You are currently browsing the AcademicFreedomBlog weblog archives for the day December 9, 2006.
- Comparative religion (4)
- Culture & society (78)
- History (29)
- Notable Quotes (19)
- Personal story (13)
- Politics (35)
- Science and faith (116)
- Uncategorized (44)
- March 11, 2012: Encouragement
- March 6, 2012: Legalistic life
- February 24, 2012: Burning Qur'ans and Burning Bridges
- February 8, 2012: The War on Religion
- January 24, 2012: Evolution in Excel
- January 11, 2012: Steno's Applied Science
- January 9, 2012: "Love" in the Bible and Qur'an
- November 6, 2011: The Problem with My Spouse
- October 23, 2011: Mind Brain Controversy
- August 26, 2011: How Old Is The Earth?
Blogroll
Chat
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- November 2011
- October 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
Archive for December 9, 2006
Swearing in on the Koran?
December 9, 2006 by Dr. Mc.
This week on Townhall.com Weekend Journal, Michael Medved and Dennis Prager square off on whether congressman-elect Keith Ellison should be allowed to substitute the Koran (Qur’an) for the Bible at his swearing into office ceremony. Prager says, “No,” as I understand him, because the Bible symbolizes the values upon which America is founded. This makes sense, because, regardless of one’s personal faith, these are the values that must be upheld. Medved says, “Yes,” as I understand him, because Ellison should be allowed to swear on the religious text of his adherence. (What good is an oath upon an object to which you have no allegiance, besides the personal religious affront?) Christianity is often accused of being intolerant, because its book holds that Christ is the only way to salvation; but the book also holds throughout that we must be allowed to choose our way (Deu 30:19), even if it is the wrong way, because without choice there can be no love (Deu 30:20). Like it or not, this is at the foundation of every “free” nation. Yet from either Prager’s or Medved’s position, it should be obvious that we wouldn’t even be having this discussion in a Qur’an-based nation. Islam’s book holds that no one should even be allowed to follow any other way (Surah 9:33). i.e., individuals and governments are admonished to FORCE all within their power to follow their book. Medved and Prager (interestingly enough, both Jews) conclude that both books should be present: the Bible to represent the values of our nation, and the Qur’an (or whatever volume a person might choose) to represent their personal accountability. Ellison speaks of respect for all beliefs when speaking of Islam, but I will be amazed if both books are present by his choice. The position of the Qur’an is quite clear about all other religious books.
Posted in Culture & society, Politics | No Comments »