Well you had me until there. Members of Congress serve the Constitution, not a religion.
Right, but the Constitution was written by Christians. Obviously the Constitution was flawed when it comes to slavery, but the Constitution and America's Christian citizens and politicians corrected this error and have provided for the greatness of our country. Are there flaws? Yes. But we are better off and more free than just about any society. Look at Russia, their leaders are poisoning people.
What would America look like today if a group of Muslims took the ship over to America first and founded their own government? That is an interesting question.
Exactly, that is why I say don't swear on any if you don't swear on one. Congress is one group that should have a common goal, so why have people swear on different belief systems? What is the point of that?
While this situation may seem miniscule, it is interesting. There is no doubt that this country was founded on Christian beliefs, whether they were put in the Constitution or not. The general public is comfortable with swearing on the Bible because 87% (or some other insanely high number) of the country is Christian, and we are comfortable having that as the basis (in reality or just for show) for our political system. In reality Congressman are greedy bastards. But, a lot of folks, including me, are not comfortable that someone swears by the Koran, when a lot of Muslim countries are places I would not want to live. But that isn't to say that a Muslim can't be a congressman. Just a reason why some of us aren't comfortable with some swearing on the Koran. When Muslim values are served you get what we have in the Middle East. When Christian values are served you get what we have in the US. The United States allows more freedom than any country in the world. There are problems with both societies, but I would take ours 100% of the time.
Much of the problems in the Middle East also stem from US christian based involvement. Muslim values have absolutely nothing to do with the chaos the Middle East. Do us a favor and learn to seperate extremists from the average muslim. It's like saying all balck people are gangsters.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Much of the problems in the Middle East also stem from US christian based involvement. Muslim values have absolutely nothing to do with the chaos the Middle East. Do us a favor and learn to seperate extremists from the average muslim. It's like saying all balck people are gangsters.
Right, Christians are to blame for the Middle East. The Muslim clerics are peace loving people. If the Muslim clerics (or Islamic leaders from Iran) wanted peace in Iraq there would be peace. If the Muslim people truly cared about peace, and freedom was instilled in their religion, than their countries would show it. But they don't. So yeah, the average Muslim person isn't a terrorist, but they don't seem to speak up against those who are. H
You know what, I'll go preach the gospel on a street corner in a Muslim country, and you go preach the Koran on a street corner in a Christian country. Then after about a day or two, we'll compare notes on our experiences. You can either send yours to my jail cell, or put in my coffin at my funeral. Yeah, Muslim extremists rule the day, but they can only rule when the people give them and allow them the power to.
Don't patronize me about separating extremists. Quit looking past reality to see what you want to see.
Right, Christians are to blame for the Middle East. The Muslim clerics are peace loving people. If the Muslim clerics wanted peace in Iraq there would be peace. If the Muslim people truly cared about peace, and freedom was instilled in their religion, than their countries would show it. But they don't. So yeah, the average Muslim person isn't a terrorist, but they don't seem to speak up against those who are.
You know what, I'll go preach the gospel on a street corner in a Muslim country, and you go preach the Koran on a street corner in a Christian country. Then after about a day or two, we'll compare notes on our experiences. You can either send yours to my jail cell, or put in my coffin at my funeral. Yeah, Muslim extremists rule the day, but they can only rule when the people give them and allow them the power to.
The US is partially to blame, which is what I said. They created the instability that lets these extremist maintain power and keeps the average citizen there desperate enough to look to these extremists for leadership.
And speaking of tolerence, aren't you the one not wanting Muslims to have the right to swear on their own holy book here in the freedom loving, good ol' US of A? I think that's a good start at heading down the direction these Muslim countries operate on.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Right, but the Constitution was written by Christians. Obviously the Constitution was flawed when it comes to slavery, but the Constitution and America's Christian citizens and politicians corrected this error and have provided for the greatness of our country. Are there flaws? Yes. But we are better off and more free than just about any society. Look at Russia, their leaders are poisoning people.
What would America look like today if a group of Muslims took the ship over to America first and founded their own government? That is an interesting question.
I think you're misinterpreting the reason for swearing on a holy book. The idea is, by placing your hand on a bible or koran, you will feel bound by god to your word ... you're making an oath not only to the public, but to the god who has the power to send you to hell. It seems obvious to me that if the book you think connects you to god is the koran, then that would be the book you'd swear on. It has nothing to do with what you're going to do once you're in office. This guy wants to swear to his god to uphold the constitution ... it makes more sense for him to swear to the god he believes in, doesn't it?
