirs; and that it would be a reproach to the justice of the country, if a man, merely because he was of a different religion from their own, should be denied redress of an injury he had sustained. Ever since this great case, it has been universally considered that, in administering an oath, it is only necessary to inquire if the person who is to take it, believes in a Supreme Being, and in a future state of rewards and punishments. If he does, the oath is to be administered according to that form which it is supposed will bind his conscience most.”

In the same debate they actually discussed Mahotmetans:

“But it is objected that the people of America may, perhaps, choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. But how is it possible to exclude any set of men, without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for? This is the foundation on which persecution has been raised in every part of the world.”

also:

“It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans, pagans, &c;., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President, or other high office, but in one of two cases. First, if the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves. Another case is, if any persons of such descriptions should, notwithstanding their religion, acquire the confidence and esteem of the people of America by their good conduct and practice of virtue, they may be chosen. I leave it to gentlemen’s candor to judge what probability there is of the people’s choosing men of different sentiments from themselves.”

It should be noted that those advocating any sort of religious test lost.  So Prader is extra wrong, his position was discussed at the time and rejected.

Of course, there’s an easy solution: Swear/affirm the oath on a copy of the Constitution. After all, the oath is to faithfully execute a temporal activity, so why should anyone require any other source of authority?

Of all the important and pressing matters going on in our country and the world, this yutz Prager has his kishkes in a twist over what book the first Muslim member of Congress will use to take his oath of office?

He should grow with his head in the ground like an onion.  Or maybe that’s what’s already happened.

”...the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion… [and] it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims]...”
Treaty between USA and Libya, ratified by George Washington, the first President of the United States, June 10, 1797.

“The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or Mohammedan nation.”
John Adams

“Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindu and Infidel of every denomination.”
Thomas Jefferson; Autobiography, referring to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

Linda Lingle takes the oath of office upon a Torah on December 2, 2002, at the Hawai’i State Capitol rotunda by Hawai’i State Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald Moon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_Hawaii

Chabad passes out Bibles to House

washington (jta) | Chabad sent a copy of the Hebrew Bible to every Jewish member of Congress.

U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) made headlines earlier this month when she could not find a Hebrew Bible for her swearing in; she refused the Christian Bible proffered by House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and eventually borrowed one from Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.).

http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/24751/edition_id/485/format/html/displaystory.html

I’m a Prager fan, too, and was dissappointed in his line of reasoning here.

But, I can cut him some slack for his reasoning as he doesn’t know the relevant Con law nor legal reasoning or its history.

Usually, that doesnt preclude him from getting the big things right, but he has really screwed this one up.  Further, he usually isn’t so doctrinaire and flat-out wrong about historical facts.  That said, he is quite wrong here.  I am a bit biased because I usually find his arguments cogent and compelling, even when I don’t agree with him, so I’m probably more willing than most to cut him some slack and not villify the guy for a mistake, as is the norm on some blogs and in the political world in general these days.

Also, if I may do some amatateur psychoanalysis, I’ve found that often, in his eagerness to show solidarity with Christians, specifically conservative Evangelicals, he often goes too far in their defense.  Though I think conservative Christians are horribly micharacterized and for the most part wrongly villified and stereotyped by those (far leftists) who do not have much contact with them, Prager seems often too eager to overlook true Christan dogmatism and/or Constitutional overreach.  This is par for the course for conservative Jews who sincerely appreciate the support of Evangelicals (which I, as a Jew, personally don’t find as hypocritical or as objectionable as Jews some do; regardless of the motivations for that support, it does seem sincere. [An aside - it’s fine to characterize the support as biblically inspired, and for those with secular views to therefore somewhat look down on this support, but in nearly all instances it derives from the biblical mandate to support the Jewish people, and is not (with a very few exceptions) motivated by some apocalyptic end-time vision]), and are so fearful of a European type Christian anti-semitism arising in America Christianity that they will go too far in support of American Judeao-Christian traditions sometimes.  While Prager knows that American Christianity is not nearly as succeptible to anti-semitism as European Christianity, the fear that it could one day arise is probably in the back of his mind, and he wants to make sure that liberal leaning Jews who are justifiably historically wary of all things “right-leaning,” don’t end up turning their collective backs on true friends of the Jewish people.  For Diaspora Jews, the greatest fear, and one which is always with us all, secular or religious, is that of being singled out as not faithful to the country we live in and scapegoated for that reason.

