@ Kapitein A

1) I am not qualified (in the sense of 'competent') to comment on the impact of Zoroastrianism on judaism and christianity.  But I am aware of the centrality of both judaism and christianity in the subsequent development of western civilisation, as described and analysed by the great western historians and cultural philosophers since the European Enlightenment.  I recommend that you read the last magnum opus of the great French-American historian Jacques Barzun on the matter ("From Dawn to Decadence", 1500 to the Present, 500 years of Western Cultural Life;  HarperCollins books, 2000).   If you want to describe islam as "an Arabized Judaic sect", that is pure meaningless 'Wortspielerei'.  It is also irrelevant for the issue at hand, i.e. whether there is a broad commonality of 'world view' between judaism and christianity.  I suspect that this is essentially a matter of recognition of the (ultimate) primacy of individual conscience (over collective religious understanding) or, alternatively, a recognition of the need for a 'practical' separation of state authority and religious authority.  No need to point out that it took a long time in western civilisation to reach that 'recognition'.  But, at the same time, one can empirically observe that it is only - and only - in the 'West' (including the 1 jewish state) that such recognition has been reached, as reflected by 'genuine' democratic institutions and practice.

2) On the contrary, there clearly IS an established tradition, at least in the USA, with regard to 'objects' for swearing-in ceremonies.  The fact that there have been exceptions in the past does not contradict that assesment.  Generally, exceptions confirm the 'rule'.  They also speak of (or to) the nondogmatic character of the American tradition.  And, as you can observe in this specific case, the koran was used 'for the first time' last week in the US Congress.   But, you are very wrong where you claim that "the Qu'ran...fits with the American tenets of religious freedom and civil society".  The fact that you, a 'conservative European',  can even make such a statement proves the near-total victory of Marcuse-ian deconstructionism and meaninglesness in European Academia.  Words no longer have any 'fixed' meaning.  They have become as 'fleeting' as snowflakes.

3) It is very worrisome when 'intellectuals' can no longer make a distinction between timeless 'values', which create, inform, and maintain a "tradition",  and superficial applications of the cultural "Zeitgeist".  Sure, the civilisational understanding of (1) the primacy of individual conscience, and (2) 'a' separation of church and state, will not always find exactly the same expression in different places and different time periods.  But, that is no excuse for you failing to recognise that the Koran is incompatible with the essence of the US Constitution, which I described to be "equality before the law and freedom of opinion".  Note, again, that the Koran was used last week in the US Congress.  And the muslim 'Democratic party' member in question made a political master-stroke by choosing a koran that had been owned by Thomas Jefferson. The superficial point was presumably to illustrate that a 'founding father' had been 'tolerant enough' to own a Koran.  However, this political master stroke was also an act of historical 'falsification'.  Jefferson owned a Koran as an act of learning about the 'other', but was very much a man of the European Enlightenment who was convinced that 'his' constitution was an improved product of 'judeo-christian values'.  So, my concern is, (1) first, the fact that a citizen representative feels a need to 'reject' his country's tradition in a symbolic and public way, and (2)  second that he used a symbol (the Koran) which is antithetical to his country's Constitution and values.   These concerns would not be alleviated if no symbol had been used, nor if a copy of the Constitution itself had been used in the ceremony.  The real problem is the mindset, the thinking of the People's Representative in question.   

4) I am glad we agree for once on one thing, your point four.   Indeed, numerous "fanatics" reject the US Constitution.  Fanatics of all stripes........     

1. Historians, theologians, and anthropolgists claim that Zoroastrianism had great influence on the Abrahamic and Dharmic traditions and was, directly and indirectly, the most influential faith in human history. Is Judaism then a Zorastrian sect? Similarly, Islam includes significant elements of Judaism, so is it not an Arabized Judaic sect?
2. Actually there is no tradition with regards to swearing one's congressional oath of office, using an object is optional, and indeed both the Bible, Talmud, and Constitution have been used. Why not the Qu'ran, as it fits in with the American tenets of religious freedom and civil society?
3. If in the United States, one can pursue their own version of happiness, including religious, spiritual, and philosophical beliefs, or lack thereof, than there is no American tradition because its culture is in constant flux; this so-called tradition would merely be the cultural zeitgeist of the time rather than a fixed or anchored concept. You contradict yourself...
4. Actually Christians are instructed by the Bible to only follow governments and laws that are harmonious with God's laws. Thus, fanatical Christians could reject the US Constitution if they interpreted as contravening God's laws.

There mosque and church can interefere in politics and demonize the indigent culture and call it "secularism".

Now they are terrorising that small Hindu minority in India...

Example Graham Staines:
Staines and his sons, ages 8 and 10, were sleeping in their Jeep outside a church in the Orissa town of Manoharpur when a mob, led by Dara Singh, attacked the vehicle, dousing it with gasoline and setting it ablaze. "Justice has been done!" some shouted. "The Christians have been cremated in Hindu fashion." According to some eyewitnesses, the mob kept the fire going for more than an hour, threatening would-be rescuers.

