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