NationStates Jolt Archive

This is another great email from the AFA. I can't even begin to speak my disgust on this subject matter, so instead, no commentary other than this.

Here is the Email:

A first for America...The Koran replaces the Bible at swearing-in oath

What book will America base it's values on, the Bible or the Koran?

Dear Thomas,

Please take a moment to read the following TownHall.com column by Dennis Prager, who is a Jew. After reading the column, take the suggest action at the bottom of this email. After you have read it, please forward it to your friends and family.

America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on
By Dennis Prager - Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- my culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. 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. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison's right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?

Of course, Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either. Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible. Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of "Dianetics" by L. Ron Hubbard.

So why are we allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done -- choose his own most revered book for his oath?

The answer is obvious -- Ellison is a Muslim. And whoever decides these matters, not to mention virtually every editorial page in America, is not going to offend a Muslim. In fact, many of these people argue it will be a good thing because Muslims around the world will see what an open society America is and how much Americans honor Muslims and the Koran.

This argument appeals to all those who believe that one of the greatest goals of America is to be loved by the world, and especially by Muslims because then fewer Muslims will hate us (and therefore fewer will bomb us).

But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible. 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.

When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11. It is hard to believe that this is the legacy most Muslim Americans want to bequeath to America. But if it is, it is not only Europe that is in trouble


I wish we had a sick to my stomach smilie.

Oh dear lord..

I think it's pretty idiotic that you swear on anything at all, especially "holy" books, these oaths you have, which themselves are moronic...

Dudes, Keith Ellison is my new hero.

When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You don't expect to see 'elected officials' and 'value' in the same place these days, anyway.

I think it's pretty idiotic that you swear on anything at all, especially "holy" books, these oaths you have, which themselves are moronic...

I agree in a sense. There is no need to swear an oath on a holy book when taking office. IMO, our constitution should be the only thing the Gov't officials swear to, or on or whatever.

snip


What is it with the conservative lockjaw on BS like this. Look at Glen Beck's interview of Ellison too, complete tripe. It honestly wouldn't bother me if a hindu were elected to congress and he wanted to take his oath on the mahabarata.

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudoku) is the wost idiodic thing ever.

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudoku) is the wost idiodic thing ever.

nope, it's the greatest thing ever!

Ugh... Dirtbags...

"NO! WE MUST NOT ALLOW A PERSON TO SWEAR ON HIS HOLY BOOK! WE MUST MAKE HIM SWEAR ON OURS! WHY?!?! BECAUSE THE BIBLE IS AMERICAN! THE KORAN IS TERRORIST!"

Frickin' dirtbags...

Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison's right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?

Well he's an elected public official. If he ran as a Nazi, and was elected, then that would be perfectly reasonable, wouldn't it? Or does the will of the voting public not count for anything anymore.

Plus, Dennis Prager can piss off. Before 9/11 he spent most of his time bitching about atheists; how they were evil incarnate, and that any religion was better than none.

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudoku) is the wost idiodic thing ever.

very good point ;)

I hate to admit it, but the email does make one good point.

Lets say I'm elected to congress (in the 6th district of the state of Denial), what if I say I want to say my oath on Mein Kampf because I am a Nazi. Would that be wrong?

Personally I think that we shouldn't have religious oaths, their unconstitutional.
...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

That was the stupidest fucking thing. Ever.

Lets say I'm elected to congress (in the 6th district of the state of Denial), what if I say I want to say my oath on Mein Kampf because I am a Nazi. Would that be wrong?
You don't have to swear on the Bible in the first place, that is religious intolerance and it has been illegal to force some one to do it for some time now.

I hate to admit it, but the email does make one good point.

Lets say I'm elected to congress (in the 6th district of the state of Denial), what if I say I want to say my oath on Mein Kampf because I am a Nazi. Would that be wrong?

Personally I think that we shouldn't have oaths, their unconstitutional.


If a nazi was democratically elected, then so be it.. But no religous test =/= no oath to at least the US constitution.

Regardless of the constitutionality of religious oaths, I would say this is a matter of freedom of speech.

A politician not swearing on the Bible=affront to American civilization?


*Rolls Eyes*

I'd be interested to know how his constituents feel about this.

However, if this man hold the Koran as a holy book and its dear to him and his beliefs, wouldnt it make sense to have him swear an oath on something he holds important?

I could swear on a Koran all day and have no problem breaking that oath as the Koran isnt important to me.

Of course, in the near future, we'll have people swearing on Hustler magazine or The Lord of The Rings Books just to cause a stir.

But-if people knowingly voted for a devout,practicing Muslim-I would expect his oath should have some meaning to him.

Am I suspicious of people that arent like me? Yes.

But I didnt vote for him.

This is another great email from the AFA. I can't even begin to speak my disgust on this subject matter, so instead, no commentary other than this.

Here is the Email:



I wish we had a sick to my stomach smilie.

The really sad part is he actually believes what he has written. Equating the Koran to NY Times editorials and the collected works of Voltaire is stupidity and tunnel-vision on an entirely different level. And why Voltaire, incidentally?

Is this some French conspiracy? Everyone knows they hate America as much as them NY Times readin' liberals and gays and homosexual immigrants do. Where's my gun----or did the gay French liberals take that to?

I think it's pretty idiotic that you swear on anything at all, especially "holy" books, these oaths you have, which themselves are moronic...

You have the option of not swearing on anything if you don't want to. But, yeah, it's moronic.

Personally I think that we shouldn't have religious oaths, their unconstitutional.No, only no required ones. The option of what you're referencing to during your oath should be up to you. Quite frankly, if you're Jewish, there should be no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to swear by the torah. If you don't ascribe to a certain religion or you don't want to swear by one, do it by the constitution.

I hate to admit it, but the email does make one good point.

Lets say I'm elected to congress (in the 6th district of the state of Denial), what if I say I want to say my oath on Mein Kampf because I am a Nazi. Would that be wrong?

Personally I think that we shouldn't have religious oaths, their unconstitutional.

when did mein kampf become a religious text? isnt that like a communist taking the oath over das kapital? not appropriate.

one chooses the bible or the koran because it implies that breaking your oath will also be a grievous sin because you have taken god as your witness.

besides didnt jesus preach against taking oaths of this sort?

matthew: 5 33-37

33 "Again you have heard that it was said to your ancestors, 'Do not take a false oath, but make good to the Lord all that you vow.'
34 But I say to you, do not swear at all; not by heaven, for it is God's throne;
35 nor by the earth, for it is his footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.
36 Do not swear by your head, for you cannot make a single hair white or black.
37 Let your 'Yes' mean 'Yes,' and your 'No' mean 'No.' Anything more is from the evil one.

And why Voltaire, incidentally?Because Voltaire was the guy that said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Wasn't justice Goldberg allowed to swear in on the Tanakh??

That is indeed quite idiotic. But this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11987964&postcount=56) is probably a lot closer to being the most idiotic thing ever.

What in the name of stupid is wrong with america?

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You don't expect to see 'elected officials' and 'value' in the same place these days, anyway.

I do. as in, "A republican politician took gifts with an estimated value of..."

What is it with the conservative lockjaw on BS like this. Look at Glen Beck's interview of Ellison too, complete tripe. It honestly wouldn't bother me if a hindu were elected to congress and he wanted to take his oath on the mahabarata.