I think that's all a lot of nonsense, of course, and I'd prefer that they keep so-called holy books out of government entirely, but that's just me.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
And speaking of tolerence, aren't you the one not wanting Muslims to have the right to swear on their own holy book here in the freedom loving, good ol' US of A? I think that's a good start at heading down the direction these Muslim countries operate on.
I don't think it makes sense to swear allegiance to different ideals when you are joining one Congress. I've said from my first post in this thread that it should be one (be it the Bible, Koran, or Torah) or none, and it should be none. I agree with Hippiemom's last statement in the post above. Yes, I wish the Bible could be involved in government more, but that ain't gonna happen when you live in a melting pot. I know I wouldn't want to wake up under a country that uses the Koran in its government.
I don't think it makes sense to swear allegiance to different ideals when you are joining one Congress. I've said from my first post in this thread that it should be one (be it the Bible, Koran, or Torah) or none, and it should be none. I agree with Hippiemom's last statement in the post above. Yes, I wish the Bible could be involved in government more, but that ain't gonna happen when you live in a melting pot. I know I wouldn't want to wake up under a country that uses the Koran in its government.
Howabout they swear on the constitution. I think swearing on something you don't believe in is useless.
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
I don't think it makes sense to swear allegiance to different ideals when you are joining one Congress. I've said from my first post in this thread that it should be one (be it the Bible, Koran, or Torah) or none, and it should be none. I agree with Hippiemom's last statement in the post above. Yes, I wish the Bible could be involved in government more, but that ain't gonna happen when you live in a melting pot. I know I wouldn't want to wake up under a country that uses the Koran in its government.
Well guess what, you live in a country where muslims can be in the government and no matter how you want to slice it, they probably use it's teachings in their decision making. I, for one, am glad we don't live in a country where everyone shares just one accepted ideal. Once again, that sounds like the same kind of intolerence you claim to be so against. Congress is made up of elected officials which represent our very diverse society. That one Congress does not share one ideal.
And of course, I don't think you should swear on any religious book or force it's teachings on everyone else.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Well guess what, you live in a country where muslims can be in the government and no matter how you want to slice it, they probably use it's teachings in their decision making. I, for one, am glad we don't live in a country where everyone shares just one accepted ideal. Once again, that sounds like the same kind of intolerence you claim to be so against. Congress is made up of elected officials which represent our very diverse society. That one Congress does not share one ideal.
And of course, I don't think you should swear on any religious book or force it's teachings on everyone else.
Have I ever said the Muslims shouldn't be in government? No. I just think it is pretty stupid to have one congressman swear on the Bible and one on the Koran.
Edit: How did you say what you did in responding to my post? I said that in this melting pot we can't follow the Bible in our laws. I said that we shouldn't swear on anything. I guess I am intolerant. When I think of tolerance of other ideas the first song that comes to my mind is "Here's to the State of Mississippi" as re-done by Eddie Vedder. "Jerry Falwell disagrees with us, tell him to find another country!" "John Roberts made a joke in a law report 20 years ago, tell him to find another country!" Tolerance, right. Right. Free ideas, more than one ideal. Tolerance. Right.
Right, Christians are to blame for the Middle East. The Muslim clerics are peace loving people. If the Muslim clerics (or Islamic leaders from Iran) wanted peace in Iraq there would be peace. If the Muslim people truly cared about peace, and freedom was instilled in their religion, than their countries would show it. But they don't. So yeah, the average Muslim person isn't a terrorist, but they don't seem to speak up against those who are. H
You know what, I'll go preach the gospel on a street corner in a Muslim country, and you go preach the Koran on a street corner in a Christian country. Then after about a day or two, we'll compare notes on our experiences. You can either send yours to my jail cell, or put in my coffin at my funeral. Yeah, Muslim extremists rule the day, but they can only rule when the people give them and allow them the power to.
Don't patronize me about separating extremists. Quit looking past reality to see what you want to see.
no free speech? -the usa needs to cut off all aid to muslim countries and when did they ever help the blacks being killed in sudan?or anyone?
Have I ever said the Muslims shouldn't be in government? No. I just think it is pretty stupid to have one congressman swear on the Bible and one on the Koran.