In India, secularism has meant apartheid type rule by the islamic and other minorities, much like Botha deClerk ruled the South Africans!! There mosque and church can interefere in politics and demonize the indigent culture and call it "secularism".

Can we allow Fareed zakaria and CAIR gang rule over USA?! That is what is going on, in India now. Shun secularism of India meaning apartheid rule..

This is the beginning post of either an article or a commenter at a MPACUK site, the link:

"Young Muslims alienated at home find solace at Hajj"

"Yashir Nawab could hardly recognise himself. Gone were the east Londoner's spiky haircut, Gucci shoes and Armani clothes. Yesterday, as he wandered among the throng of pilgrims towards Mina, near the holy city of Mecca, his head was shaven, and he had grown a beard. His only clothing was a simple white robe, to signify all Muslims are equal in the face of God.

Mr Nawab, 28, is from Plaistow and works on the London Underground. He is a British-born Indian and, until recently, lived what he described as a Western lifestyle, staying out late with his friends, and often missing prayers."

The article then goes on to discuss the alienation the youth feel and gives reasons why they may be justified.  It then concludes with a quote from the great American muslim peace promotor,  MalcomX,

""Our religion teaches us to be intelligent. Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery. That's a good religion" Malcolm X

The link:  http://forum.mpacuk.org/showthread.php?p=255186#post255186

Sorry to ask, but that is confusing. What are Judeo-Christian values?

Is it when the US taxpayer pays Israel's bills?

I ask because I learned, that any bad thing happened to the Jews is the Christians fault. That Christians are Anti-Semites, the worst are the Catholics and the Popes were always Nazis.

In contrast to that, I was taught, Jews enjoyed the wonderful Muslim tolerance in Arab occupied Spain and from the conquering Turks.

So what should I believe?

Or, if you think that the university, the most secular American institution, is largely a place where wisdom, character and a discerning ability to distinguish between right and wrong prevail, you should be working to remove Judeo-Christian values from American life. But if you believe that the university is largely a place of moral foolishness, then you need to start worrying about the secularization of America.

Come again?

@ Kapitein

Your persistence in denying a common judeo-christian tradition is remarkable, and certainly not shared by the great western historians and cultural philosophers.  It seems narrow-minded to say the least, and ignorant about the commonality of 'world view' in both religions.  Christianity grew out of a jewish 'sect'.

It is nonsense to claim that Mr Prager wants "to combine church and state at the expense of secular liberal democracy".  Which "church"?  As a jew he certainly (1) does not want a (particular) christian church mingled with the state, and (2) he also appreciates secular liberal democracy. 

This whole controversy arose because of a muslim newly-elected representative's desire/insistence to swear his oath (in Congress) on the koran, instead of on the bible as is the 'tradition' in the USA.  So, we are talking essentially about an issue of 'symbolism and decorum', and a (converted) muslim's desire to publicly reject his country's 'tradition' (which, incidentally, made it 'great').  

This is not an issue of 'freedom of religion', but an issue of 'decorum'.  If anybody can dispense with the symbols of tradition, then what comes next?  Amsterdamsky swearing-in on a copy of Playboy?  Mission Impossible on a copy of 'Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves'?  Or a neonazi on a copy of 'Mein Kampf'?  Symbolism and decorum are not the essence of a great free nation, but no nation can survive as a free nation when growing numbers of its 'citizens' reject common symbols as a reflection of its common culture and its past.  In America anybody can pursue his/her own version of happiness, including his/her own religious (including nonreligious) inclinations, but no one can be a 'good citizen' if one purposefully rejects the country's with-great-difficulty-acquired-'tradition', or if one cannot make the intellectual linkage between that tradition and its 'results' and achievements.

It is true that the Koran is not exactly comparable to Playboy, 'Rule Britannia', nor Mein Kampf.  But is the Koran compatible with the US Constitution?  Does it explicitly separate church and state?  The bible does! (Give to Caesar...., and to God....etc...).  So what can be the meaning of a public official swearing to uphold the Constitution on a document which explicitly rejects the essence of the Constitution (i.e.  equality before the law and freedom of opinion)?              

Mr. Prager's comments are in a word, retarded.

Firstly, the United States' intellectual foundations are Christian, combined with a great deal more secularism than was present in 18th Century Europe. While the Christian Bible includes the Judaic Old Testament, and there is thus overlap between Christianity and Judaism, this does not mean that the religious foundations are Judeo-Christian, anymore than Judaism should be hyphenated with Zoroastarianism, even though it is greatly influenced by the latter.

Secondly, Mr. Prager makes the outrageous point that the Holocaust occurred due to a decline in Christianity in Europe. I will not even deign to explain why this is wrong.

Thirdly, Mr. Prager seems to want to combine Church and State at the expense of secular liberal democracy; America's greatness lies in that it would hopefully never vote for him.

I would be a bit more forceful than Dennis--western civilization will not survive without our judeo -christian heritage. It is a system of belief that guarantees the rights and freedoms of every individual.

Real Clear Religion