Agreed. America isn't founded on any type of "holy book", but I think that stuff is just tradition. I think it's a good thing that the first Muslim Congressman is allowed to swear on the Quran. To be honest I frankly wouldn't care if some uberfanboy wanted to swear on the fifth Harry Potter book, as long as he gets stuff done.

It may not be precisely the same situation, but I think this Q&A (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_145.html) from the Straight Dope was pretty interesting:

Dear Cecil:

I recently saw a movie that featured a trial scene at the end, and I noticed how heavily the court played on the witnesses' belief in God, the Bible, etc., as they were sworn in. I began to wonder: what if an atheist or an agnostic were an important witness to a crime--how would that person be sworn in? --Barbara T., Los Angeles

Dear Barbara:

When a witness refuses to swear to God, the court accepts an "affirmation" instead. In a jury trial, the smart lawyer will arrange for this ahead of time in the judge's chambers, so the witness won't look unduly obstreperous or morally deficient in open court. The judge may then instruct the jury that the funny oath they are about to hear should be considered legally valid.

In U.S. District Court (to take the most widespread example), the standard oath is amended to: "You do affirm that all the testimony you are about to give in the case now before the court will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; this you do affirm under the pains and penalties of perjury?" After the witness replies, "You got it, Jack," or whatever godless heathens say in such situations, everyone sits back and pretends that the "pains and penalties of perjury" are every bit as intimidating as the wrath of a vengeful Almighty. It's not an ideal situation, if you want my opinion, but I suppose it's the best the judges can do under the circumstances.

--CECIL ADAMS

If you ask me, this process should replace all the Bible-thumping and "so help me God" nonsense.

I don't care if it's traditional, and I don't care if the majority of Americans call themselves Christian -- religious icons should not be an integral part of legislative or judicial procedures, especially if refusing to swear on such icons could be used by opponents to impugn one's morality in open court.

America is not a theocracy, goddamnit.

*chuckles at clever ironic statement*

They're about to interview this putz on Fox News now.

UPDATE: Gotta love how Hannity repeats the guy's talking points throughout the interview.

And by the way: why is it that these fundies insist on saying that America's government is based on the morality of the Bible? How much more arrogant can you be? That basically implies that only the Bible is against murder, theft, lying, etc., etc. I challenge anybody who holds this view to point out a single American law that derives from the Bible and from the Bible only.

That is indeed quite idiotic. But this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11987964&postcount=56) is probably a lot closer to being the most idiotic thing ever.

You win the thread.

They're about to interview this putz on Fox News now.

Ah. We're probably in for a good ol' "fair and balanced on that stick coming out of my ass" interview, then.

Will be interesting to see what he says, though.

Think Progress busted this earlier today--thought about starting a thread about it, actually. Prager is full of shit on two counts. First of all, Ellison never said it, but even if he had, there's another problem.

There's no holy book used at the swearing in ceremony. The House Clerk, who does the swearing in confirmed that. The new Congresscritters are asked to raise their right hands and swear to uphold and defend the Constitution. Any time there's a Bible involved, it's for a photo-op, not for the actual ceremony.

First, to all of you who say that this nation wasn't founded on judeo-christian ideologies, you better re-take history. Last time I checked, for the first century and a half of US history, the religious grounds were much more homogenous. At the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th, things started getting more cosmopolitan (which I feel is a good thing; there needs to be a mixture of Ideas, even if I believe some are wrong...)

Prager's point was not one of religion, but one of tradition. Since the start of the country, if there was a book used to swear in on, it was the Bible, and there have been relatively few exceptions.

That being said, If he wants to use the Quran, so be it. He sounded sincere, as opposed to "I want to do this just to cause a controversy". I respect Islam - even if I don't practice it. Though, personally, I'd draw the line at religious writings; I don't believe political texts (other than the Constitution) would fulfil the symbolic purpose of swearing in - giving a solemn pledge to an ideology that gives direction to how one should act, morally, ethically, lawfully, etc.

If I'm the only conservative here, so be it . My point's been made.

cheers,
Sitae

Actually, Mr. Prager did have ONE thing right in his little rant...

What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book

BINGO!

:headbang:

First, to all of you who say that this nation wasn't founded on judeo-christian ideologies, you better re-take history. Last time I checked, for the first century and a half of US history, the religious grounds were much more homogenous. At the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th, things started getting more cosmopolitan (which I feel is a good thing; there needs to be a mixture of Ideas, even if I believe some are wrong...)

Prager's point was not one of religion, but one of tradition. Since the start of the country, if there was a book used to swear in on, it was the Bible, and there have been relatively few exceptions.

That being said, If he wants to use the Quran, so be it. He sounded sincere, as opposed to "I want to do this just to cause a controversy". I respect Islam - even if I don't practice it. Though, personally, I'd draw the line at religious writings; I don't believe political texts (other than the Constitution) would fulfil the symbolic purpose of swearing in - giving a solemn pledge to an ideology that gives direction to how one should act, morally, ethically, lawfully, etc.

If I'm the only conservative here, so be it . My point's been made.

cheers,
Sitae
If you'd only read the post directly above yours, you'd have seen that not only was Prager being disingenuous, he was just plain wrong. No one swears on any holy book. Period. Full Stop. End of Story.

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudoku) is the wost idiodic thing ever.
That is untrue.
It requires brain power...

The oath has no meaning anyways.

I think it's pretty idiotic that you swear on anything at all, especially "holy" books, these oaths you have, which themselves are moronic...

What's idiotic about it? That you have a stance on life? That you have a philosophy? You think that taking a solemn promise is moronic?

Are you married? How's your spouse feel about your life philosophy?

[QUOTE=Delator;12019930]Actually, Mr. Prager did have ONE thing right in his little rant...



BINGO!
QUOTE]

Your attitude is sad. We get that you see yourself as god, that you are the only power to which you should have to answer. That's what scares us. We want a civilized society, not a group of animals vying for power/resources/whatever.

Leftists, who purport to be "enlightened" so often espouse the opposite of an enlightened view. Frightening.

If you'd only read the post directly above yours, you'd have seen that not only was Prager being disingenuous, he was just plain wrong. No one swears on any holy book. Period. Full Stop. End of Story.

You can choose to swear on a book, and many do. Just because it isn't required (what? you aren't required to? we're free to take choices?), doesn't mean it doesn't happen A LOT.

I don't think he was being disingenuous. He was stating his heart-felt belief that the common thread in the history of American society is frayed. He feels it's further frayed by using a Koran. You might not agree with him, but that doesn't make him disingenuous.

I think it's pretty idiotic that you swear on anything at all, especially "holy" books, these oaths you have, which themselves are moronic...

Especially since church and state are supposed to be separated, according to the Constitution...

...But, of course, we all know that religion is above everything else, so it need not play by the rules. Punishment for all! Justice for some! Rights for those who donate to the church!

*stabs self in the eye with a toothpick*

Your attitude is sad. We get that you see yourself as god, that you are the only power to which you should have to answer. That's what scares us. We want a civilized society, not a group of animals vying for power/resources/whatever.

Leftists, who purport to be "enlightened" so often espouse the opposite of an enlightened view. Frightening.

What I find more sad is the fact that some think that making everyone swear on the same holy book will somehow add benefit to their oath.

If you don't believe in that book nor its teachings what extra motivation does it provide to you?

And would more motivation be provided to a wider range of people if they all swore on the belief system that they hold true?

Your attitude is sad. We get that you see yourself as god, that you are the only power to which you should have to answer. That's what scares us. We want a civilized society, not a group of animals vying for power/resources/whatever.

