Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Chairboy on December 02, 2006, 10:36:33 AM
-
Congress traditionally swears in its new members on a bible, but this year there's something new: A muslim has been elected, and would like to personally swear in on a Quran.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1153AP_Ellison_Quran.html
Some folks in congress are upset about this, saying he should swear in on "this nation's bible". I know there are a wide range of opinions here on religious matters, but I'd like a quick reality check: I assume that the person objecting to this muslim guy's use of a Quran is not representative of the wider group, right? The article made it sound like this was something that all the conservative folks would be in arms about (because they feel he should swear on a bible). Religious freedom is a foundation of our nation, so I would expect these people to support the muslim gentleman instead.
So, is it just an isolated group of cranks making a fuss? Or does most of america believe that religious freedom just means 'freedom to worship jesus'? If that's true, I think there's a disconnect between the constitution and what we're practicing as a nation, and that's not a good place to be.
Thread idea: Let's discuss the issue instead of me if ye can.
-
It's not like many of the rest of them take the whole swearing in thing seriously anyway. It's kinda like promises to voters.
-
WTF, it's not like any of them actually follow the Bible, besides swearing on a Bible is technically wrong, "Seperation of Church and state." It's just a book!
-
Let's discuss the fact that the author is a liar. Congress swears in en mass by raising their right hand...period. They don't use a bible traditionally or otherwise.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Let's discuss the fact that the author is a liar. Congress swears in en mass by raising their right hand...period. They don't use a bible traditionally or otherwise.
Well, google news is tracking 250+ stories on the subject.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1111548442
-
So? Show me a picture of a crapload of congressmen being sworn in with their hands on bibles.
-
besides swearing on a Bible is technically wrong, "Seperation of Church and state."
I'd suggest thinking out your replies before saying stupid things again.
The bible represents truth and honesty. If this guy wants to promise this on the Quran, he should. Don't mistake that he is a politician, and shouldn't be trusted no matter which religion.
-
whole thing is ridiculous, the reason christians swear on the bible is because they think it is sacred and believe in it, a muslims do not believe in the bible, they believe in the quran, if a muslim swore on the bible it would mean nothing.
which brings up the question, what do atheists or agnostics swear on?
in floridas courts the witness does not swear on a bible, they do not even have to swear, the court reporter (judge's assistant) asks the witness if they "swear or AFFERM that what they testify will be the truth ect".
-
Originally posted by john9001
which brings up the question, what do atheists or agnostics swear on?
Nothing....they have that option.
-
What difference does it make if he raises his hand, puts it on a book or does an interpretive dance? When he gets caught taking kickbacks for pushing legislation, he won't be tried in a church or mosque.
It's a non-issue.
-
If it's a non-issue he should just exercise his right to just raise his hand and not swear on anything.
IMO he's just trying to push an issue.
-
Donzo, I don't follow. The person making this an issue is Dennis Preager, not the muslim congressman.
-
Dennis Prager is a talk show host. Of course he's going to try to stir up controversy. Non-issue.
-
Originally posted by john9001
which brings up the question, what do atheists or agnostics swear on?
I dont know about Clonegress... every time I got sworn in at court, I'd politely refuse to swear to 'god' and be read an "alternative admonishment"... I had one defense attorney call me a "heretic" in the hall lmao
The whole thing is silly, why do politicians get their nuts in a wad over symbolism? this book, that book... who gives a fece, get the BS ceramony over with, STFU and do your frikn job.
However, if elected to Clonegress, I will swear my oath on Playboy and promise to uphold boobs.
-
Does anyone bother to analize the news anymore?, this article is a joke.
The article states this dude has "has offended some conservatives"... humm, so how many people are offended?, a grand total of one, a bottom feeding media attention hooker named Prager...
Wow. So 1 media guy gets offended and its "news"?
On top of this not even being interesting, much less "news", Pragers opinion can be discredited and written off as BS; his premise is a wild assumption with zero basis in fact. Prager states ".... America is interested in only one book, the Bible," which is obviously so false, and un-american, its laughable.
I guess if K-Fred and his bimbo are "news", an opinion lacking reality from a media guy is news these days too.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Congress traditionally swears in its new members on a bible, but this year there's something new: A muslim has been elected, and would like to personally swear in on a Quran.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1153AP_Ellison_Quran.html
Some folks in congress are upset about this, saying he should swear in on "this nation's bible".
