Blitzer again said Ellison (rather than Prager or Goode) "spark[ed] some controversy"
On the January 4 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer, while reporting that Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) was sworn in on January 4 as "the first Muslim ever elected to the United States Congress," said that Ellison's decision to take a symbolic photo of the ceremony with his hand on the Quran was "sparking some controversy." Blitzer's statement echoed previous comments he made about Ellison in which he attributed the controversy to Ellison, and not to those who have denounced him personally and Muslims in general. During the subsequent report on the "controversy," CNN correspondent Jill Dougherty said that when there is a question about a "new U.S. Congressman be[ing] sworn into office" and "when that book is the Quran, there's no easy answer." She later said that "Ellison's choice of the Quran had some critics fuming, including one of his fellow congressman," referring to Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA). Blitzer made similar comments on the December 21 edition of The Situation Room when, while reporting on a letter written by Goode attacking Muslims and Ellison, Blitzer said that Ellison was engaged in a "war of words" with Goode, as Media Matters for America noted.
In contrast with some of Blitzer's coverage, a December 7 article in The Christian Science Monitor noted that it was Townhall.com columnist Dennis Prager's November 28 column about Ellison's intention to swear on the Quran that "sparked a brouhaha on talk radio, in the blogosphere, and in newspapers across the country." Since the November 28 column, Prager has appeared on MSNBC's Tucker, Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, and CNN's Paula Zahn Now to talk about Ellison's intention to use the Quran.
As in the previous instance in which Blitzer characterized the controversy as being "spark[ed]" by Ellison, onscreen text during the segment read: "Quran controversy."
From the January 4, 7 p.m., edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
[4:31-6:31]
BLITZER: Here's another notable snapshot from the power shift in the Congress. Senator and Democratic presidential prospect Hillary Rodham Clinton [NY] was sworn in for a second term today by the vice president, Dick Cheney. At her side, her husband, the former president of the United States, Bill Clinton. Among the new lawmakers sworn in today, the first Muslim ever elected to the United States Congress. And at his private ceremony, Democrat Keith Ellison of Minnesota took his oath on the Quran, a move that's sparking some controversy.
Let's bring in CNN's Jill Dougherty. She's here in The Situation Room with the story -- Jill.
DOUGHERTY: Hey, Wolf. Well Thomas Jefferson had one. He owned it. He studied it, so why can't a new U.S. congressman be sworn into office with his hand on one? Well when that book is the Quran, there's no easy answer.
[begin video clip]
DOUGHERTY (voice-over): It's a tradition that goes all the way back to George Washington, first president of the United States.
CHENEY: Please raise your right hand.
DOUGHERTY: Elected officials taking the oath of office with their hand on a holy book. It's not a legal requirement, it's just a symbol. They swear to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution, not religious principles. Christians often use the Bible, Jews the Old Testament. Some don't use anything.
Keith Ellison, the very first Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress, chose the Quran, the sacred text of Islam, an 18th-century copy from the Library of Congress that once belonged to Thomas Jefferson. Ellison's choice of the Quran had some critics fuming, including one of his fellow congressmen.
GOODE: My personal belief is not to use the Quran.
DOUGHERTY: Congressman Virgil Goode says the U.S. should protect what he calls its traditional values.
GOODE: I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt strict immigration policies.
[end video clip]
DOUGHERTY: Other colleagues of Ellison's say they're outraged by such comments. On his first day in Congress, Ellison shook Virgil Goode's hand saying he was trying to build bridges.
...isn't the sharpest cub in the pack is he?
Blitzer is simply not a man of much intellect.
He's a servicable talking head for the corporate media, but he doesn't really have the intelligence (or the balls) to present much other than what his corporate masters feed him.
He's a functioning hack for the corporate media, so he can keep his job. It really is that simple.
creating a 'controversy' where there IS NONE!! CNN is deliberately propping up this 'story' hoping to get some audience response, and for what, I do not know, but I can only surmise the intentions of these producers and anchors are play upon peoples' fears and prejudices....