Leftists, who purport to be "enlightened" so often espouse the opposite of an enlightened view. Frightening.
Look, dude, I have no problem with people swearing an oath on the Bible. In fact, I think its commendable that one would value one's duty enough to base it one one's deepest-held beliefs.

What irks me, however, is when the people who have the most "popular" beliefs begin insisting that EVERYONE base their lives on them. If a Muslim wants to swear on the Koran, that's their right. They have no obligation whatsoever to hold themselves to the religious traditions of others just because they happen to be in the minority. Anyone who says otherwise is an arrogant bigot.

Look, dude, I have no problem with people swearing an oath on the Bible. In fact, I think its commendable that one would value one's duty enough to base it one one's deepest-held beliefs.

What irks me, however, is when the people who have the most "popular" beliefs begin insisting that EVERYONE base their lives on them. If a Muslim wants to swear on the Koran, that's their right. They have no obligation whatsoever to hold themselves to the religious traditions of others just because they happen to be in the minority. Anyone who says otherwise is an arrogant bigot.

Agreed it is all about motivating people to make sure they uphold their oaths ... I am willing to let people swear on whatever they want to, as long as it motivates them to do a good job.

Agreed it is all about motivating people to make sure they uphold their oaths ... I am willing to let people swear on whatever they want to, as long as it motivates them to do a good job.

Amen.

What's idiotic about it? That you have a stance on life? That you have a philosophy? You think that taking a solemn promise is moronic?

Are you married? How's your spouse feel about your life philosophy?
It's not the solemn promise--it's the using of a book to seal the deal. If your honor isn't enough, promising on a book won't be any more important.

Having a Muslim swear on a bible would be stupid. Why? Because the bible means nothing to him/her, whereas the Koran does.

Obviously, an Atheist should not swear on a bible either, as it is even more meaningless to an Atheist.

Once again, conservative yakkers spout tripe that completely goes against common sense.

It would really be simpler, if we're going to have an Oath of Office, to have people swear it with their hand on a constitution, seeing as how that is a document that is actually... you know... relevant to their job.

Look, dude, I have no problem with people swearing an oath on the Bible. In fact, I think its commendable that one would value one's duty enough to base it one one's deepest-held beliefs.

What irks me, however, is when the people who have the most "popular" beliefs begin insisting that EVERYONE base their lives on them. If a Muslim wants to swear on the Koran, that's their right. They have no obligation whatsoever to hold themselves to the religious traditions of others just because they happen to be in the minority. Anyone who says otherwise is an arrogant bigot.

No kidding. Would Prager really be satisfied if Ellison swore on a Bible? Ellison's a muslim--Prager would probably use that as an example that no Muslims can be trusted because they'll sell their beliefs out for power.

Having a Muslim swear on a bible would be stupid. Why? Because the bible means nothing to him/her, whereas the Koran does.

Obviously, an Atheist should not swear on a bible either, as it is even more meaningless to an Atheist.

Once again, conservative yakkers spout tripe that completely goes against common sense.

It would really be simpler, if we're going to have an Oath of Office, to have people swear it with their hand on a constitution, seeing as how that is a document that is actually... you know... relevant to their job.

*hands you a special cookie*

Your attitude is sad. We get that you see yourself as god, that you are the only power to which you should have to answer. That's what scares us. We want a civilized society, not a group of animals vying for power/resources/whatever.

Funny...since I could use those same words to describe the faith of any holy book you can name.

The man could swear on texts relating to the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care...so long as whatever he swears by will remind him of his public responsibility.

Leftists, who purport to be "enlightened" so often espouse the opposite of an enlightened view. Frightening.

Well, I'm no "leftist", but I prefer my "enlightened view"...that people are free to worship as they choose and should not be forced to swear oaths based on a set of principles that they do not believe in...as opposed to the "enlightened" view that all should adhere to the principles of the majority simply because they are the majority.

*hands you a special cookie*

*snatches the cookie, eats it*

If you'd only read the post directly above yours, you'd have seen that not only was Prager being disingenuous, he was just plain wrong. No one swears on any holy book. Period. Full Stop. End of Story.

Especially since church and state are supposed to be separated, according to the Constitution...

...But, of course, we all know that religion is above everything else, so it need not play by the rules. Punishment for all! Justice for some! Rights for those who donate to the church!

*stabs self in the eye with a toothpick*

The Constitution doesn't seperate church and state, it simply prevents the Federal Government from declaring a national religion and imposing it upon us. That's not the same as saying that churches (regardless of the religion) can't play a role in government procedings. Any passing knowledge of the Founders or of the times will demonstrate that.

What I find more sad is the fact that some think that making everyone swear on the same holy book will somehow add benefit to their oath.

If you don't believe in that book nor its teachings what extra motivation does it provide to you?

And would more motivation be provided to a wider range of people if they all swore on the belief system that they hold true?

Good points.

I feel that swearing on a book that so many people believe to hold some sway over their lives does add benefit to an oath. I don't think that every person who reads the Bible believes everything in it, or even uses 40% of what's contained therein, but for a huge percentage of people, SOME parts of it hold truth for all those people. That seems significant to me.

If you don't believe in a book, or its teachings, it might still make the moment more solemn in knowing that millions of others believe in what you're hand is touching. I hope so, anyway.

I think that yes, more motivation would be provided to a wider range of people if they all shared the same belief system. I think that's basic human nature.

I don't think compelling oaths is ever a particularly good idea; a compelled oath is really not an oath at all.

The Constitution doesn't seperate church and state, it simply prevents the Federal Government from declaring a national religion and imposing it upon us. That's not the same as saying that churches (regardless of the religion) can't play a role in government procedings. Any passing knowledge of the Founders or of the times will demonstrate that.

Yeah like Thomas Jefferson


Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for is faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."


Or James Madison


"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State." (1819).

Some more Madison


"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform" (Madison, Annals of Congress, 1789).

"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?" (Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance)

"Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. " (ibid)

"How a regulation so unjust in itself, so foreign to the authority of Congress, and so hurtful to the sale of public land, and smelling so strongly of an antiquated bigotry, could have received the countenance of a committee is truly a matter of astonishment ." (Madison, 1785, letter to James Monroe, on a failed attempt by congress to set aside public funds to support churches)



Care to read more into the views of the founding fathers ?

What irks me, however, is when the people who have the most "popular" beliefs begin insisting that EVERYONE base their lives on them. If a Muslim wants to swear on the Koran, that's their right. They have no obligation whatsoever to hold themselves to the religious traditions of others just because they happen to be in the minority. Anyone who says otherwise is an arrogant bigot.

I understand your statement. I think that our laws and beliefs as Americans derive from the 10 commandments (no murder, stealing, adultering). I'm not a Christian, but I want minority groups (especially individuals of any group who are going to represent us in the political arena) to abide by those tenants. I don't think it's bigoted, I think it's fair to demand that those making decisions that affect the lives of thousands share the beliefs of the group.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it.

I don't think compelling oaths is ever a particularly good idea; a compelled oath is really not an oath at all.

Good point.

Good points.

I feel that swearing on a book that so many people believe to hold some sway over their lives does add benefit to an oath. I don't think that every person who reads the Bible believes everything in it, or even uses 40% of what's contained therein, but for a huge percentage of people, SOME parts of it hold truth for all those people. That seems significant to me.

If you don't believe in a book, or its teachings, it might still make the moment more solemn in knowing that millions of others believe in what you're hand is touching. I hope so, anyway.

