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

12357…11

Comments

  • DixieN
    DixieN Posts: 351
    Either this country has freedom of religion, or it does not. If it does not, then this guy shouldn't be expected to swear on a book he doesn't believe in. If we do indeed have, instead of just say we have, freedom of religion, a person should be free to be sworn in on any book that reflects their faith--or no book at all should anyone openly agnostic or atheistic ever be elected to a high office. And what a cold day in hell that will be. :) In this country elected officials are unofficially free to believe in any religion they wish to so long as it conforms with the most popular one to the letter.
  • bootlegger10
    bootlegger10 Posts: 16,263
    There are two options here. Either the guy swears on the Bible, or nobody swears on anything. The Bible being sworn is between the United States and God (of the Bible). I'm sure the idea was not that every public officially swears on the religious book of their choice. They picked the Bible. Some of you assuredly disagree with this choice, which is why I think there are only the two solutions presented above. What is the point of having 5 gods watch over Congress? Pick one or none.
  • Vedderlution_Baby
    Vedderlution_Baby Posts: 2,535
    bootlegger10 wrote:
    There are two options here. Either the guy swears on the Bible, or nobody swears on anything. The Bible being sworn is between the United States and God (of the Bible). I'm sure the idea was not that every public officially swears on the religious book of their choice. They picked the Bible. Some of you assuredly disagree with this choice, which is why I think there are only the two solutions presented above. What is the point of having 5 gods watch over Congress? Pick one or none.



    Then none. Because obviously, swearing in on the bible does little to keep this people from being corrupt. And why not have five gods watch over congress? I mean, the one told bush to go to war and look how thats turned out. Maybe we need a little checks and balances with the gods.
  • bootlegger10
    bootlegger10 Posts: 16,263
    icarus wrote:
    well first of all, theres nothing that says anyone has to swear on anything. so your whole 'people have to swear on the bible' thesis has no basis on anything.

    "They picked the Bible." nobody picked anything.

    Custom. And most everybody used the Bible because the country was founded by Christians. There are unwritten rules. I'm just saying that there is no point swearing on five different books. There should be one or none. Cause if everyone doesn't swear by the same thing, then what is the point of it?
  • world
    world Posts: 266
    This country was founded by Christians and our laws were based off Christianity. You shouldnt be forced to put your hands on a Bible, and you shouldnt force them to use a Quran.
    Chicago '98, Noblesville '00, East Troy '00, Chicago '00, Champaign '03, Chicago '03, Chicago1 '06, Chicago2 '06, Milwaukee '06, Chicago1 '09, and Chicago2 '09
  • bootlegger10
    bootlegger10 Posts: 16,263
    icarus wrote:
    there's no unwritten rule. a lot of congressmen don't even swear on the bible. its not even a tradition. the president usually does, but many haven't.

    whats the point you ask? theres no point in swearing on a book you dont believe in.

    And there is no point swearing on 5 different books. That is why I say, one or none, and lean towards none.
  • enharmonic
    enharmonic Posts: 1,917
    If I am ever elected to the Congress, I am gonna swear on something written by Dr. Seuss. :)
    new music: http://www.myspace.com/blackbirdsymphonique

    old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    bootlegger10 wrote:
    And there is no point swearing on 5 different books. That is why I say, one or none, and lean towards none.

    There's more reason to swear on a hundred different books than to swear on one that means nothing to you. I suppose the point is supposed to be that a believer of a certain faith may have a difficult time breaking promises that have been sworn on their holy book. What point would their be in swearing at all if it was a meaningless act?
    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
  • RavennaSeattle1911
    RavennaSeattle1911 Posts: 478
    icarus wrote:
    counting the days until you get banned here as well.

    why would they ban me? how long you been a liberal mr polically correct in massachupits?

    im part american indian -ill take the oath on a tomahawk

    youre muslim ? right?
    http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/

    http://groups.msn.com/PearlJamNirvana/messages.msnw
  • bootlegger10
    bootlegger10 Posts: 16,263
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    There's more reason to swear on a hundred different books than to swear on one that means nothing to you. I suppose the point is supposed to be that a believer of a certain faith may have a difficult time breaking promises that have been sworn on their holy book. What point would their be in swearing at all if it was a meaningless act?

    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.
  • norm
    norm Posts: 31,146
    bootlegger10 wrote:
    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.
    Well you had me until there. Members of Congress serve the Constitution, not a religion.
  • bootlegger10
    bootlegger10 Posts: 16,263
    cutback wrote:
    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.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    bootlegger10 wrote:
    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
  • RavennaSeattle1911
    RavennaSeattle1911 Posts: 478
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism#Primary_texts

    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://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/

    http://groups.msn.com/PearlJamNirvana/messages.msnw
  • bootlegger10
    bootlegger10 Posts: 16,263
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    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.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    bootlegger10 wrote:
    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
  • hippiemom
    hippiemom Posts: 3,326
    bootlegger10 wrote:
    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
  • bootlegger10
    bootlegger10 Posts: 16,263
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    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.
  • keeponrockin
    keeponrockin Posts: 7,446
    bootlegger10 wrote:
    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
  • bootlegger10
    bootlegger10 Posts: 16,263
    keeponrockin wrote:
    Howabout they swear on the constitution. I think swearing on something you don't believe in is useless.

    That makes the most sense.

Categories