My $0.02.

Dear Prof. B.,
Forgive me.  This is a totally off-topic attempt to pick your brain.  To your knowledge, has the Kelo decision been discussed in any hardbound books yet?  My daughter (a high school junior) needs (non-Internet)resources for a discussion of an SC case involving the Fourth Ammendment.  Whatever your response, thank you for taking the time to read this.

The Prof is as always, much more charitable than I would have been.  Read that collumn: it’s simply a despicable exercise in agitprop from start to finish.  It implies that Ellison is emboldening terrorists and even decides to shoehorn in Hitler.  Dealing with his arguments and refuting them is great: but how about commenting on how low he sinks in his rhetoric as well?  It isn’t quite as nasty as Glenn Becks’ “so, please, convince me that you aren’t a terrorist” intro to Ellison, but it’s close.  We were supposed to demonstrate, as a nation, that we are in a war against Al Qaeda and fundamentalist terrorism, not against all Muslims.  With people like Beck and Prager prancing around spewing bile and being treated like decent, well meaning folks, we’re failing.

MJS, the problem with people like Prager and to a lesser extent Medved is that they seem to cross the line between simply respecting Christianity as a cultural ally to, while claiming to be Jews, suggesting that Jews consider it to be in some manner or another, more dominant and important than Judiasm.  This is a case in point: Prager really seems to be arguing that if a Jew swears on the Torah (as he ignorantly thinks has never happened) instead of the Bible, they are undermining CIVILIZATION.  He even compares it to a Nazi swearing on Mein Kampf! 

Look, respecting Christianity is one thing, as a Jew.  Promoting it as being what Jews should bow down to as superior, let alone in a secular-governed nation like the US.  I really have to doubt, time and time again, whether they are really practicing religious Jews as they claim.  Their perspective is just so bizarre, from a Jewish point of view. 

Look, I respect Christians and Christianity just fine.  But let’s be honest: Christianity is to Judaism what Islam is to Christianity: a radically theologicaly different direction that hijacked one religion to create another.  There’s nothing wrong with that, but pretending that Christianity and Judaism are really one consistent whole is the CHRISTIAN VIEW, not the Jewish view.  Christianity rejects what Jews accept, and demands acceptance of views like Original Sin and human sacrifice atonements that are completely foreign to Jewish theology.  Only Christians occasionally try to pretend otherwise, generally for the purposes of recruitment.

There’s a sketch of Teddy Roosevelt’s swearing in, where he’s holding his right and high while his left rests on nothing. Perhaps, Mr. Prager is right, and Teddy was fiercely undermining America in that moment. Or perhaps Mr. Prager is just another christian supremacist, like some of the guys at NRO, picking over Mitt Romney’s beliefs to determine his suitability for civil office.

I think Prof. Bainbridge has already asked the relevant question:  have people of other religions been able to pick their choice of sacred book?

Ellison may be the first Muslim member of Congress, but he’s hardly the first non-Christian to take any oath of office.  The Jews are probably the best example of a welcomed but non-Christian religion.  If Jewish members of Congress or other federal office have been sworn in on Torah’s or “Hebrew Bibles”, then there’s no reason why Ellison could not be sworn in on a Koran.  And I am really no fan of the Koran.

On the other hand, if Prager is right and every person sworn in to such an office has ALWAYS been sworn in on the Bible, then there is no reason why Ellison should be an exception.  And since Islam officially acknowledges Christians as “People of the Book”, then there should be no problem in swearing an oath on it.

The most important thing here is that Islam be treated like any other religion in this country, and neither given special privileges nor special burdens.

And that in fact is the best counter to Islamic terorism and extremism: that Islam has no special protection or special privilege.