Ok
I know I have written quite a bit here on the "seperration clause"
This. And this quote in particular made by whatever congressperson is wrong.
While there is no "Seperation of church and State"
the Clause is in place so that we do NOT have an official national religeon
Such as "The Church of the USA"
Thus there is no "Nations Bible"
No official Bible of the USA.
Because of that. and because there is no true clause keeping religion..any religeon out of the government.
He should be completely free to swear in on the Bible,Tanakh,Quran,Or for that matter the Satanic verses.
If that were to be the case.
-
it's not an issue
-
And dred nails it.
-
Originally posted by CAF51
WTF, it's not like any of them actually follow the Bible, besides swearing on a Bible is technically wrong, "Seperation of Church and state." It's just a book!
There is NO place in the Consitution that makes the statement "Seperation of Church and State"
Nor was your understanding of the clause its technical intent.
If it was. Why would one of the first things Congress did after the Constitution was written was hire a Chaplin?
Why would there heve been prayer prior to congress being in session for the last 200+ years. A Tradition that continues to this day.
I could go on ut I have been over this before
There are all sorts of things that point to the "Seperation Clause" (which is really called "the establishment clause" Not being intented as it is interpeted today.
And before someone gets going on Jefferson being an Athiest.
Turns out he wasnt. Not in the way he is commonly thought to have been.
Seems what he really was. Was much like the rest of us today.
A Flip Flopper on the issue.
Sometimes religeous Sometimes not
.
Constitutionally you cant bar the people in Government from religeon anyway without infringing on their rights whichever religeon it may be.
such as "The Church of Englad"
In any event. The idea wasnt to exclude all religeon from government.
Only to prevent the government from forming of one specific official national religeon.
For that reason all religeons are safe. Even in Government.
For that reaon. You can have a Christian,Jew. Muslam, or devil worshiper for that matter in government. swear in on whatever book he chooses. or none at all if that is chosen.
And even though that person is in office, any office. They cannot form say "The American Church of Islam" and make it the official religeon
As that would violate the Establishment clause which bars the government from
"Forming an establishment
of religeon"
-
It is symbolic - and it is an issue - we are not a Muslim state. We were not founded as such - Too many here write it off as a non issue - probably the same ones that say to hell with everyone else cause it's all about ME.
All I'm sayin is separation of church and state is fine - as long as the values of the majority are still descendant of the ideals and beliefs that created this country in the first place. Some may not believe in them, but we wouldn't be enjoying the freedoms we have today without em.
-
Originally posted by Black Sheep
It is symbolic - and it is an issue - we are not a Muslim state. We were not founded as such - Too many here write it off as a non issue - probably the same ones that say to hell with everyone else cause it's all about ME.
All I'm sayin is separation of church and state is fine - as long as the values of the majority are still descendant of the ideals and beliefs that created this country in the first place. Some may not believe in them, but we wouldn't be enjoying the freedoms we have today without em.
We arent a Catholic, Protestant, Prespeterian, Presbyterian, Methodist or Jewish state either
We are all of the above. And then some
We are an inclusive nation.
Not an exclusive one
-
Originally posted by Black Sheep
It is symbolic - and it is an issue - we are not a Muslim state. We were not founded as such - Too many here write it off as a non issue - probably the same ones that say to hell with everyone else cause it's all about ME.
Should he not be permitted to do it? I don't care which superstition he subscribes to as long as he isn't cutting the heads off of chickens in session.
I can't be bothered to look it up, but what kind of an issue was his religion during his run?
Thread idea: Let's discuss the issue instead of me if ye can.
Feeling persecuted, Chairboy? ;)
-
Originally posted by VOR
I don't care which superstition he subscribes to as long as he isn't cutting the heads off of chickens in session.
As long as one of those Chickens is named Hillary..Why not?
Some good old fasioned Roman style Bloodletting on Capitol hill may be just what the government needs ;)
-
Well, since you put it that way...
:p
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
We arent a Catholic, Protestant, Prespeterian, Presbyterian, Methodist or Jewish state either
We are all of the above. And then some
We are an inclusive nation.
