Well, a quick on following up on my previous post. Thanks to a link in the defending Dawkins blog post I read a rant titled “America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on,” which is basically a right wing hate message about a Muslim supposedly intending to take his oath of office on the Quran rather than the Bible.

If the blog entry wasn’t so angry it would be funny. Apparently Dennis Prager has taken it upon himself to be the “Voice of America” and says things like: (snips as there is a whole page of this diatribe)

“First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism — my culture trumps America’s culture.”

“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 are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress.”

“And whoever decides these matters, not to mention virtually every editorial page in America, is not going to offend a Muslim.”

“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.”

Amazing isnt it? I love the apparent lack of irony when he accuses Ellison of hubris, yet the whole blog post is written as if Prager speaks for “America.” I have to ask what value is there in getting a religious person to take a religous oath on a book which effectively means nothing to them? Surely, the idea behind the oath on a Bible is that Christians will feel it binding. If they are not Christians, you could really use a copy of the latest Tom Clancy novel for all the effect it has. This is without discussing the apparent separation of church and state in American government (which is a myth as far as I am concerned).

Interestingly, it is all nonsense anyway. Members of the US congress do not take an oath with their hand on a book and this was just Prager getting all “Righteous” over an imagined slight which he took as implication that Islam was taking over the US.

Now that does make it funny.

Added to all this the furore was based on a nonsense idea (everyone has to swear on the bible), previous Presidents have sworn an oath on books other than the bible or taken office with an affirmation rather than an oath – citing religous beliefs as the reason. It seems that as long as the religous beliefs being tolerated are acceptable it is OK…

Technorati tags: Keith Ellison, Dennis Prager, Religion, Right Wing, Nutcase, Insane, Congress, Islam

I have been bashing religion quite a bit over the last few days and while I personally think it is a reasonable pastime, I am aware that not everyone will agree.

As a result I tried to spend some time today looking for reasonable examples of the good and balanced aspects to the various religions. Strangely I was not massively successful but I did come across some things which made me think (a first) – and I still don’t have an answer.

Basically, is Buddhism a religion or not? I found a blog which asked if it was possible to be an atheist and a Buddhist at the same time and personally I think the short answer is yes, which in turn implies that Buddhism is not a “religion” in the normal term. The blog post debates it in much better terms than I can or will do here, and brings in the addition of Confucianism to the question (based on a sentence in the God Delusion). In a similar vein, I found another Buddhist’s blog “defending Dawkins” which largely leaves me thinking, in line with Dawkins, that Buddhism should not be described as a “religion” in the normal sense. Both these blog articles are well written and interesting, so any attempts by me to cut parts here would be doomed to failure. I strongly suggest you visit those two sites and have a look.

However, this is not something which seems to sit well with me at the moment as my instincts cry out it is a “religion.” This is a viewpoint I have been brought up to hold and while I struggle to rationalise this view now, I can’t easily dismiss it. Other points of view, more than welcomed.

Technorati tags: Richard Dawkins, religion, buddhist, Atheist, confucius

The CompuSkills Web Design Blog now has it’s FAQs online. If there are any questions you would like to ask, or add to please do so.