Tommy, the question has been answered: many members of Congress have sworn on the Torah, or even just not sworn on anything at all: they merely affirmed.  The constitution has never required such (also of note: the oath of office that the President takes does not, in fact, include the words “so help me god”: that’s something Presidents have simply traditionally added).

The bottom line is that the US is not a Christian Nation.  We do not elect anyone to Congress thinking to give them special treatment or extra authority in terms of religion, primarily because, as Washington said, the people can do that just fine on their own thank you.  Every politician trying to inject religious ceremony and implied religious authority into their office is taking something no one granted them.  We do not elect religious officials: as citizens, we freely choose what religious council and organizations we wish to associate with or listen to.  We don’t need the direction or help of politicians looking to grandstand to figure out how best to pray to god, or even if we should pray to god at all.  That’s our business, not theirs. 

And that’s a very important distinction for these oaths.  The religious aspects are NOT part of the office in any sense.  They are always and everywhere personal touches added by the official to demonstrate some particular dedication.  By trying to turn these traditions and personal decisions into forcible requirements, Prager makes them into something that the nation should not tolerate: religious tests for office, the idea that one particular religious belief, or any, is a requirement or part of ones office and duties.  As long as they are simply personal touches, I have no problem with them.  But what Prager wants them to be makes them despicable.  For the sake of those who wish to perform them, and those that enjoy them, people like Prager need to not succeed.

The final irony in all of this is that Ellison has not even said what he’ll do.  He wasn’t even the one who suggested that he would use a Koran: he never even mentioned the issue.  Like the Glenn Beck “so, are you a terrorist?” question, it is based entirely on the fact that he is Muslim alone.

Prager is often sensible, but he’s gone off the rails before. He and Michael Savage, the two most philosophical conservatives in talk radio, are prone to similar mistakes.

Title > PART III > Subpart B > CHAPTER 33 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 3331 states:

“An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

A question. Does the phrase “So help me God” contradict the religious test clause or establishment clause? I have the feeling that it does. Suppose the person taking the oath is a Hindu?

Commnents please.

Why does Prager hate Jesus so much?

Matthew 5:33-37

“Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, “You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.” But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.”

Oh, and just one other small error in Pregar’s reasoning:  the swearing-in ceremony for the House of Representatives never includes a religious book.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/30/koran-bible-prager-ellison/

> Tommy, the question has been answered: many members of Congress have sworn on the Torah, or even just not sworn on anything at all: they merely affirmed.

Prager says, “But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either.”

If Prager’s right, then Ellison should take his oath on the Bible as well.  If Prager’s claim is wrong, then his whole argument is gone.

To really show that Prager’s wrong, you need more than a few counter-examples.  You need to show that it’s routinely accepted to swear in on a “Hebrew Bible”, or some other “scriptures”.  Do that, and Prager’s argument collapses entirely.

> The bottom line is that the US is not a Christian Nation.

No, that’s neither a fact beyond dispute or the bottom line.

1) The bottom line is not whether the U.S. is a Christian nation.  It’s perfectly possible for the U.S. to be a thoroughly Christian nation, and still allow complete religious freedom to others.  In fact, the Bill of Rights was approved while the U.S. was overwhelmingly considered a Christian nation

2) There’s a distinct difference also between being a Christian nation, and having a Christian government.  Here, I’d agree that we don’t have a Christian government.  But while the government is of the people, by the people, and for the people, the government is not THE SAME AS the people.  We can certainly have a Christian nation and a secular government at the same time.

3) The real bottom line is that the government does not have separate statuses or laws for special religions.  If everyone in fact takes an oath of office on the Bible, then let that include Muslims.  If Jews don’t swear an oath on the Christian Bible, then there’s no reason to expect a Muslim to.

Before Prager’s article, I would have guessed that Jews swore an oath on their own scriptures, or not at all.  Of course, Prager has not substantiated his claim, either ...

And by the way, I don’t think you can make swearing on a Christian Bible a “religious test” unless it’s actually mandatory.  And I think we’ve long since established that anyone with a religious objection to swearing an oath doesn’t have to.  I’d presume that includes ANY religious objection to swearing an oath, even if the religous objection is that you’re a Hindu.