Not an exclusive one
Well thats what I mean - Those 6 you mention make up the majority. They can swear on a Sears catalogue for all I care - as long as the values of the majority which this country is based upon are upheld.
-
Originally posted by Black Sheep
Well thats what I mean - Those 6 you mention make up the majority. They can swear on a Sears catalogue for all I care - as long as the values of the majority which this country is based upon are upheld.
So whats the problem?
What does it matter to you if he swears in on the Bible, the Quran. or a Sears Catalog?
BTW if you strip away all the BS and brought each religeon down to the basic lesssons they all teach pretty much the same things.
Dont Steal. Dont kill. etc etc
-
Still no tradition of congressmen being sworn in with hands on bibles.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/30/koran-bible-prager-ellison/
-
So then what is this Prager guy's problem, and why does it have such wide coverage?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
So then what is this Prager guy's problem, and why does it have such wide coverage?
Looks like he doesn't like Muslims. Good question on the wide coverage part. Why did it grab your attention?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
So then what is this Prager guy's problem, and why does it have such wide coverage?
Stuff that makes people feel righteously indignant sells. I know I get off on feeling that way more often than I would like to.
-
I say get rid of placing your hand on anything.....problem solved!
-
Sort of O/T, but tonight I saw, on the news, mention of a German study that showed systematic growth of xenophobic attitude in populations continuously exposed to the idea/livelihood of insecurity, e.g. terrorism.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
What does it matter to you if he swears in on the Bible, the Quran. or a Sears Catalog?
How about Mein Kampf?
-
Originally posted by VOR
I can't be bothered to look it up, but what kind of an issue was his religion during his run?
Not so much his religion but his past association with people such as Louis Farrakhan.
-
Here's how I swear to Congress
**** you!
-
Originally posted by Donzo
How about Mein Kampf?
If you have the stones ta do it
by my guest
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Here's how I swear to Congress
**** you!
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Donzo
Not so much his religion but his past association with people such as Louis Farrakhan.
Eh?
-
Originally posted by Black Sheep
It is symbolic - and it is an issue - we are not a Muslim state. We were not founded as such - Too many here write it off as a non issue - probably the same ones that say to hell with everyone else cause it's all about ME.
All I'm sayin is separation of church and state is fine - as long as the values of the majority are still descendant of the ideals and beliefs that created this country in the first place. Some may not believe in them, but we wouldn't be enjoying the freedoms we have today without em.
They already thought of the majority being able to dictate their dogma upon the masses truough dominating the politcal process, so they inserted this...
Article VI, Clause 3
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Real smart legislation there.
:cool:
-
If he gets to swear in with a koran, I get to swear in with a star wars DVD.
-
Originally posted by eagl
If he gets to swear in with a koran, I get to swear in with a star wars DVD.
whine all you want but he has every right to swear in on the Quran.
So yes. He will get to
-
Originally posted by eagl
If he gets to swear in with a koran, I get to swear in with a star wars DVD.
only the original, not N1K2 lucas' recut:noid :noid :noid
-
Dred,
Who's whining? What are you talking about? Did I say he didn't have the right?
No, I didn't. I made a completely different statement pointing out that different people hold different ideas to be sacred, and even people who claim to be open minded and fair on this issue are likely going to be proven hypocrites because it's only a matter of time before one of them stands up and says "these books and ideas are ok but these other ones are not".
You really can't have it both ways... If both the bible and the Koran are ok, then pretty much any other book is ok too if it holds a spiritual meaning for the person.
-
Originally posted by eagl
Dred,
Who's whining? What are you talking about? Did I say he didn't have the right?
No, I didn't. I made a completely different statement pointing out that different people hold different ideas to be sacred, and even people who claim to be open minded and fair on this issue are likely going to be proven hypocrites because it's only a matter of time before one of them stands up and says "these books and ideas are ok but these other ones are not".
You really can't have it both ways... If both the bible and the Koran are ok, then pretty much any other book is ok too if it holds a spiritual meaning for the person.
Sorry. It just came across to me as a whine.
But your last paragraph has it dead on.
"both the bible and the Koran are ok, then pretty much any other book is ok too if it holds a spiritual meaning for the person."
That is indeed the size of it.
You cant have it only 1 way and still have religeous freedom
-
I still say just do away with the placing of a hand on anything. It's not like it actually accomplishes anything.