I think that yes, more motivation would be provided to a wider range of people if they all shared the same belief system. I think that's basic human nature.
I don't share your view ... and I know personally it would make no difference to me if the bible was there or not. I don't think there is justification to break the intent of the founding fathers that each person should have religious freedom

That being said swearing on the Koran in this instance IS an example of someone swearing on an object that millions hold Holy

It's not the solemn promise--it's the using of a book to seal the deal. If your honor isn't enough, promising on a book won't be any more important.

I think that a person's word is their oath. I think that swearing before God (the acknowledgement of a commonly held higher power), or on a book that most people have a common belief in, makes the occasion more important. The book is a physical manifestation of that belief, and as such, helps to concretize the solemnity of the vow.

I hope that came out coherently!

The Constitution doesn't seperate church and state, it simply prevents the Federal Government from declaring a national religion and imposing it upon us. That's not the same as saying that churches (regardless of the religion) can't play a role in government procedings. Any passing knowledge of the Founders or of the times will demonstrate that.
What the hell does that have to do with anything that I posted?

I understand your statement. I think that our laws and beliefs as Americans derive from the 10 commandments (no murder, stealing, adultering). I'm not a Christian, but I want minority groups (especially individuals of any group who are going to represent us in the political arena) to abide by those tenants. I don't think it's bigoted, I think it's fair to demand that those making decisions that affect the lives of thousands share the beliefs of the group.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it.

Thats not how our government was set up to work

For example

"We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions ... shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power ... we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society." (John Adams)

I think that a person's word is their oath. I think that swearing before God (the acknowledgement of a commonly held higher power), or on a book that most people have a common belief in, makes the occasion more important. The book is a physical manifestation of that belief, and as such, helps to concretize the solemnity of the vow.

I hope that came out coherently!

Yeah it would be amazing if you could show any evidence of that

personally just knowing people are relying on you and that you are held responsible is solom enough

No need to make people violate their religions to add any more to it.

I would not expect christians to be any happier swearing on the Koran and I would need a damn good reason to make them do so.

Having a Muslim swear on a bible would be stupid. Why? Because the bible means nothing to him/her, whereas the Koran does.

Obviously, an Atheist should not swear on a bible either, as it is even more meaningless to an Atheist.

Once again, conservative yakkers spout tripe that completely goes against common sense.

It would really be simpler, if we're going to have an Oath of Office, to have people swear it with their hand on a constitution, seeing as how that is a document that is actually... you know... relevant to their job.

I've already spoken to how swearing on a book that one might not personally believe can lend solemnity to the occasion, so I won't revisit it here.

Painting conservatives with a broad brush is prejudice. It's a complicated issue that speaks to human consciousness. It makes sense to me, thought it might not to you. Perhaps you don't have the context to understand that level of solemn promise, I don't know.

Your last statement allows us to find common ground. I totally agree with you. Government officials should have to recite the Bill of Rights and swear on the Constitution before taking office. Right on, brother. Power to the people.

I've already spoken to how swearing on a book that one might not personally believe can lend solemnity to the occasion, so I won't revisit it here.

Painting conservatives with a broad brush is prejudice. It's a complicated issue that speaks to human consciousness. It makes sense to me, thought it might not to you. Perhaps you don't have the context to understand that level of solemn promise, I don't know.

Your last statement allows us to find common ground. I totally agree with you. Government officials should have to recite the Bill of Rights and swear on the Constitution before taking office. Right on, brother. Power to the people.
SO you would ask people to uselessly break their religious vow's to make the event more solom?

Personally if they are willing to break their vows to their religion for something as stupid as setting the mood that may be an indicator that their vow to the people should not be trusted

I would feel much better about this guy refusing to break his religion then for him to break it just to take another oath, shows a strongness of character and a willingness to stand up for what he believes in, which is the exact reason we want him in office

I think that a person's word is their oath. I think that swearing before God (the acknowledgement of a commonly held higher power), or on a book that most people have a common belief in, makes the occasion more important. The book is a physical manifestation of that belief, and as such, helps to concretize the solemnity of the vow.

I hope that came out coherently!

And what about atheists?

Yeah like Thomas Jefferson



Or James Madison


Some more Madison



Care to read more into the views of the founding fathers ?

Madison's first statement is not in the Constitution, and the second quote repeats my message. I've read the Federalist Papers. I have them on a word doc that sits on my desk top, and I re-read them from time to time. I'm well versed on what the founders had to say on the topic. Jefferson was rabidly opposed to having any religion mixed with government. I think he was brilliant, and usually dead on, but I think he was mistaken in this area.

I can hold the general principles of the founders without walking lock-step with every single statement each of them made. They were human, too. Just like I can believe in the basic tenants of the Bible without being an idiot.

Care to try to prove the wrong point some more?

Madison's first statement is not in the Constitution, and the second quote repeats my message. I've read the Federalist Papers. I have them on a word doc that sits on my desk top, and I re-read them from time to time. I'm well versed on what the founders had to say on the topic. Jefferson was rabidly opposed to having any religion mixed with government. I think he was brilliant, and usually dead on, but I think he was mistaken in this area.

I can hold the general principles of the founders without walking lock-step with every single statement each of them made. They were human, too. Just like I can believe in the basic tenants of the Bible without being an idiot.

Care to try to prove the wrong point some more?

Nope I proved my point ... you made claims as to the founding fathers wish to include religion. I gave some good examples of their wish not to. Thats all I need to do as you clearly failed to support your claim to begin with .

People shall swear upon a copy of the Consitution or a large law book and swear to uphold for what that stands for above all.

SO you would ask people to uselessly break their religious vow's to make the event more solom?

Are you saying that Muslim beliefs are that different from Christian? I don't think that's true. In fact, I think they're very similar. Of course, several small sects of Muslims would disagree with me, and so might you.

I don't think it's a "useless" gesture. I think it asks the vow taker to come into line with what the rest of us want them to espouse and put forth in their public dealings.

That's not necessarily just a matter of solemnity, but of an adjustment in a person's way of thinking.


Personally if they are willing to break their vows to their religion for something as stupid as setting the mood that may be an indicator that their vow to the people should not be trusted

Since I don't agree that it's a breaking of one vow to satisfy another, I won't speak to this.

I would feel much better about this guy refusing to break his religion then for him to break it just to take another oath, shows a strongness of character and a willingness to stand up for what he believes in, which is the exact reason we want him in office

I agree. If his religion tells him he can't hold to my philosophy on how the country should be run, then he should stick with his religion and refuse to take part in running my country. I totally agree with you.

I think it's pretty idiotic that you swear on anything at all, especially "holy" books, these oaths you have, which themselves are moronic...

I agree. If/when I go into politics, I have every intention of insisting upon swearing my oath on the Constitution if I have to swear such an oath. (One of my first political acts will be to rid the country of the necessity of such oaths, but, as always, you can't change the system unless you're in the system.)

As for Keithy-boy here: he has the right to insist upon being sworn in on whatever the fuck he wants to be sworn in on. Obviously we should tread lightly around books such as "Mein Kamf" (though in my mind I think that if we elected someone who would ask to be sworn in upon that book to an office we deserve what we get) but if a Muslim wants to be sworn in on the Qu'aran and not the Bible, by whatever you deem holy he should be allowed to do so. He's not a Christian. He's a Muslim. Therefore, he should not have to swear an oath on the Bible.

Are you saying that Muslim beliefs are that different from Christian?