Me sometimes no speel gud..
If Ellison is a Muslim, then it is perfectly understandable and appropriate for him to be sworn in on Quran. What relevance does the Bible have in his life as compared to the Quran? None.
And his extended handshake to Virgil Goode was a classy thing to do. I commend him for it. Now let's judge him on his legislative abilities, not his religion.
What exactly is 'swearing' on the bible supposed to mean any way? Is that significant? It's nonsense. If you ask me, they should swear in with their hand on the Constitution.
What the flying monkeys seem not to understand is that the official oath is taken without any holy book at all. They swear to uphold the Constitution, not the Bible. The photograph shown is of the private ceremony.
This nonsense is taking hold among the Troglodytes; I heard the local Rush Limbaugh Wannabe this morning raving about this. He was outraged that Ellison would choose the Koran rather than a real AMERICAN book, like the Judeo Christian Bible.
These people are idiots.
Dennis saw the two of them walked up to Ellison and took him over to Goode and made the introductions which basically diffused what could have been a very uncomfortable situation. Whatever your ideology, you have got to admit Dennis Kucinich is pure class.
... a practising Buddhist would get into congress so that this person could chant and meditate before being sworn in.
I wonder what kind of "controversy" would be stirred up out of that.
There were two Buddhists sworn in this week - the first two Buddhists ever elected to Congress.
a Pure Land Buddhist, was sworn in with no book.
Hank Johnson (D-GA!!!) is a member of Soka Gakkai. I don't know if he used a book or not.
A Georgia Buddhist... I love this Congress!
Imagine, only 40 years ago it was considered "wierd" to be a Catholic running for public office(JFK). Oh how America is striding in becoming the most diverse and unique country EVER!!!!!!
Just imagine forty years from now there might even be an atheist in congress. Such progress.
It was a real chore listening to Prager and Hannity concur that Prager's Mein Kampf comment was not a "comparison of the Koran with MK" and that the media has "intentionally distorted Prager". While it is true that Prager didn't endeavor a rote comparison, his phraseology is very intentional. Why else would he mention those books in the SAME sentence if he wasn't attempting to somehow contrast the two?
His meaning is clear: today it's Koran, tomorrow Mein Kampf, which paints the Koran as a "slippery slope" toward the worship of fascism, so inevitably the mind makes a connection between the Koran and Mein Kampf, for what other connection is there to make?
The same analysis applies to Bush and Cheney endlessly mentioning Iraq, Saddam, and 9/11 in the same sentence. That is why 4 in 10 people still believe Saddam attacked us. And, I wonder, how many people think the Koran is rooted in fascist ideology because of Prager’s “accidental” phraseology.
What if I said, “Today, it’s listening to Prager and Hannity; tomorrow, it’s cruising the grade schools for children to molest.”?
See, I’m not comparing them to sexual predators. Not at all. But it’s hard to deny that I’m not SUGGESTING that someone SHOULD make the comparison.
I like the way you framed Hannity and Prager.
I'd like to see your slogan on about a million bumper stickers:
"Today, it's listening to Hannity and O'Reilly, tomorrow, it's cruising the grade-schools for children to molest."
About a million of these would be just right.
Because he's a democrat. I notice we aren't hearing a peep from those racist monkeys when it comes to bush's new muslim appointee to the UN. Unless this is more of that republican inclusiveness I hear of - you know, (insert race/sex/religion here> should be appointed, not voted in...
"And at his private ceremony, Democrat Keith Ellison of Minnesota took his oath on the Quran, a move that's sparking some controversy."
When someone is publicly criticized for doing something, it's normal to say the first person sparked controversy, whether the critics are wrong or right.
I've changed the word TOUCHED [from the original post] to SPARKED
=====
Of course Ellison's announcement SPARKED off a controversy.
Controversy:
1. a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion.
2. contention, strife, or argument.
