I read Townhall twice, I think.  Both times I closed the window with much eye-rolling and tongue-clucking and self-flagellation with a very dry noodle (didn't last as long, but was slightly more emphatic than the wet version).  The place is chock-full of self-congratulatory invective that anyone who isn't a real conservative is, by default, an America-hating, God-smearing, mongrelized latent terrorist bent on destroying western civilization (translation - anyone who doesn't agree with every word they spout is bad, bad, bad, made of pure evil on par with Hitler, Pol Pot and possibly Mother Teresa).

Needless to say, it turned me off.  So, I tend to leave them safely ensconced, unmolested by any of Kiosan's bad, evil, red-headed stepchild-ish thoughts, in the little bubble world they've created for themselves.  I ignore them.  It's been working quite well.

But then today I start noting at Memeorandum, and at several blogs (most lately, BlondeSense) that one of the frothing fanatics has come up with a real gem of an idea: Dennis Prager suggests that Congressman-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN) should not be permitted to swear his oath of office on the official holy book of the religion he has espoused for 20 years.  One of the world's major religions, by the way, which happens to be Islam.  Mr. Prager is, shockingly, of the opinion that Mr. Ellison, being permitted to so swear, would undermine American civilization, and that Mr. Ellison should therefore be forced to swear his oath on a Christian bible.

Where, oh where, to begin?

First, being a Muslim, Mr. Ellison will not hold a Christian bible as one of his holy books.  That being the case, he might as well swear on a copy of Twelfth Night, or Charlotte's Web, for all the difference the particular tome under his palm would make in obligating him, on any supernatural level, to his oath.

Second, the Constitution does not require the presence of any book, holy, technical, or Monty Pythonesque to anchor the subject to his oath.  We are to take him at his word, that he will support and defend, bear truth and allegiance, and faithfully discharge his duties.  The addition of "so help me God" had a nice little ring to it, but rampant corruption throughout the 109th Congress (and other Congresses) proves the trite little phrase no more binding than "We must get together sometime" or "I'll call you."

Third, contrary to Mr. Prager's assertion that swearing on a Christian icon is not only preferable when taking office, but required, the Constitution specifically prohibits any religious test from ever being required as a condition of office.  The bald language indicates, to me anyway, that forcing a person of any religious stripe, whether Christian or Muslim or Hindu or Flying Spaghetti worshipper, to swear on any "holy" book at all, whether one they privately espouse or not, is not only unreasonable, it is, in point of very plain fact, unconstitutional.

Mr. Prager rants on at one point regarding racists swearing on Mein Kampf and wondering how all of the evil, America-hating constitutional constructionists might feel about that little bag o' crap.  I cannot speak for all of the other freakishly reasonable people in the world, but I can attest that I, personally wouldn't like it.  However, I'd have to find a way to deal with it, just as I have to find a way with dealing with the fact that this issue has even been raised.  Mr. Ellison has as much right to swear his oath on the Qu'ran as Mr. Prager has to scream about how vehemently he disapproves of it. 

Let the man swear on what he feels will bind his oath - I don't care if it's a bright green marshmallow dipped in sulfur and drizzled with pine sap.   I'd stand by and let a duly-elected purple dinosaur swear on a stack of The Prince if it meant he'd keep the promises he was making.  I'd hold my nose, of course, not being overly impressed with purple dinosaurs, but I'd do it.  It's called putting my money where my mouth is: valuing our collective freedoms so much that I will stand by and watch them exercised in ways I don't like without demanding that they be revoked to satisfy my oh so delicate sensibilities.  Call me crazy.

I do offer one constructive compromise solution, however.  We could simply do away with the contrivance of having people swear to any higher being, on any book at all.  Then no one would have to worry about Mitt Romney swearing on a Book of Mormon, or Tom Cruise swearing on Dianetics, or hypocritical Christians lying swearing on top of their own holy Bible*.  We could, quite simply, remove religion from this process altogether - which is how it was intended to be in the first place.

*Yes, anyone can be a hypocrite, and people of all stripes, both religious and non, are.  However, the suggestion is that everyone must swear on a Christian Bible, and to date I believe most have.  Ergo, the corrupt Congressmen we've seen come and steal and bribe and go, have been those professing to be Christian who have lied with their hands on their holy book.

I don't know if I have any Rightie readers.  The few people I recognize passing through tend to be left of center.  But if there are any right-leaners who read here, I'd like to ask them a question:

How is it certain members of your side of the aisle can demand "bipartisanship" while using terms like "dhimmicrat" or "moonbat" or "traitor" or any of the other dozens of derogatory terms I see gleefully spouted on my occasional foray into the extreme rightwing blogosphere?  A series of comments at Atlas Shrugs, a blog I admittedly don't venture to often (and to which I'm afraid I will not link) has me asking, because a commenter there (lefty) asked a question to which she actually wanted an answer, on a thread whose title contained the word "bipartisanship" and was castigated, quite roundly, for seeking the opinion of the other side.

The only commenter who would constructively engage her took several posts to do so, and then only on the basis of talking about talking to people, without ever actually addressing her original points.  I'll grant that the lefty's initial post was poorly phrased if she was looking for legitimate answers, but her clarification in her subsequent post outlined that she was, indeed, seeking dialog.

Yet none would answer, except with old bugaboos and well-worn epithets.

Personally, I try to avoid the partisan invective here.  I don't believe I've ever used the term "wingnut" or "Repugnican" and I do attempt to direct criticism at specific people and/or opinions held by certain sub-groups of the right, rather than at all Republicans or all right-leaning people.  I cannot for the life of me understand this proclivity for demonizing a full half of the American population simply because I find certain elements of their opinions or beliefs either distasteful or unfathomable (or even, in certain cases, reprehensible).

Is it not incumbent upon us, as reasonable people (and I still tend to think most people are reasonable, despite partisan attempts to divert said reason into pure emotion) to find a way to live, peacefully, with one another in the same country that we all, in our varying ways, love and call home?  Is it necessary to call someone who espouses differing views names predicated entirely on the divergence of those views from one's own cannon and, if so, what purpose does it serve?

I fully understand and appreciate passion; but passion without reason eventually reduces to nothing more than blind fanaticism - a devotion to which history proves will eventually founder and fail (though some may require longer than others and some fewer adherents, admittedly, never do manage to escape its grasp).  How do the people who regularly engage in this practice expect to accomplish their aims?  True, while such kindergarten tactics held sway in politics, they could simply strong arm their way through, but as the worm turns their ill-gotten might ebbs and they only erode it further by insisting on continuing the farce.

Seriously.  What is the point?

---

Filed under "Republicans" because I'm asking this of those who lean right, and I hesitate to create a new category for a subject I hope to be able to avoid revisiting, just as I will avoid revisiting the Atlas site, which offered nothing constructive whatsoever.  Except, I guess, the impetus for this post, the constructiveness of which is, of course, subject to the reader's opinion.