That's not the issue. Swearing an oath on the Bible is recognizing the sovereignty of the Judeo-Christian conception of God.

Whether the differences are slight or immense, it is still a rejection of freedom of conscience.

Are you saying that Muslim beliefs are that different from Christian? I don't think that's true. In fact, I think they're very similar. Of course, several small sects of Muslims would disagree with me, and so might you.

I don't think it's a "useless" gesture. I think it asks the vow taker to come into line with what the rest of us want them to espouse and put forth in their public dealings.

That's not necessarily just a matter of solemnity, but of an adjustment in a person's way of thinking.



Since I don't agree that it's a breaking of one vow to satisfy another, I won't speak to this.



I agree. If his religion tells him he can't hold to my philosophy on how the country should be run, then he should stick with his religion and refuse to take part in running my country. I totally agree with you.
There is no conflict on him sticking with his religion and taking part running this country, and there should be none. Not if the people vote in favor of that person help run their country

And what about atheists?

Great question.

I'm not sure. For a long time, I considered myself to be an atheist. Still, during that time, I had a "distant feeling" that there was "something" bigger than myself out there. Maybe that means I was never truely an atheist. I just don't know.

I do believe that a true atheist can hold a belief in something "higher" than himself, and that he can feel an obligation to something more important than his own desires. Can a Bible be the physical manifestation of that belief/feeling? I think it can, and still not require the atheist to believe a word of what's contained in the book.

I believe that human beings can make those kinds of leaps of logical faith. I don't think every single thing in life has to be taken literally and argued as if it existed in a vacuum. So little in life is like that.

Nope I proved my point ... you made claims as to the founding fathers wish to include religion. I gave some good examples of their wish not to. Thats all I need to do as you clearly failed to support your claim to begin with .

No, that's patently not true. Re-read my post. I "claimed" the founders intended to refuse the Federal Government the right to proclaim a state religion and impose it upon us.

I then "claimed" they did not refuse anyone the right to practice their religion during government procedings. Asking for silence so people can pray before a town hall meeting is not a violation of the Constitution or of the founders intentions (except maybe Jefferson).

Thanks.

No, that's patently not true. Re-read my post. I "claimed" the founders intended to refuse the Federal Government the right to proclaim a state religion and impose it upon us.

I then "claimed" they did not refuse anyone the right to practice their religion during government procedings. Asking for silence so people can pray before a town hall meeting is not a violation of the Constitution or of the founders intentions (except maybe Jefferson).

Thanks.

As a private individual they have right to practice their religion during government proceedings

That is not what is happening here

In fact the whole topic was about a man NOT having the right to practice HIS religion during this government proceeding. So you are in support of him being able to practice his religion by swearing on the Koran at this proceeding?

Obviously we should tread lightly around books such as "Mein Kamf" (though in my mind I think that if we elected someone who would ask to be sworn in upon that book to an office we deserve what we get) but if a Muslim wants to be sworn in on the Qu'aran and not the Bible, by whatever you deem holy he should be allowed to do so. He's not a Christian. He's a Muslim. Therefore, he should not have to swear an oath on the Bible.

Here's the rub. "Obviously"?

Obvious to whom? You? Are you the great, benevolant dicator? I'm just asking.

Who gets to make the decision on what's appropriate and what isn't? Who are you to say that a man or woman hasn't make "Mein Kamf" their religious doctrine? As such, how is their religion less valid than Islam or Christianity?

That's the problem when you try to be all-inclusive. That's why people like me like to see everyone "nudged" to swear on the same book, the book most of us agree espouses the higher beliefs of our society. Don't want to swear on the Bible? Fine, don't. But don't stick something else in our face and wag it around, or we'll grouse about it.

If I somehow got elected to public office in Iran (right, full of problems) and I tried to swear on a Bible, I'd have my right hand cut off, at best. No one has said that swearing on a Bible has to be the law. We, conservatives, see a difference between State Law and Societal Pressure.

I'll try to tackle it thusly; I don't believe women should get abortions, but I'd never agree it should be a law. I DO believe the rest of society has an obligation to "look down on" women who get abortions. Guilt (peer-pressure) can be a powerful deterent, yet you still have the freedom to kill your baby without being thrown in prison.

That's not the issue. Swearing an oath on the Bible is recognizing the sovereignty of the Judeo-Christian conception of God.

Whether the differences are slight or immense, it is still a rejection of freedom of conscience.

It's a matter of perception. There's no legislation making the Judeo-Christian conception of God the supreme authority. The tradition is the issue, and tradition is based in commonly held beliefs, which is the stance from which I've based my arguements.

Recognizing supreme authority can only happen if something has been assigned such an authority. We haven't in this country.

When you take public office, you lose a certain "freedom of conscience" because you now choose to represent a larger group. You don't get to put your personal beliefs before the groups beliefs. You oughtn't, anyway.

I think that our laws and beliefs as Americans derive from the 10 commandments (no murder, stealing, adultering). I'm not a Christian, but I want minority groups (especially individuals of any group who are going to represent us in the political arena) to abide by those tenants.
Since when has a prohibition against murder been exclusively Christian? Who really needs a Bible to tell them that stealing is wrong?

See, it's this sense of superiority that gets me, this air of Christianity being the be-all and end-all of human morality, that our sense of justice stems from the Bible and without it we'd be a bunch of sadistic savages. Yeah, I know you didn't say that, but that's the implication of your view, whether you yourself are Christian or not. Hell, that Prager guy is a Jew and he still manages to spew this nonsense.

Also, our justice system is not based on the Ten Commandments. There are exactly zero laws on the books (sensible ones, anyway) that derive from them. "Lord's name in vain"? Nope. "Honor thy father and mother"? Sorry. You could make a case for murder and theft, but those are common-sense rules that every society, Christian or not, has laws against. So please, people, stop using the Commandments as an excuse to wriggle Christianity into government.

It's a matter of perception. There's no legislation making the Judeo-Christian conception of God the supreme authority. The tradition is the issue, and tradition is based in commonly held beliefs, which is the stance from which I've based my arguements.

Recognizing supreme authority can only happen if something has been assigned such an authority. We haven't in this country.

When you take public office, you lose a certain "freedom of conscience" because you now choose to represent a larger group. You don't get to put your personal beliefs before the groups beliefs. You oughtn't, anyway.

Your beliefs and attitude are what got you elected. People voted for you because they believed that your beliefs and actions represented their wish

Not that you should conform to the accepted standard

Why would you vote for someone that you don't think will make any changes for the better just because a lot of people like the status-quo?

Here's the rub. "Obviously"?

Obvious to whom? You? Are you the great, benevolant dicator? I'm just asking.

Who gets to make the decision on what's appropriate and what isn't? Who are you to say that a man or woman hasn't make "Mein Kamf" their religious doctrine? As such, how is their religion less valid than Islam or Christianity?

That's the problem when you try to be all-inclusive. That's why people like me like to see everyone "nudged" to swear on the same book, the book most of us agree espouses the higher beliefs of our society. Don't want to swear on the Bible? Fine, don't. But don't stick something else in our face and wag it around, or we'll grouse about it.

If I somehow got elected to public office in Iran (right, full of problems) and I tried to swear on a Bible, I'd have my right hand cut off, at best. No one has said that swearing on a Bible has to be the law. We, conservatives, see a difference between State Law and Societal Pressure.