Now whether you or anyone thinks it shouldn't have is NOT the issue. And no one is saying he did anything wrong. He simply opted for something DIFFERENT. And something different can, and often does SPARK off a controversy. Goode & others STIRRED it up. But Ellison's announcement SPARKED it off. That's simply the reality.
I live in Massachusetts. Mitt Romney, a Mormon, is my Governor [for a few more weeks anyway]. Had Romney wanted to be sworn in using the Book of Mormon, THAT would have SPARKED off a controversy. Again, not because it's wrong, but simply because it's DIFFERENT. Public opinion causes controversy, but it is obviously SPARKED off by an issue.
There is controversy about Mitt Romney being a Mormon should he run for President. I personally don't see the big deal. But SOME do.
We don't live in some kind of Utopia, where anything different is ALWAYS accepted by everyone without debate.
made the comment that he would use the Quran in his "ceremonial" swearing in. Thick-headed religious and racial bigotry, combined with with a mouth gear totally unattached to any functioning cerebral mechanism "sparked" off this controversy. Repeatedly and often.
What Ellison did is NOT controversial if you BELIEVE in the free expression of religion that is supposed to be a bedrock principle of this country and WITHOUT the rightwing screechmonkeys like Prager ratcheting up the rhetoric like the Mein Kampf statement there would have been NO controversy. Do you think yourself that his swearing in on the Koran is itself in any way controversial? NOT what was made out of it but the act itself? It was what was MADE out of the act that caused the controversy if it had just been reported and NOT demogogued there would have been no controversy
Well it's [a little after] noontime HERE, but for you it's still morning ;-)
Let me see if I can explain my point in a clearer fashion. Controversies come about because of *a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion*
BUT they must be SPARKED or TOUCHED off by an issue.
Solon, you are very open-minded. However you live among MANY who aren't. When something *different* or *not the norm* or simply something that flies in the face of a long held *tradition* occurs--whether right or wrong, it OFTEN can SPARK or TOUCH off a controversy. That's the reality.
An example: Placing ones hand on a Bible & swearing to tell the truth etc, has been a long accepted tradition, or norm in American courtrooms. A meaningless gesture [I suppose] IF one is NOT a Christian, yet it has been in practice for decades. It stands to reason that one of Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu faith would not view the Bible as a Christian would. And let's not forget about an Atheist. Totally meaningless to them. YET it was used. [is it still used? I know that it's come under discussion...yeah I should have googled it first--BUT this is still not a bad example]
BUT suggest the Bible NOT be used OR that it be replaced by a book or symbol of another faith and it SPARKS or TOUCHES off a controversy.
You asked IF I personally viewed Ellison wanting to use the Koran as controversial.
Solon, quite frankly I did. NOT because I thought it was a vile thing to do...BUT because it went against the norm. It was different. BUT once I gave it some thought, I shrugged it off. The guy is a Muslim, of course the Koran meant more to him than a Bible. And solon, don't forget the public perception of Muslims and Islam since 9/11 has been tainted. Now you can argue till the cows come home that it's unfair...and I'd agree. BUT that is the REALITY.
Years ago UNMARRIED couples living together was controversial. Today it barely produces a yawn. Inter-racial couples raised eyebrows [and controversy] not long ago, today it remains an issue ONLY for the bigots and narrow-minded.
I agree with you when you write that "free expression of religion" SHOULD be enough in this case. BUT solon, as the last line of my post said: "We don't live in some kind of Utopia, where anything different is ALWAYS accepted by everyone without debate."
As long as a gesture, lifestyle, or action goes against the norm, OR long held tradition, or is somewhat different from what came before it, then it will SPARK or TOUCH off a controversy.
Without an *issue* to SPARK/TOUCH off a debate you have no controversy.
I understand better what you were getting at. I cant disagree. I would still maintain that had it just been reported, he chose his holy book to swear in on and not demogogued it wouldnt have been an issue but I could be wrong. You make a good point.
that Ellison was engaged in a war of words with Goode is trivializing and insulting to Ellison. Good may be in a war of words, but Ellison has found himself in a war of ideals, at war with an unarmed enemy.
