Senator wants to be sworn in on the Quran. Unamarican?

sponger

CorporateWhore wrote:

I'm sure you'd prefer atheists in political office.

Why not have atheists in political office?

CorporateWhore

sponger wrote:

Why not have atheists in political office?

You vote for atheists if you want. I'll vote for Christians.

gue_barium

CorporateWhore wrote:

You vote for atheists if you want. I'll vote for Christians.

Even homosexual pro choice christians? I mean, if the opponent were an athiest.

sponger

CorporateWhore wrote:

You vote for atheists if you want. I'll vote for Christians.

Can you tell the difference between a christian and an atheist without either of them disclosing their affiliation?

gue_barium

sponger wrote:

Can you tell the difference between a christian and an atheist without either of them disclosing their affiliation?

I can.

sponger

gue_barium wrote:

I can.

explain

CorporateWhore

sponger wrote:

Can you tell the difference between a christian and an atheist without either of them disclosing their affiliation?

Atheists tend to be more liberal.

CorporateWhore

ad_rock wrote:

By the way "I'll vote for Christians"?!

Even if they want to, say, bring back the draft, are against the rights of women, or are racist, you'd still vote for them? All that's OK, because they're some variety of Christian?

You people are such fools. Wrapped up warm in your web of shakey beliefs that none of you bothers to question. Put a microscope to any religious claim and it falls apart. But no-one has the courage to examine what they believe.

I assume you'd vote 'Christian' because you feel they are morally supurior to atheists? If so, I would remind you that the USA was founded on a set of ideals derived from atheistic ethical systems of thought. The Bible never speaks of democracy. Democracy and freedom weren't to big in any religious sect I have ever spent time with. When I was growing up in my faith induced haze, I was told to sit down and shut up. By Christians. Hardly democtratic, or promoters of free inquiry. There are plenty of sound ethical systems that can be derived elsewhere than the mish-mash of contradictions, mis-translations and, often, backward ideas that constitutes the many conflicting sources that are drawn together in the Holy Bible.

You need some salsa?

For that chip on your shoulder?

gue_barium

sponger wrote:

explain

Find me a christian-politician that doesn't disclose his christianity and i'll show you billy beer.

gue_barium

CorporateWhore wrote:

Atheists tend to be more liberal.

You are so way far off on that one. The rightest of neocons, on top of being phony christians, are the poorest of athiests.

soulsinging

CorporateWhore wrote:

I'm sure you'd prefer atheists in political office.

i dont give a fuck what someone's religion is when they're in office. it has little to do with their ability to judge sound public policy. so no, i wouldnt prefer atheists in office. nor christians. nor muslims. on the list of important things i look for in a candidate, religion falls somewhere between annual consumption of garlic and frequency of masturbation.

Matt8townsend

CorporateWhore wrote:

Atheists tend to be more liberal.

Amen to that.

thankyougrandma

Separate religionS from the State... easy solution...

callen

gue_barium wrote:

Find me a christian-politician that doesn't disclose his christianity and i'll show you billy beer.

thats what bush boy did...he professed his "values" then led the country blindly into war....

I currently work for a company......but when I open a business, I will for sure put a Jesus fish on my sign, yellow pages, and web page to get all the blind followers into my shop. So sad....

fanch75

icarus wrote:

this is completely ridiculous. first of all this country wasnt founded on the bible. this country was founded to escape religious persecution.

what would be the point of making him swear on the bible if the bible doesnt mean anything to him? wouldnt it make a lot more sense to make him swear on a book that he actually abides by?

i love it when people say stuff is unamerican but their very attitude is whats unamerican.

I agree, the Bible doesn't mean anything to him, so any Oath would be meaningless. Most reasonable people know this if they think about this for two seconds. I don't think the view cited by the original post is indicative of most conservatives.

The Juggler

Kat said:

I hope no one minds if I spout off on this one. The founding fathers did not designate any book to be used for swearing in and there is no law about it. They only have to swear to uphold the Constitution. The Supreme Court would have to knock a law down if one was made because one of our basic rights is freedom of religion...there is no state religion.



That being said, when I'm sworn in, I want to use Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy when I raise my left hand. I can use my left hand, right?



Thanks.



Love,

Kat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxnxH-7Xk7U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxnxH-7Xk7U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxnxH-7Xk7U

The Juggler

*

PJ_Soul

How could that possibly be unAmerican?

mickeyrat

Very old thread.

Short answer , it isnt.

Personally I would prefer they swore or affirmed on a copy of the constitution

PJ_Soul

mickeyrat said:

Very old thread.

Short answer , it isnt.

Personally I would prefer they swore or affirmed on a copy of the constitution

Ditto (or, for me, on the Charter of Rights). If I was asked to swear on a Bible I would refuse. And I just remembered that Victoria's mayor refused to swear an oath to the Queen last year, and it was called by some more conservative Canadians "unCanadian". But for the most part, no one gave a shit. Any oath that is sworn to the Queen in Canada (that includes the swearing in for new Canadians) should also instead be an oath to the Charter of Rights.