I'll try to tackle it thusly; I don't believe women should get abortions, but I'd never agree it should be a law. I DO believe the rest of society has an obligation to "look down on" women who get abortions. Guilt (peer-pressure) can be a powerful deterent, yet you still have the freedom to kill your baby without being thrown in prison.
I said we should obviously tread lightly around books like "Mien Kamf" because it espouses racism and intolorance to a rather extreme level. And by tread lightly, I meant try to avoid being idiotic enough to elect a Nazi to office, NOT refuse to allow them to swear upon the book should they so ask to. Frankly I don't give a damn what book you swear upon.

And no, the Bible does not represent the ideals of this nation. The Bible is just as intolorant as most religious texts, especially when it comes to other religious beliefs, and I do believe this country was founded on tolorance, democracy, and religious freedom, not upon the bloody Bible.

As a private individual they have right to practice their religion during government proceedings

That is not what is happening here

In fact the whole topic was about a man NOT having the right to practice HIS religion during this government proceeding. So you are in support of him being able to practice his religion by swearing on the Koran at this proceeding?

No. The topic is erroneous, if you are correct. No one said he didn't have the right to do as he pleased. I, and the writer of the article, stated he shouldn't do as he pleases. I don't have to support him, just like you can choose to support him. We both have those freedoms, though to you they might seem mutually exclusive, they are in fact the same freedom.

I've already stated several times this is not a matter of the man's rights. There is no legislation on the matter, and no one has suggested there should be. There is no infringement on anyone's rights, by definition.

This is the kind of arguement where someone gets mad because they can't have a religious rant in the middle of a restaraunt. If the restaraunt owner kicks them out, is that infringment on the person's rights? Obviously not, since the owner has the right to refuse anyone service.

Can the ranter stand on the steps of the Whitehouse and rant? It's socially inappropriate, but no one can stop him. I don't know why people want to incorrectly apply "citizens rights" to discussions such as this.

Since when has a prohibition against murder been exclusively Christian? Who really needs a Bible to tell them that stealing is wrong?

This is a dippy statement. It's typical in these discussions to see it crop up, but I'm not wasting my time. I didn't say it was exclusive, you brought it up. I said our society was based on those principles because it was. The bible was the source, in our country's case. It didn't have to be, but it was. Go blather somewhere else. Der.

Your beliefs and attitude are what got you elected. People voted for you because they believed that your beliefs and actions represented their wish

Not that you should conform to the accepted standard

Why would you vote for someone that you don't think will make any changes for the better just because a lot of people like the status-quo?

In principle, I would agree with you, but we both know it's not always the case. It's not a good arguement in any case. It goes back to what I said about taking things literally, or from a theoretical perspective.

We could examine numerous examples of people who espoused one belief, but demonstrated another after achieving the vote. We could show as many or more examples of the opposite.

Again, in theory, it should work as you said, but to assume that's always the case is naive. We could go around on this one forever.

That's the problem when you try to be all-inclusive. That's why people like me like to see everyone "nudged" to swear on the same book, the book most of us agree espouses the higher beliefs of our society. Don't want to swear on the Bible? Fine, don't. But don't stick something else in our face and wag it around, or we'll grouse about it.
There you go again. "We". "Most of us". That whole "us vs. them" attitude. Acting like anybody who is different is an outsider, an interloper, an alien. Acting like just because Christianity is in the majority, it should take precedence over everything else, to the point where even non-believers should adhere to it.

We are a pluralistic society, a multicultural melting pot. It is unhealthy to thrust one particular religious tradition into the forefront while marginalizing everyone else, especially when there's no valid reason for it.

If I somehow got elected to public office in Iran (right, full of problems) and I tried to swear on a Bible, I'd have my right hand cut off, at best.
So why should we move in that hateful, intolerant direction?
No one has said that swearing on a Bible has to be the law. We, conservatives, see a difference between State Law and Societal Pressure.
The problem, though, is that widespread social pressure tends to turn into law. If you don't encourage a culture of tolerance and pluralism, the bigots and the xenophobes tend to take to power.

Witness the anti-gay sentiments that have taken deep root throughout the politically red states; there is no valid, non-religious reason for banning gay marriage, and yet the yokels in these locales continue to use their religion as an excuse to push their intolerant agenda. This attitude needs to be stamped out, and your stance on the issue is only encouraging it. It sets a precedent for forcing people to conform rather than follow their own beliefs.

This is a dippy statement. It's typical in these discussions to see it crop up, but I'm not wasting my time. I didn't say it was exclusive, you brought it up. I said our society was based on those principles because it was. The bible was the source, in our country's case. It didn't have to be, but it was. Go blather somewhere else. Der.
You stated that everyone, regardless of belief, should swear on the Bible since it is our source of morality in America. But that is not true. Our laws are based on common sense, not the Old and New Testaments. Just because both the Bible and the local criminal statutes prohibit murder does not mean that one caused or influenced the other. Once again, no one at the Constitutional Convention needed a Bible to inform them of what was or was not against the law.

If our nation was truly based on Christianity, then why were most of the Founding Fathers Deists, Theists, or other unconventional faiths? Why isn't the Constitution sprinkled with Biblical references? Why isn't it more obvious, if that's really what they intended and believed?

I said we should obviously tread lightly around books like "Mien Kamf" because it espouses racism and intolorance to a rather extreme level. And by tread lightly, I meant try to avoid being idiotic enough to elect a Nazi to office, NOT refuse to allow them to swear upon the book should they so ask to. Frankly I don't give a damn what book you swear upon.

And no, the Bible does not represent the ideals of this nation. The Bible is just as intolorant as most religious texts, especially when it comes to other religious beliefs, and I do believe this country was founded on tolorance, democracy, and religious freedom, not upon the bloody Bible.

So...don't elect a Nazi, but if he turns out to be one, don't tell him he's wrong? Good luck, brother.

The Bible is full of different ideas. Some good, some bad, some have no bearing on modern society what-so-ever. So what? Like all human endeavors, we take what we want and ignore the rest.

Your last statement shows your age and ignorance more than anything else. This country was not founded on religious freedom, or democracy as you know it, or on tolerance. It was indeed founded upon various beliefs in the Bible. History classes you guys. Sheesh.

When this country started, we allowed slavery (tolerance?) - we only allowed rich, white, males to vote (democracy?) - many cities had laws prohibiting certain religious practices or protecting those who were intolerant of minority religions (religious freedom?). No wonder you expect instant results in Iraq. You think our country has always been as it is now.

It was indeed founded upon various beliefs in the Bible.
Do you care to back that up with, well... anything at all? It seems rather important that you should, considering that it's the crux of your argument.

Oh dear lord..

Haha you believe in a supernatural being.

I think it's pretty idiotic that you swear on anything at all, especially "holy" books, these oaths you have, which themselves are moronic...

Amen!

Dudes, Keith Ellison is my new hero.

Agreed. a step in the right direction...

I do believe that a true atheist can hold a belief in something "higher" than himself, and that he can feel an obligation to something more important than his own desires. Can a Bible be the physical manifestation of that belief/feeling? I think it can, and still not require the atheist to believe a word of what's contained in the book.

As an atheist, whatever my moral convictions I would never accept swearing on the Bible.

Why? Because while I may recognize something more important than my own desires, the Bible does not represent that thing. It represents the Christian or Jewish conception of that thing, both of which I reject.

When you take public office, you lose a certain "freedom of conscience" because you now choose to represent a larger group. You don't get to put your personal beliefs before the groups beliefs. You oughtn't, anyway.