Edit: How did you say what you did in responding to my post? I said that in this melting pot we can't follow the Bible in our laws. I said that we shouldn't swear on anything. I guess I am intolerant. When I think of tolerance of other ideas the first song that comes to my mind is "Here's to the State of Mississippi" as re-done by Eddie Vedder. "Jerry Falwell disagrees with us, tell him to find another country!" "John Roberts made a joke in a law report 20 years ago, tell him to find another country!" Tolerance, right. Right. Free ideas, more than one ideal. Tolerance. Right.
-I don't think it makes sense to swear allegiance to different ideals when you are joining one Congress.
-
I know I wouldn't want to wake up under a country that uses the Koran in its government.
- When Muslim values are served you get what we have in the Middle East.
What do you think, these Muslim congressmen should be forced to make decisions based on Christian idealogy? Religious people base their idealogy off of their religion or else why would they be followers of a certain faith at all? Don't you realize that if someone is Muslim, they are going to follow the beliefs of their own holybook? It seems like you're saying there can be Muslim congressmen but they shouldn't be able to use their own idealogy. If people are going to have swear on a book it only makes sense to swear on what's important to them and what they believe in. The whole damn point of swearing on a holy book in the first place is to make the person feel obligated to uphold their duties and integrity while in office. I can't see how you're not getting this.
And I'm sorry but you're confusing me with Eddie Vedder. Next time he posts you can bring these points up to him seeing as how I don't have shit to do with what he writes.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
That is his right to be sworn in on the Koran (or however you want to spell it). For two reasons: 1) Seperation of church and state, and 2) Freedom of speech.
What do you think, these Muslim congressmen should be forced to make decisions based on Christian idealogy? Religious people base their idealogy off of their religion or else why would they be followers of a certain faith at all? Don't you realize that if someone is Muslim, they are going to follow the beliefs of their own holybook? It seems like you're saying there can be Muslim congressmen but they shouldn't be able to use their own idealogy. If people are going to have swear on a book it only makes sense to swear on what's important to them and what they believe in. The whole damn point of swearing on a holy book in the first place is to make the person feel obligated to uphold their duties and integrity while in office. I can't see how you're not getting this.
And I'm sorry but you're confusing me with Eddie Vedder. Next time he posts you can bring these points up to him seeing as how I don't have shit to do with what he writes.
Do I agree with a Muslim's religious perspective? No. Do I think a Muslim can't serve in Congress? No. Do I think a group of Christians (who actually live it) would lead the country better than a group of Muslims? Yes. But in America we have freedom and anyone can serve in public office. Do I think it makes sense to swear in one congressman with the Bible, and one with the Koran? No. So I say don't use the Bible or the Koran. So, did I ever say a Muslim can't serve in Congress and if one does, has to use a Christian perspective? No. Did you think I did. Yes. I just don't think it makes sense to have one person swear on one thing, and another swear on another thing to get into the same club (be it Congress, or any other club). Do I like to answer my own questions. Yes.
Sorry about the "Here's to the Land" comment. I didn't realize that would be the one song a liberal wouldn't agree with Sir Eddie Vedder about. You can still fantasize about the president dying at the end of "Masters of War," right?
ridiculous. what does being american have ANYthing to do with the bible? i thought this country was based on religious freedoms? silly me. so yea, the bible, torah, qu'ran......whatever has true *meaning* to each individual should suffice....and someday when we have an overt atheist...perhaps we can simply choose an oath without any 'swearing' on something of a religious nature.....especially since again, i thought seperation of church and state was a big deal in our government as well. be nice to see us embrace that idea more.
ridiculous. what does being american have ANYthing to do with the bible? i thought this country was based on religious freedoms? silly me. so yea, the bible, torah, qu'ran......whatever has true *meaning* to each individual should suffice....and someday when we have an overt atheist...perhaps we can simply choose an oath without any 'swearing' on something of a religious nature.....especially since again, i thought seperation of church and state was a big deal in our government as well. be nice to see us embrace that idea more.
I have an idea. Instead of a verbal oath, how about every elected official sign a copy of the Constitution.
I like the thought, but most of these fuckers respect that even less. How about they swear upon their children? Truth be told, I'm not even sure that would get them to walk the line.