Of course, all this discussion is about what Ellison SHOULD do.  I think we all know that if he requests to swear an oath on the Koran instead, no one’s going to try to stop him.  About all they can do is criticize him after the fact.

> “If everyone in fact takes an oath of office on the Bible, then let that include Muslims.”

No, let the government start obeying the Religion Clauses of the US Constitution.

> The bottom line is not whether the U.S. is a Christian nation. It’s perfectly possible for the U.S. to be a thoroughly Christian nation, and still allow complete religious freedom to others. In fact, the Bill of Rights was approved while the U.S. was overwhelmingly considered a Christian nation.

This is perhaps one of the silliest comments I have ever read.

The Bill of Rights was approved when most Americans where white.  Does that make America a “white nation”?

Perhaps instead of focus on the time period that the Bill of Rights was ratified, you might actually dain to read it.  You need to go no further than the First Amendment to realize that America was founded on the concept of religious freedom, and that no religion may be sanctioned by the government over any other.

I’m generally considered one of those “scary, right-wing, religious nuts” and even I think Prager is completely off the rails.

The language of the Constitution could not be more plain.  An oath of office is required, either repeated or simply affirmed in responce to it being repeated, but no religious test can be applied.  Every religious test with which someone wishes to burden themselves to strengthen thier conviction or prove thier sincerity is a purely voluntary one.

“Not even devout Christians believe this now, so the oath has largely lost its usefulness.”

You know, I get sick and tired of non-Christians who don’t know any devout Christians speaking authoritatively on what Christians believe.  I would refain from making oaths, since the Bible encourages us not to, but having made an oath I would see breaking it as an act of Treason against my God.  Do you think that devout Christians no longer believe in Hell?

“A question. Does the phrase “So help me God” contradict the religious test clause or establishment clause? I have the feeling that it does. Suppose the person taking the oath is a Hindu?”

I don’t know that it violates the establishment clause (I think you could have a debate on that), but I also don’t think that that debate matters because it clearly and unquestionably violates the religious test clause.  For that reason, people with an objection to the phrase are not required to say it.  Similarly, people who have a religious objection to making an oath are not required to repeat the oath, but simply to affirm it. ("Let your yes be yes and your no be no...")

>> The bottom line is not whether the U.S. is a Christian nation. It’s perfectly possible for the U.S. to be a thoroughly Christian nation, and still allow complete religious freedom to others. In fact, the Bill of Rights was approved while the U.S. was overwhelmingly considered a Christian nation.

> This is perhaps one of the silliest comments I have ever read.

> The Bill of Rights was approved when most Americans where white. Does that make America a “white nation”?

Clearly you completely missed my point.  Read the paragraph you took the trouble to quote. I didn’t claim that America is a Christian nation now because it was a Christian nation when the Bill of Rights was ratified.

I pointed out that freedom of religion does not require that the nation be secular.  That in fact in a day when Moslems and Hindus were unheard of on these shores, religious freedom was enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

In other words, being a “Christian nation” has already been shown to be compatible with religious freedom.

Why bother to make the point?  Because if you think freedom of religion requires secularism, then you try to purge any sign of religion from the public square. 

Frankly, freedom of religion did not come from a secularist movement in this nation, but from religious groups, notably the Baptists, who refused to seek or accept a “license” to preach.  That is, they refused to submit to the framework of “established” churches.

The point is a simple one:  A nation doesn’t have to be secular to have freedom of religion.

> Perhaps instead of focus on the time period that the Bill of Rights was ratified, you might actually dain to read it. You need to go no further than the First Amendment to realize that America was founded on the concept of religious freedom, and that no religion may be sanctioned by the government over any other.

Read it? I can quote it, or at least the freedom of religion part:  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” (Note there’s no mention of a “wall of separation")

The problem is, you’re attacking arguments I never made.  The whole point I made is that Islam should have neither special privilege nor special burden compared to other religions.

For the record, Prager bases his column on this claim:

“But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either.”