Perhaps not in making legislation, no, because there one ought to represent one's constituents, but an oath isn't a representative role. You are not taking the oath for your constituents; you are committing yourself to a certain course of action.

So...don't elect a Nazi, but if he turns out to be one, don't tell him he's wrong? Good luck, brother.

The Bible is full of different ideas. Some good, some bad, some have no bearing on modern society what-so-ever. So what? Like all human endeavors, we take what we want and ignore the rest.

Your last statement shows your age and ignorance more than anything else. This country was not founded on religious freedom, or democracy as you know it, or on tolerance. It was indeed founded upon various beliefs in the Bible. History classes you guys. Sheesh.

When this country started, we allowed slavery (tolerance?) - we only allowed rich, white, males to vote (democracy?) - many cities had laws prohibiting certain religious practices or protecting those who were intolerant of minority religions (religious freedom?). No wonder you expect instant results in Iraq. You think our country has always been as it is now.

Let me put it to you this way: I personally feel the ideals behind American stand for tolorance, religious freedom, and democracy, and regardless of what you might think from hindsight, it's what America was based upon. You want to talk about history? I suggest you read up upon how viewpoints have changed over the years. For the time, America was extremely tolorant and democratic. Certainly we have changed our personal views on what constitutes democratic and tolorant, but that does not change the fact that that is what America was based upon.

And please do not attempt to tell me what I do or do not expect or believe. I was and still am against the war in Iraq. I never for one instant held the delusions Bush, Cheney, and their cronies held regarding what would happen in the war. Let us not attempt to derail the topic at hand.

And yes, I think people shouldn't elect Nazis, but if they do, and s/he wishes to swear upon their book of choice, they should be allowed to. That's not hypocrasy. That's exactly what I believe you have been saying all along.

And, as stated in my original post, we should only swear upon the Consitution if we must swear upon anything at all. I am an atheist: were I to go into politics--as I plan to do so--I would refuse to swear upon the Bible as it does not represent any belief I may or may not hold.

There you go again. "We". "Most of us". That whole "us vs. them" attitude. Acting like anybody who is different is an outsider, an interloper, an alien. Acting like just because Christianity is in the majority, it should take precedence over everything else, to the point where even non-believers should adhere to it.

Okay, "different" means "other". You do understand that concept? The "us vs. them attitude" arguement is fallacious. Anyone who is different IS an outsider, but definition.

I didn't "act" like anything. I didn't say that Christianity takes precedence over everything. You are extrapolating that because you choose to.

I'm asking that we respect the better parts of our roots. We should respect traditions when they are positive traditions. Some twit will say, "SO! Ah HA! You're saying we should respect slavery!"

Why do I have to fill every statement with a caveat "proving" I'm not intolerant? How will we ever have a "real" discussion? Can we just stop wasting our time and assume that we both have good intentions, but disagree on some of the specific details? Cripes you guys.

We are a pluralistic society, a multicultural melting pot. It is unhealthy to thrust one particular religious tradition into the forefront while marginalizing everyone else, especially when there's no valid reason for it.

We can be pluralistic without being multicultural, and we should be. A society needs a single, cohesive, over-riding culture or it loses its identity and fractures, as our society has fractured over the last 40 years.

It is healthy to recognize one philosophy as being predominant over others when it strengthens the cultural identity of that society.

Look at the '50s in this country, we manufactured more in the US, we were more respectful of each other in public, we dressed up for work, we dressed up for any "public" occasion, we didn't allow our children to drop F bombs on adults.

You can point at poor treatment of minorities at that time, but that's not a side effect of the good things that held our society together. It was the side effect of how our country grew up. We had slavery here for a couple hundred years. We then killed hundreds of thousands of people trying to prove slavery was wrong. If people couldn't forsee that there would be some long-standing bad feelings over the results of that war, I don't know what to say to you.

Am I excusing the treatment of blacks for those years? No. I'm asking you to look at life with some perspective. Should whites have stuck up more for blacks? Obviously, if you hold true to the ideals we believe in today. Things have to change, but we have to hold on to some traditions to temper that change, or you end up with the crap we're living in now. Ugh.


The problem, though, is that widespread social pressure tends to turn into law. If you don't encourage a culture of tolerance and pluralism, the bigots and the xenophobes tend to take to power.

Sometimes, but not always. You can't know for sure when it will, you can only vote your belief on a matter. You know, you're so sure your belief system is right, you're willing to trample all over my beliefs. Now I'm the minority. What are you doing to protect my beliefs? When do I get my say? Am I a bigot or a xenophobe?

I encourage the culture of which you speak, but I don't have to, and you can't make me. That's facism, sister. At what point does your intolerance of my intolerance start encroaching on my freedoms? Will you even consider that posibility? Can you? Or are you already so indoctrinated in that philosophy that you will marginalize me? I'm curious.

Witness the anti-gay sentiments that have taken deep root throughout the politically red states; there is no valid, non-religious reason for banning gay marriage, and yet the yokels in these locales continue to use their religion as an excuse to push their intolerant agenda. This attitude needs to be stamped out, and your stance on the issue is only encouraging it. It sets a precedent for forcing people to conform rather than follow their own beliefs.

Anti-gay. I'm so glad you can read my mind. No valid, non-religous reason.

Yes, you can read my mind. You can see into the hearts of all men. You should be the benevolant dicatator for our country.

Married gay couples are not good for our society. They don't produce children, nor should they. Children need to grow up in a male/female household so they can learn how women deal with men and how men deal with women. If the state normalizes that relationship, if they reward it, then you will get more of it. The nuclear family is the strongest structure that exists. It's what got our species this far, and you want to do more than just allow gay people to enjoy their lifestyles, you want to approve of it and put it on display for everyone.

You want to be gay? Go be gay till your eyeballs explode. I'm not anti-gay, but thanks for assuming I am. I guess I'm just a dumb, knuckle-dragging red-stater. However, I am against rewarding the behavior. I want good little tax payers creating more little tax payers who will grow up and make even more good little tax payers. Why am I wrong?

There's nothing that stops a gay couple, or group, from entering into a contract by which they have all the "rights" of a normal married couple. These aren't really rights, they're contractual agreements in the case of normal married couples, too. If your a girlfriend of mine, you can't technically come visit me in the hospital. You'd have to be my wife.

And now we've gotten completely off track, but whatever.

Married gay couples are not good for our society. They don't produce children, nor should they. Children need to grow up in a male/female household so they can learn how women deal with men and how men deal with women. If the state normalizes that relationship, if they reward it, then you will get more of it. The nuclear family is the strongest structure that exists. It's what got our species this far, and you want to do more than just allow gay people to enjoy their lifestyles, you want to approve of it and put it on display for everyone.

Once again, please go follow your own advice and do learn about history. The so called nuclear family only came into existence during the past seventy-five years or so. Before then, in most socities it was common for families to pass around children, to marry them off for various reasons, to have arranged marriages, ect. Even when our species was tribal it was rare to actually see two mates stay together for life, let alone always be there for their offspring.

Frankly, I think it's absurd to assume that a gay couple could not raise a child to be socially acceptable. Any parent can teach anything. Most parents do not teach or really raise their kids at all these days, be they nuclear parents or not.

Furthermore, it is also absurd to assume that marriages have to produce children, or that gay couples should not be allowed to adopt and/or have children via a surrogate and/or donated sperm if they wish.

Finally, gay couples deserve an enormous number of rights that heterosexual married couples have that said gay couples currently cannot have. I will not expand upon this as we've already gone off track enough as it is.