Do I agree with a Muslim's religious perspective? No. Do I think a Muslim can't serve in Congress? No. Do I think a group of Christians (who actually live it) would lead the country better than a group of Muslims? Yes. But in America we have freedom and anyone can serve in public office. Do I think it makes sense to swear in one congressman with the Bible, and one with the Koran? No. So I say don't use the Bible or the Koran. So, did I ever say a Muslim can't serve in Congress and if one does, has to use a Christian perspective? No. Did you think I did. Yes. I just don't think it makes sense to have one person swear on one thing, and another swear on another thing to get into the same club (be it Congress, or any other club). Do I like to answer my own questions. Yes.
Sorry about the "Here's to the Land" comment. I didn't realize that would be the one song a liberal wouldn't agree with Sir Eddie Vedder about. You can still fantasize about the president dying at the end of "Masters of War," right?
This is where I had problems with what you were saying. It seemed like you were saying you weren't confortable with Muslim values being used in congress. But of course, a Muslim congressperson is going to use Muslim values...it seems contradictory. And this country was founded on the notion of freedom not Christianity. No matter how many books we swear on, our congress is diverse and has differing values and beliefs including Muslim ones. Swearing on a book is really meaningless, like you said, so why support just one if you think it's all for show anyway? If the Congress is allowed to have differing idealogies in the first place then they should also be allowed to swear on which book they choose that coincides with those values. They 'club' they are getting into includes religious freedom as a founding and central idealogy so swearing on the book of their choice is indicative of that said 'club' and it's strong value of freedom.
I think that song is tongue in cheek. I don't think anyone actually expects those people to leave the country. But the way they keep fucking up our country, I for one, wouldn't shed a tear if they did leave but I wouldn't force them to. And for every crooked president that dies, another is always there to take his place it seems. So it seems pointless to fantasize about it. Another song that expresses emotion and not meant to be taken so literal. Or at least, I don't recall Eddie or Bob Dylan standing over Nixon's or Reagan's grave that is.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
That is his right to be sworn in on the Koran (or however you want to spell it). For two reasons: 1) Seperation of church and state.
I agree with you on the topic at hand,
but there is no such thing as the seperation of church and state in the constitution.
I would like to link this to the media bias thread, but have no idea how. this notion has been repeated so much that people actually believe it. Nowhere in the constitution does it mention a separation of church and state.
CONGRESS (not a town in the middle of Arkansas, or Missouri, or NY) is prohibited from passing a law establishing a national religion. Separation of church and state? not really.
In the next sentance, the Constitution says that people cannot be restricted from religion, which, let's get beyond the bullshit, what most people here want. No religous symbols in public, anywhere, a completely secular society. and that's about as unconstitutional as you can get.
And you ask me what I want this year
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
but there is no such thing as the seperation of church and state in the constitution.
I would like to link this to the media bias thread, but have no idea how. this notion has been repeated so much that people actually believe it. Nowhere in the constitution does it mention a separation of church and state.
CONGRESS (not a town in the middle of Arkansas, or Missouri, or NY) is prohibited from passing a law establishing a national religion. Separation of church and state? not really.
In the next sentance, the Constitution says that people cannot be restricted from religion, which, let's get beyond the bullshit, what most people here want. No religous symbols in public, anywhere, a completely secular society. and that's about as unconstitutional as you can get.
but there is no such thing as the seperation of church and state in the constitution.
I would like to link this to the media bias thread, but have no idea how. this notion has been repeated so much that people actually believe it. Nowhere in the constitution does it mention a separation of church and state.
CONGRESS (not a town in the middle of Arkansas, or Missouri, or NY) is prohibited from passing a law establishing a national religion. Separation of church and state? not really.
In the next sentance, the Constitution says that people cannot be restricted from religion, which, let's get beyond the bullshit, what most people here want. No religous symbols in public, anywhere, a completely secular society. and that's about as unconstitutional as you can get.
and they are to not pass laws based on religious doctrine. thus, the separation.
where in the constitution does it say that?
All i see is that Congress shall not pass a law establishing a national religion.
And you ask me what I want this year
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
All i see is that Congress shall not pass a law establishing a national religion.
I'm no lawyer, but it is pretty clear that from the minute of inception, that government was not to have a connection or be influenced by religion. Hence the saying 'separation of church and state.' Now, how well that is adhered to is another question.
but there is no such thing as the seperation of church and state in the constitution.
