Comments on: Oh It Burns

By: Mellifluous

Mellifluous — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 16:46:18 +0000

Is this anything like contagious fire?

By: HotFlash

HotFlash — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 02:58:27 +0000

TeddySanFran @ 47

Scarecrow, perhaps FDL should not be more open-minded, but more violent?

Maybe both. “Tolerance or death” could be our motto.

Love it! I’m laying out the sampler now.

By: leslie

leslie — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 02:19:59 +0000

I haven’t read everything yet, but I, too, wrote the evil Mr Prager an email condemning his statement that there is a preferred book in America. I also asked him who died and named him the head of the Book of America Club.
If he did anything with this email - anything at all - I’d be mightily surprised. I only mention this because I wouldn’t be surprised if he had thousands of emails in response to his racist remarks. Oh, and I also said that his remarks were indeed racist, and that the only racists I knew were people who purported to be Christians and who purported to live by the “Good Book”. (I ought to have asked him to name what good book he has read lately)

Good on BobbyG.

I’m just sorry that Prager is such a blow-hole and such a scummy one, at that.

By: Ferruge

Ferruge — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 00:51:48 +0000

Out of curiosity, what book did Mitt Romney swear on? Would Prager throw a hissy fit if it turns out to be the Book of Mormon?

For the record, I don’t give a shit what book anyone swears on. If it were me, I’d swear on Lord of the Rings….or maybe Richard Bach’s Illusions.

By: The Dawg

The Dawg — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 23:53:56 +0000

Not the least ridiculous thing about this AP story is its premise. What DOESN’T ‘offend’ someone like Prager? Folks of his ilk live to be offended.

When you’re talking about a group that’s chosen Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh as its chief spokespersons, you’re referring to idiots.

If it wasn’t Keith Ellison, it’d be Nancy Pelosi marching in a gay pride parade or Jimmy Carter visiting Cuba or some other nutball thing these people latch onto to drive themselves into a furor.

In short, this is news?

By: EvilDrPuma

EvilDrPuma — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 23:44:01 +0000

Prairie Sunshine @ 103

And a heads-up to the fulltime Minnesotans, if you haven’t noticed, the Coleman ‘08 re-election campaign is already in full swing. He’s even doing the visit-all-counties thingie in ‘06. Plus opening a new office in Moorhead.

Time to start building the George Galloway testimony commemorative float.

By: johnSwifty

johnSwifty — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 23:35:29 +0000

TheOtherWA @
110

WTF? Drunk drivers are faulted after a wreck, a CEO may be faulted after a company collapses, but how could anyone fault a person for their religious choices?

This phrase we use, “He/she/it drank the kool-aid,” is sort of an implicit fault against those poor souls at Jonestown. The Heaven’s Gate crowd that took off on the Hailbop comet might be faulted for bad religous choices; unless they were right, then I’ll fault them for leaving me behind with George Bush.

But, smartassedness aside, I too was struck by that and I agree entirely with your WTF over the matter. It’s disgusting in AP; but, I’m starting to expect less of them every day.

By: Publicus

Publicus — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 23:32:01 +0000

Prager insults all patriots who believe in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution with his bigoted rantings.

By: Rick B

Rick B — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 23:29:14 +0000

Let’s go back to basics, and in America that means the Constitution.

Freedom of religion was enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution. First amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”

But look also at what the basic document of the Constitution say:
“Article 6(c) Oath of Office; no religious test. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive officers 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 qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Then consider the definitions of “oath” and “affirmation” which you will notice are considered equal in the Constitution.

An oath is “a solemn promise, usually invoking a divine witness, regarding your future acts or behavior, or a commitment to tell the truth (especially in a court of law); to lie under oath is to become subject to prosecution for perjury.”

An affirmation is “(religion) a solemn declaration that serves the same purpose as an oath (if an oath is objectionable to the person on religious or ethical grounds).”

So to take an oath or affirmation is to commit to perform an act or to tell the truth, based on the highest authority by which your own conscience allows you to swear, without regard to any diety or specified ethical code. All such oaths or affirmations are considered equal under the law.

Just as an aside, it also appears to me that to permit either an oath or affirmation in Article 6 of the Constitution clearly demonstrates what is meant by the First Amendment. The government of the U.S. cannot establish any religion at all, and every American and resident is protected from enforced religion if they do not want to participate. We have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion. No diety or religious preactice can be established by law. Period.

This is all over and above Praeger’s pay grade, apparently.

By: TheOtherWA

TheOtherWA — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 22:50:13 +0000

What stood out to me was the AP headline. (Prager’s always a moron, no surprise there.) “Congressman faulted for Quran at oath”

WTF? Drunk drivers are faulted after a wreck, a CEO may be faulted after a company collapses, but how could anyone fault a person for their religious choices?

The writer almost never does the headline, so we can’t blame Frederic J. Frommer, but some anonymous editor on the desk. Something like “Congressman criticized for Quran at oath” would have been more accurate.