Crazy. Perhaps in some societies throughout human history, the nuclear family was not the norm, but it has indeed been around through our history as the dominant form of family structure.

Humans tend to mate for life. In societies where that truism began to fall apart (Rome, America), the society fell apart.

Saying whatever you like isn't an arguement. It's just saying crazy stuff. Nice try, though.

Okay, "different" means "other". You do understand that concept? The "us vs. them attitude" arguement is fallacious. Anyone who is different IS an outsider, but definition.
What I meant is that the language of social conservatives tends to evoke a sense of "we good Americans" vs. "those dirty ferners".

For example, John Gibson of Fox went on a rant awhile back saying that minorities were having children faster than whites, and that we needed to "make more babies". Implicit in his statement was the idea that he was talking to white people like himself, despite the fact he was broadcasting to millions across the country.

Social conservatism strikes me as similar -- the idea that "our" Christian philosophy should be upheld by everyone, ignoring the fact that a good number of "us" are not Christians. Everything is seen through a prism of Christianity -- no one stops to think what it would be like to be a Muslim or a Buddhist and to be expected to conform to a religion you do not believe in.

I didn't "act" like anything. I didn't say that Christianity takes precedence over everything. You are extrapolating that because you choose to.
You're saying that non-Christian people should uphold Christian symbols, while their own religious symbols should be suppressed. That's not taking precedence?

I'm asking that we respect the better parts of our roots. We should respect traditions when they are positive traditions. Some twit will say, "SO! Ah HA! You're saying we should respect slavery!"
Again, our roots are not Christian. Stop saying that unless you produce something to back it up.

Why do I have to fill every statement with a caveat "proving" I'm not intolerant? How will we ever have a "real" discussion? Can we just stop wasting our time and assume that we both have good intentions, but disagree on some of the specific details? Cripes you guys.
Because what you're saying sounds intolerant.

We can be pluralistic without being multicultural, and we should be. A society needs a single, cohesive, over-riding culture or it loses its identity and fractures, as our society has fractured over the last 40 years.

It is healthy to recognize one philosophy as being predominant over others when it strengthens the cultural identity of that society.
While I agree we should have a basic shared culture, it should not include something as diverse and personal as religion. We are a nation of many faiths, so why elevate one particular faith to an exalted position? It discounts the validity of everyone else's beliefs. That, my friends, is arrogance. Tradition be damned.

Look at the '50s in this country, we manufactured more in the US, we were more respectful of each other in public, we *snip*
And how do you know that Christianity was the sole cause of that? That's a bit simplistic, if you ask me.

Sometimes, but not always. You can't know for sure when it will, you can only vote your belief on a matter. You know, you're so sure your belief system is right, you're willing to trample all over my beliefs. Now I'm the minority. What are you doing to protect my beliefs? When do I get my say? Am I a bigot or a xenophobe?
Well, considering you're so unwilling to let people practice their own beliefs, and would prefer that one particular belief get foisted on everyone...

I encourage the culture of which you speak, but I don't have to, and you can't make me. That's facism, sister. At what point does your intolerance of my intolerance start encroaching on my freedoms? Will you even consider that posibility? Can you? Or are you already so indoctrinated in that philosophy that you will marginalize me? I'm curious.
I am not anti-Christian. I do not want to trample on your beliefs. Practice them all you want. Sing the praises.

However, I will not stand for one group asserting its beliefs over another. All religions should be treated equally, and all should have equal status. Either everyone can swear on whatever holy book they want, or no one swears on anything. Favoritism cannot be allowed.

And it's "brother", btw.

Anti-gay. I'm so glad you can read my mind. No valid, non-religous reason.

Yes, you can read my mind. You can see into the hearts of all men. You should be the benevolant dicatator for our country.

Married gay couples are not good for our society. They don't produce children, nor *snip*
I never said you were anti-gay. I was using it as an example of how your cherished "social pressure" can lead to baseless and intolerant laws.

Crazy. Perhaps in some societies throughout human history, the nuclear family was not the norm, but it has indeed been around through our history as the dominant form of family structure.

Humans tend to mate for life. In societies where that truism began to fall apart (Rome, America), the society fell apart.

Saying whatever you like isn't an arguement. It's just saying crazy stuff. Nice try, though.
The history of the United States of America is slightly over 230 years old. Human history stretches back for several millenia. Furthermore, even during our own history the nuclear family was not as common as you might like to think.

Also, I point to European socities wherein homosexual marriage is legal. I have yet to see any society of theirs fall apart. Seeing as how the nuclear family truism had nothing to do with the collapse of Rome, however, that's not surprising. Please, again, follow your own advice, and read up on history.

It would really be simpler, if we're going to have an Oath of Office, to have people swear it with their hand on a constitution, seeing as how that is a document that is actually... you know... relevant to their job.

I totally agree here!

It would really be simpler, if we're going to have an Oath of Office, to have people swear it with their hand on a constitution, seeing as how that is a document that is actually... you know... relevant to their job.

exactly

Crazy. Perhaps in some societies throughout human history, the nuclear family was not the norm, but it has indeed been around through our history as the dominant form of family structure.

Humans tend to mate for life. In societies where that truism began to fall apart (Rome, America), the society fell apart.

Saying whatever you like isn't an arguement. It's just saying crazy stuff. Nice try, though.

Perfect example of the misuse of correlation. As the convention goes "Correlation does not prove causation"

California has the highest production of ice-cream in the united states
http://www.idfa.org/facts/icmonth/page2.cfm

They also have one of the highest crime rates ... does that show that ice-cream production has an influence on crime?

Perfect example of the misuse of correlation. As the convention goes "Correlation does not prove causation"
Ditto for that "1950s America was swell 'cause of Christianity" argument he made earlier.

Ditto for that "1950s America was swell 'cause of Christianity" argument he made earlier.

Did not see that one, agreed.

So...don't elect a Nazi, but if he turns out to be one, don't tell him he's wrong? Good luck, brother.

The Bible is full of different ideas. Some good, some bad, some have no bearing on modern society what-so-ever. So what? Like all human endeavors, we take what we want and ignore the rest.

Your last statement shows your age and ignorance more than anything else. This country was not founded on religious freedom, or democracy as you know it, or on tolerance. It was indeed founded upon various beliefs in the Bible. History classes you guys. Sheesh.

When this country started, we allowed slavery (tolerance?) - we only allowed rich, white, males to vote (democracy?) - many cities had laws prohibiting certain religious practices or protecting those who were intolerant of minority religions (religious freedom?). No wonder you expect instant results in Iraq. You think our country has always been as it is now.
You make vague claims to our lack of history of knowledge but do nothing more then post opinions.

If our view of history is wrong show us where it is wrong, you know with all that evidence you claim to have knowledge of.

If you'd only read the post directly above yours, you'd have seen that not only was Prager being disingenuous, he was just plain wrong. No one swears on any holy book. Period. Full Stop. End of Story.


I recognize that, and nowhere did I dispute it. I said that swearing on a book filled a symbolic duty - and even if they don't need to do it, most do.

And how do you know Prager was being disingenuous? He seemed plently sincere for me.

And when I said "He was being sincere" in my previous post, I was referring to the Islamic senator-to-be; he didn't want to use the Qoran because he just wanted to mess with the system, but because he sincerely cared for the Qoran as oppossed to the bible. That's admirable; he'd rather swear on something that meant something to him than something that didn't.

My point is still valid. Period. Full Stop. End of Story.

cheers,
Sitae