It could be interpreted either way.
But for the sake of argument, I will concede this to you. Separation of church and state is not in the constitution. A lot of people say that. What would you like this fact to lead to? Once the people finally come to realize that separtion of the two is not in the constituion, and that we therefore do not have to separate them, how can that be used?
I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
Comments
Right, but the Constitution was written by Christians. Obviously the Constitution was flawed when it comes to slavery, but the Constitution and America's Christian citizens and politicians corrected this error and have provided for the greatness of our country. Are there flaws? Yes. But we are better off and more free than just about any society. Look at Russia, their leaders are poisoning people.
What would America look like today if a group of Muslims took the ship over to America first and founded their own government? That is an interesting question.
Much of the problems in the Middle East also stem from US christian based involvement. Muslim values have absolutely nothing to do with the chaos the Middle East. Do us a favor and learn to seperate extremists from the average muslim. It's like saying all balck people are gangsters.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
use that
why did muslims kill zorastors and hindus?theres alot of them that hate everyone
see booktv today sceduele -spencer
he said a forign mufti came to usa and he he 80% are radiacls
or is he lieing??
http://groups.msn.com/PearlJamNirvana/messages.msnw
Right, Christians are to blame for the Middle East. The Muslim clerics are peace loving people. If the Muslim clerics (or Islamic leaders from Iran) wanted peace in Iraq there would be peace. If the Muslim people truly cared about peace, and freedom was instilled in their religion, than their countries would show it. But they don't. So yeah, the average Muslim person isn't a terrorist, but they don't seem to speak up against those who are. H
You know what, I'll go preach the gospel on a street corner in a Muslim country, and you go preach the Koran on a street corner in a Christian country. Then after about a day or two, we'll compare notes on our experiences. You can either send yours to my jail cell, or put in my coffin at my funeral. Yeah, Muslim extremists rule the day, but they can only rule when the people give them and allow them the power to.
Don't patronize me about separating extremists. Quit looking past reality to see what you want to see.
The US is partially to blame, which is what I said. They created the instability that lets these extremist maintain power and keeps the average citizen there desperate enough to look to these extremists for leadership.
And speaking of tolerence, aren't you the one not wanting Muslims to have the right to swear on their own holy book here in the freedom loving, good ol' US of A? I think that's a good start at heading down the direction these Muslim countries operate on.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I think that's all a lot of nonsense, of course, and I'd prefer that they keep so-called holy books out of government entirely, but that's just me.
I don't think it makes sense to swear allegiance to different ideals when you are joining one Congress. I've said from my first post in this thread that it should be one (be it the Bible, Koran, or Torah) or none, and it should be none. I agree with Hippiemom's last statement in the post above. Yes, I wish the Bible could be involved in government more, but that ain't gonna happen when you live in a melting pot. I know I wouldn't want to wake up under a country that uses the Koran in its government.
Howabout they swear on the constitution. I think swearing on something you don't believe in is useless.
That makes the most sense.
Well guess what, you live in a country where muslims can be in the government and no matter how you want to slice it, they probably use it's teachings in their decision making. I, for one, am glad we don't live in a country where everyone shares just one accepted ideal. Once again, that sounds like the same kind of intolerence you claim to be so against. Congress is made up of elected officials which represent our very diverse society. That one Congress does not share one ideal.
And of course, I don't think you should swear on any religious book or force it's teachings on everyone else.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
And just what are those so-called "Christian" values?
This should be interesting...
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
Have I ever said the Muslims shouldn't be in government? No. I just think it is pretty stupid to have one congressman swear on the Bible and one on the Koran.
Edit: How did you say what you did in responding to my post? I said that in this melting pot we can't follow the Bible in our laws. I said that we shouldn't swear on anything. I guess I am intolerant. When I think of tolerance of other ideas the first song that comes to my mind is "Here's to the State of Mississippi" as re-done by Eddie Vedder. "Jerry Falwell disagrees with us, tell him to find another country!" "John Roberts made a joke in a law report 20 years ago, tell him to find another country!" Tolerance, right. Right. Free ideas, more than one ideal. Tolerance. Right.
