I don't know how many actually read that entire article. As distasteful as it was, I did. This kind of sh*t will never convince me of anything other than the individual writing it is a nut.

But this:

He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

Then there was this:

If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress.

All in all, Mr. Praeger invoked 9/11 AND Hitler's Mein Kampf.

For example, hasn't violence in Iraq increased significantly since Ellison was elected? No, I don't really think the increase in violence is due to Ellison's election, but that does not make Prager's opinion wrong... It'll be interesting to see how big a bruhaha this turns into and if Ellison is able to get his own bad self re-elected in '08...

What an assertion, Sarc. Violence in Iraq and Ellison. As one poster here goes great lengths to defend, we can argue facts, but not opinions. I think he means that you can't prove an opinion wrong.

Ellison is muslim. He is far from a fanatic. He will be reelected in his district for as long as he wishes to represent there. I can assure you that. You may think it is cute to say "get his own bad self" as if he is some type of agitator or defender of extremism, but you are being niave and have not done an ounce of objective research into this man. I've met with him  and worked with him. He truly is representative of his district first before he is a Muslim. He happens to be Muslim. HE was endorsed by many jewish organizations in his district as well as prominent Jewish members in his community. He is unabashedly liberal, like the majority in his district. That is all that separates him from the mainstream in America. His religion is personal and separate from his politics. His wife is not Muslim, nor is it important to Kieth that she be converted to one.

What else has happened since Ellison was elected. hmm, The Dallas Mavericks have won 10 straight games since he was elected. Is he responsible. That is my opinion. You can't prove it wrong because it is true. There is a correlation, but no cause.

This by Prager is just plain hyperbole intended to keep the fear of muslims in America alive, buch as we used to fear communists when the enemy was the Soviet Union.

But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible. In fact, the opposite is more likely: Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America.

One major change brought about by the terrorist attacks of September 11, has been to inject a new group into the religious equation--the Muslims; this will strengthen multiculturalism and further weaken the influence of groups that hold that the United States is or must become a Christian nation.
...
Large numbers of American Muslims who had more or less deliberately kept a low profile have emerged to claim their place in the religious pantheon.

We are quite clearly no longer a Christian or even a Judeo-Christian country, but a multireligious one in which Muslims have an important place. In the process, other groups--Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Parsees, Orthodox Christians, and others who have also long been silent--have also emerged to national prominence and are insisting on their rights.

Quite clearly, most U.S. citizens still belong to one religion or another, but the only way disparate groups can be held together is in a tolerant secular state, something humanists very much want.

It is also the only way the United States can defeat terrorism.

So why are we allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done -- choose his own most revered book for his oath?

The answer is obvious -- Ellison is a Muslim. And whoever decides these matters, not to mention virtually every editorial page in America, is not going to offend a Muslim. In fact, many of these people argue it will be a good thing because Muslims around the world will see what an open society America is and how much Americans honor Muslims and the Koran.

This argument appeals to all those who believe that one of the greatest goals of America is to be loved by the world, and especially by Muslims because then fewer Muslims will hate us (and therefore fewer will bomb us).

But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible. In fact, the opposite is more likely: Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America.

For example, hasn't violence in Iraq increased significantly since Ellison was elected?

No, I don't really think the increase in violence is due to Ellison's election, but that does not make Prager's opinion wrong...

Prager from the link:

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

Oh wait, I just scrolled up and saw comment #10. Thanks DS

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

We export more armaments than any other exports

I meant it as saying it [armaments] is our main manufacturing export. We produce arms. THat is our economy.

I prefer to think that both you and Prager had valid points but unknowingly presented supporting data that you believed to be accurate but was later found to be inaccurate, rather than think you and he are liars.

imo, "ignorant" is an ugly word with ugly connotations and I think it would be insulting to apply it to either him or you.