Roy Moore Admits He Is A Theocrat
Here’s his latest column.
You remember the recent argument by Dennis Prager that Keith Ellison – the first Muslim elected to congress – should not be allowed to swear an oath of office on the Quran, but should be required to swear an oath on the Bible? Complete stupidity, as fully explained here, here, here, and here. The basic objection is that making someone swear on a book in which they do not believe serves no purpose but to denigrate the idea of an oath. The second objection is that nasty ol’ Constitution, which states in Article VI: “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
But reasoning, truth, and law not being very important to Roy Moore, he takes Prager’s stupidity and runs with it. I was going to spend some time picking Moore’s column apart, but someone else did a much better job than I ever could:
Good ol’ Roy Moore is back at it again and he’s playing poker. He’s seeing Dennis Prager’s stupidity and raising it a heaping dose of theocratic insanity. He’s also showing, yet again, his ignorance of American history. Prager only claimed that a Muslim shouldn’t be allowed to swear an oath on the Quran instead of the Bible. Moore ups the ante: no Muslim should be allowed to serve in Congress at all. And his reasoning is astonishingly ignorant.
Read the column, and then read the critique. If you ever had any doubts that Moore’s use of the phrase “religious freedom” meant anything other than “christian theocracy” those two reads will settle things.
Of interest, here’s the accompanying post from Moore’s disciples at the Roy Moore Blog:
Judge Moore’s latest column contends that Congress should prevent Representative-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN.) from taking his seat in that body unless he backs off his request to be sworn in on the Koran rather than the Bible. Judge Moore points out that the founding principles of this country–including freedom of conscience–were based on the Bible, whereas, the Koran was not a source used by the Founders and its teachings on the unity of church and state contradict freedom of conscience. Because of this, the judge concludes, if Ellison takes the oath on the Koran he will be contradicting his constituitonal oath. . . .
Judge Moore calls on Congress to prevent Ellison from being able to take his seat in Congress.
Is it just me, or does that read objectively? As if the author is trying his best to describe Moore’s argument, rather than adopt it? Could Moore have gone too far for even his most devoted followers?