Well, we aren't like Iran or Syria or Pakistan. I'll take that.
you sound like a troublemaker - i made no "racist"post-where?
get a life
http://groups.msn.com/PearlJamNirvana/messages.msnw
no free speech? -the usa needs to cut off all aid to muslim countries and when did they ever help the blacks being killed in sudan?or anyone?
http://groups.msn.com/PearlJamNirvana/messages.msnw
What do you think, these Muslim congressmen should be forced to make decisions based on Christian idealogy? Religious people base their idealogy off of their religion or else why would they be followers of a certain faith at all? Don't you realize that if someone is Muslim, they are going to follow the beliefs of their own holybook? It seems like you're saying there can be Muslim congressmen but they shouldn't be able to use their own idealogy. If people are going to have swear on a book it only makes sense to swear on what's important to them and what they believe in. The whole damn point of swearing on a holy book in the first place is to make the person feel obligated to uphold their duties and integrity while in office. I can't see how you're not getting this.
And I'm sorry but you're confusing me with Eddie Vedder. Next time he posts you can bring these points up to him seeing as how I don't have shit to do with what he writes.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Do I agree with a Muslim's religious perspective? No. Do I think a Muslim can't serve in Congress? No. Do I think a group of Christians (who actually live it) would lead the country better than a group of Muslims? Yes. But in America we have freedom and anyone can serve in public office. Do I think it makes sense to swear in one congressman with the Bible, and one with the Koran? No. So I say don't use the Bible or the Koran. So, did I ever say a Muslim can't serve in Congress and if one does, has to use a Christian perspective? No. Did you think I did. Yes. I just don't think it makes sense to have one person swear on one thing, and another swear on another thing to get into the same club (be it Congress, or any other club). Do I like to answer my own questions. Yes.
Sorry about the "Here's to the Land" comment. I didn't realize that would be the one song a liberal wouldn't agree with Sir Eddie Vedder about. You can still fantasize about the president dying at the end of "Masters of War," right?
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
dead on.
I like the thought, but most of these fuckers respect that even less. How about they swear upon their children? Truth be told, I'm not even sure that would get them to walk the line.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=3951790&postcount=100
This is where I had problems with what you were saying. It seemed like you were saying you weren't confortable with Muslim values being used in congress. But of course, a Muslim congressperson is going to use Muslim values...it seems contradictory. And this country was founded on the notion of freedom not Christianity. No matter how many books we swear on, our congress is diverse and has differing values and beliefs including Muslim ones. Swearing on a book is really meaningless, like you said, so why support just one if you think it's all for show anyway? If the Congress is allowed to have differing idealogies in the first place then they should also be allowed to swear on which book they choose that coincides with those values. They 'club' they are getting into includes religious freedom as a founding and central idealogy so swearing on the book of their choice is indicative of that said 'club' and it's strong value of freedom.
I think that song is tongue in cheek. I don't think anyone actually expects those people to leave the country. But the way they keep fucking up our country, I for one, wouldn't shed a tear if they did leave but I wouldn't force them to. And for every crooked president that dies, another is always there to take his place it seems. So it seems pointless to fantasize about it. Another song that expresses emotion and not meant to be taken so literal. Or at least, I don't recall Eddie or Bob Dylan standing over Nixon's or Reagan's grave that is.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I agree with you on the topic at hand,
but there is no such thing as the seperation of church and state in the constitution.
I would like to link this to the media bias thread, but have no idea how. this notion has been repeated so much that people actually believe it. Nowhere in the constitution does it mention a separation of church and state.
CONGRESS (not a town in the middle of Arkansas, or Missouri, or NY) is prohibited from passing a law establishing a national religion. Separation of church and state? not really.
In the next sentance, the Constitution says that people cannot be restricted from religion, which, let's get beyond the bullshit, what most people here want. No religous symbols in public, anywhere, a completely secular society. and that's about as unconstitutional as you can get.
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Um, Ok. They're still skeevy fuckers.
from my window to yours
where in the constitution does it say that?
All i see is that Congress shall not pass a law establishing a national religion.
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
I'm no lawyer, but it is pretty clear that from the minute of inception, that government was not to have a connection or be influenced by religion. Hence the saying 'separation of church and state.' Now, how well that is adhered to is another question.
It could be interpreted either way.
But for the sake of argument, I will concede this to you. Separation of church and state is not in the constitution. A lot of people say that. What would you like this fact to lead to? Once the people finally come to realize that separtion of the two is not in the constituion, and that we therefore do not have to separate them, how can that be used?