It’s interesting that no one can come up with more than a couple counter-examples to Prager’s claim.  Clearly, the question has not concerned many people historically.

Even so, listening to Prager defend his own column on Fox, it appears that he included in his claim those Jews who swore only on the Old Testament—the “Hebrew Bible”—as those who swore on the Bible.

And in fact, it’s true enough that a Christian would regard a “Hebrew Bible” as a Bible, even though it didn’t contain the New Testament.

But that’s clearly not the same as the claim that Jews deliberately swear an oath on the full Christian Bible even though they don’t believe in the New Testament.  I don’t think Prager can substantiate the claim he made, and if he can’t then his argument has no grounding in reason.

So, there’s just no reason to demand that Muslims be sworn in on a Bible.

Note that I’ve read the Koran twice, and am no fan of it.  I think it would be a great gesture were Ellison to swear on a Bible.  I’m not holding my breath, though, and I’m not too worried about upholding a tradition that doesn’t appear to exist.

I am no islamic scholar, so maybe someone can answer this.  Does islam and/or the koran call for its adherants to force islam on all the infidels and make sharia law the law of the land?  If so, would the act of a muslim swearing on the koran to uphold the constitution cancel itself out?  I guess it doesn’t matter, because to question the validity of the oath based on its adherant or its device inspiring allegiance would be a forbidden religious test.

Prager has clearly gone over the edge.  He’s always had the idea that Christianity is fundamental to American society, and apparently he wishes to take this mantra to absurd lengths. 

I have no doubt that he will be on the radio claiming to have destroyed Volokh on Paula Zahn’s show because the professoriate can’t handle when someone like him challenges them.

’I am no islamic scholar, so maybe someone can answer this. Does islam and/or the koran call for its adherants to force islam on all the infidels and make sharia law the law of the land?’

Actually, I believe both Islam and Christianity do. I hope you won’t mind me posting this link to a piece on my blog quoting the ugliness of both the Koran and the Bible:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2006/11/islam_a_religio_1.html

There’s no evidence there’s a god, and there are far too many people in government legislating our lives on their beliefs based on god. Fine, believe in god, or believe in other unproven crap (like that I’ll fall in a hole tomorrow if the moon’s in Aquarius), but it’s wrong to legislate others’ behavior based on the your weird, unproven beliefs. And yes, belief in god, without proof, whether you’re Jewish, Christian, Muslim or other, is weird and primitive, and has no place in the leglistation of a modern society.

Prager is the same jerk who says that no good social advance ever came from any society that wasn’t monotheistic...despite the fact that democracy, the system under which he can spew his monomaniacal diatribes, was invented by polytheists.

Go figure.

Prager is often sensible, but he’s gone off the rails before. He and Michael Savage, the two most philosophical conservatives in talk radio, are prone to similar mistakes.

Posted by: Patrick O’Hannigan | November 29, 2006 at 10:38 PM

If those two are the most philosophical your side has, no wonder the several years of total conservative control have been a great big rolling disaster.

"Actually, I believe both Islam and Christianity do. I hope you won’t mind me posting this link to a piece on my blog quoting the ugliness of both the Koran and the Bible”

It’s significant that every Christian example you’ve cited comes from the Old Testament. Keep scouring those Gideons in hotel rooms and you might yet turn up a sound-bite from Jesus, St Peter, St Paul, St James or some other New Testament figure along the lines of “Slay ye the unbelievers whenever ye find them”, one that would override Jesus’ Parable of the Wheat and the Tares under Christianity’s “Doctrine of Abrogation” and St Paul’s teaching that “Every commandment in the Old Testament remains binding on Christians in every particular.”

Tommy Higbee: As I understand your Christian Nation argument, you are differentiating between the citizenry and the government?

This argument subverts the pertinent point of this affair and thereby relegates the discussion to one of ritual.  The essential issue involves the promise of elected officials to uphold and carry out their duties of office according to truth, justice and law. This makes swearing on a book, a stack of books or a stack of anything, a formality, leaving citizens the task of determining as best they can, prior to voting, a candidate’s character and honor, and hoping beyond hope one’s keeping of one’s word.