Prager, Slanthead, Billdo, Pills, Junk-Toting Annie, and doofus and goofus out there in Colorado as well.
The Quran/Koran represents 'sharia' (sp?) laws....doesn't it? Sharia laws are not the same as our country's laws...even if some are similar they are quite different in some respects. Ellison appears/looks like a nice guy. However, looks don't matter. Actions matter. This is a civilization based on Christian principles from the Bible. What are his reasons...besides being a convert to Islam....to take an oath on a book such as the Quran? Also, if Mr. Ellison lived in the Middle East he would be treated much differently. All he has here would not be allowed there. Have we forgotten history? Arabs were slave holders in ancient times...and excelled at it. Why would anyone want to take an oath on a Quran or Koran esp when we are at this time engaged in this war? These are just my questions. I do not mean to insult anyone. After all I was one of those 60's kids in the front lines during Civil Rights movement. We helped our African American brothers and sisters bring many racism issues to national attention. Then Nation of Islam highjacked 'the cause' and booted us white kids (calling us 'hippies' or 'rich white kids' wether we were rich or not)....out of the black communities...including breaking up of friendships and mixed/biracial marriages and families....or else! Then the drugs got dumped on everybody. Why would any MAN sell poison/dope to his own people: friends, families, children? (See Hellwell (mercenary who started the dope problem over 50 years ago) , Lucky Luciano, black neighborhoods, China White) Talk about a confusing time! Jazz and Blues was born of much sorrow and little joy....for a reason. That was "The Final CAll" and the end of all of us regular people being able to work and stay together without threats to us and our families. If you don't submit....your out! What a mess! I feel sorry for Ellison who apparently is a nice person, but now he will be just one more 'usefull idiot' sorry to say. The bad guys always have a way of blaming and scapegoating others for their errors and they will use a fine man like Mr. Ellison to unwittingly do for them and he will be oblivious to their agenda: the purpose behind the purpose. I suggest everyone read old history books....and not the revised history books. Peace to the world and God Bless you all.
This is a civilization based on Christian principles from the Bible. (patjs71985)
If you're talking about the U.S., no, we're not based on a book, but on many principles that are also promoted by the Bible.These same ideals are promoted by thousands of works of fiction and self-help books, but our country is not based on those books either.
Arabs were slave holders in ancient times...and excelled at it.(patjs71985)
American Christians were slave holders in much less-ancient times, and did a pretty brisk business at it.
Why would anyone want to take an oath on a Quran or Koran esp when we are at this time engaged in this war? (patjs71985)
Because we don't expect an American to deny their faith, even if other people supposedly of that same faith are our enemies. Nazi Germany was made up of so-called Christians, and American politicians still swore on the Bible during WWII.
As soon as you reduce our current events to "Muslims attacked us, therefore muslims are terrorists", you take us further away from ever improving things.
First slavery itself is not only mentioned in the bible but it is not in any way denigrated so that is just a bigotted red herring as if ARABS were the only slave holders and the Bible was somehow against slavery. Second we are not at war with Islam, we are at war with Iraq which happened to be the most secular country in the region. This country is NOT based on biblical principles rather on Enlightenment principles, there are many places the coincide which would be only expected if you consider most cultures have many basic moral precepts in common. How many of the 10 commandments are enshrined in law again that would be TWO. An important principle in this country is freedom of individual religious expression and the Constitution which IS the basis of this counties laws says DIRECTLY that there will be NO religious test for office. There is absolutly no doubt whatsoever that Ellison swearing in on whatever book he feels enshrines his beliefs is within the boundaries of this countries freedom of religion dictate. Also the sharia law point is another fallacious argument do people who swear in on the bible mean they are going to try to enshrine the levitican laws in our country? Of course not they put their hand on the holy book and swear to uphold the constitution they dont put their hand on the constitution and swear to uphold their holy book ( I forgot where that paraphrase came from but its was a good one)