Just when you think that Bush followers cannot descend any lower : 2 items

[LiviaOlivia]

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/11/various-items.html

~snip~

Whenever you think that Bush followers cannot descend any lower into un-American authoritarianism, they always prove you wrong. Congressman-elect Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress, has said that he will take his oath of office on the Koran rather than the Bible, since -- as a Muslim -- he happens to believe in the Koran and not the Bible. Dennis Prager has a column (cheered on by various extremists) insisting that Ellison "not be allowed to do so," arguing that "if you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress":

What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible.

If you hadn't read that for yourself, wouldn't it be hard to believe that someone is actually arguing this? Prager is essentially asking: What has happened to America where now it seems that people can decide for themselves what books they will believe are holy? The viewpoint which Prager derisively attributes to the "Muslim and leftist supporters" of Ellison happens to be one of the core founding principles of the Republic: "it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book."

James Joyner and Stephen Bainbridge both provide excellent rebuttals, including Joyner's pointing out the rather obvious fact that requiring elected officials to take their oaths on the Bible would constitute a textbook case of a "religious test" prohibited by Article VI, and would almost certainly violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as well.

As always, it is the most basic constitutional principles -- which were previously beyond challenge -- that are placed in doubt by the most rabid Bush followers. And these attacks on our constitutional values are, with no sense of irony, waged in the name of defending "America."

~snip~

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New GOP Attack On Obama: His Middle Name is "Hussein!"
By Eric Kleefeld

If you thought Obama's last name was enough of a political pitfall, the Republicans are just getting started. Last night on Hardball, GOP strategist Ed Rogers ridiculed a potential Obama candidacy by using — possibly for the first time on cable news — Obama's little-known and politically unfortunate middle name. "Count me down as somebody that underestimates Barack Hussein Obama," Rogers said. Expect to hear this sort of thing again and again if Obama runs for President.

video at link:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/nov/29/new_gop_attack_on_obama_his_name_is_hussein#new

[displacedtexan]

1. These idiots are the reason the ACLU exists.

Its sole purpose is to defend and uphold the US Constitution.

We're all trying to figure out why these idiots hate the Constitution.

[BushOut06]

2. Barack Obama should change his name to Bob Smith

Then he should paint his skin white (ie Eddie Murphy on SNL). Betchya the GOP would love him then.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

14. If he were GOP that is!

The GOP would just LOVE him if he were a member of the GOP.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. This is indeed sickening

these people are inventing a history for our country that never existed...the Bible was never "America's Book"-nor were the founders all "Christian" nor was the Constitution founded upon theocracy. The scariest thing is that it is working--my doctor has told me of talking to people who are educated and should know the facts telling her in all seriousness that all Muslims worship idols and are out to kill all Americans.

[Avalux]

4. Anyone who still supports Bush and his admin at this point are nuts.

I firmly believe that - they are living in an alternate reality and unable to see the truth. So the stuff that comes from them doesn't surprise me.

[EST]

5. Rarely do I choose to get involved in this sort of thing,

but, at this time, I would like to point out the seriously hypocritical angle.

As a committed student of the bible at an early age, I became aware of a specific injunction against the swearing of any oath.

In legal proceedings, a witness who actually follows the precepts propounded in the bible is allowed to "affirm" the truth of his statements, in a bow toward that injunction.

Claiming to be a devotee of the biblical teachings and then deliberately violating those teachings by swearing on the volume that contains those precepts strikes me as a particularly egregious form of hypocrisy.

[geardaddy]

6. I thought

that when you took the oath, you could choose to place your hand on the Bible or not. In most courtrooms they only ask you to raise your right hand.

[krispos42]

19. Hell, I thought they used a dictionary nowadays, if at all! n/t

[geardaddy]

7. So, I wonder if...

Norm Coleman, put his hand only on the Old Testament part of the Bible. ;)

[zbdent]

8. I find this hilarious ... when you consider how many Repukes swore in

on a Bible, then committed all the theft and other crimes (some, according to their followers, are crimes not listed in laws ... like Foley's "homosexuality" - really, pedophilia) ...

So you have a man who doesn't want to be a hypocrite ... and wants to be sworn in on the book he finds is holy ... and they attack him for it ...

I bet that they are going to use the times that he, according to his faith, must bow toward Mecca, as an attack on him "not being available for key votes" ...

[Coaster City]

9. Is Mitt Romney able to do this as a Mormon???

Just out of curiousity how does Mitt Romney balance his faith with the christian religious right that he is trying to attract?

[zbdent]

12. Or, better yet, how does Bush's good buddy

Joe Lieberman deal with the man who feels that the kingdom of God goes through the destruction of Joe's own people?

[xchrom]

10. these people take hysteria to new heights.

what DO THEY put in their water?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

11. Why is Prager doing this?

Dennis Prager is a Jew. I assume he is defending the Bible (no segments specified) to suck up to the Xtian Right.

They have forgotten that the Prez swears to uphold the Constitution.

I worked at my local courthouse for almost twenty years and never once saw a Bible. I swore in many hundreds of people as a court reporter, and they just raised their hands. Some judges when they were swearing people in would say "swear or affirm". No Bibles involved.

[xxqqqzme]

13. well, I guess I'd have to use

Walden

'How vain it is to sit down to write when you have not stood up to live.' - Thoreau

[MasonJar]

15. These two embarrassments to American democracy rate right

up there with Kansas passing a law against evolution.

[AnnieBW]

16. Put Your Hand on the Bible and Swear to Uphold the Constitution

Not the other way around!

[izzie]

17. Two more years. And I am willing to bet it will be really interesting.

Two years to get every thing in that they knew is right. God help us.

[MissHoneychurch]

18. How about putting your hand on the constitution

and taking the oath on it and leave all religion out of it?

[B3Nut]

20. Mr. Prager is constitutionally illiterate.

Not that that's a surprise, seeing that this is typical for the Religious Right and their compatriots. I guess nobody pointed out to him the section of the Constitution that states that no religious test shall be used as a qualifier for office. Ellison can swear his oath on a copy of Macs For Dummies as far as I'm concerned.

Todd in Beerbratistan