I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
why not?
Everyone up until this man has taken their oath of office on the Bible. Each does not get to pick his own book. What are the atheists supposed to use, several copies of the New York Times?
Funny, though I seriously doubt that any candidate would come out and openly admit athiesm, and risk losing the "crazy ass religious freaks" demographic.Stingray24 wrote:
Everyone up until this man has taken their oath of office on the Bible. Each does not get to pick his own book. What are the atheists supposed to use, several copies of the New York Times?
I honestly don't care. Juts because everyone else has used the Bible doesn't mean that he shouldn't be able to choose. Change isn't always a bad thing. And the government has no right to regulate that. Separate the church and state.
I say fuck Muslims, the extremist ones who want the Islamicization of America. NO religious text (This includes the Bible) has EVER been used in this ceremony before. The only thing you ever see is the symbolic photo-ops showing people with their hand on the Bible. It has NEVER been used in a ceremony before and never should be. The fact that this Senator wannabe is trying to force the issue is ludacris. If this guy can swear in on a copy of the Quran then what stops someone from swearing in on a copy of Mein Kampf, the Nazi Bible. Wait, let's not stop there... why not allow someone to swear in to office on a copy of the Satanists Bible. Where do we draw the line? I'm so tired of this country lately and how we're completely laying down our way of life to "understand" everyone else. If we're doomed to be the most hated country in the World then let's at least uphold that title and get back to: "This is OUR country, OUR laws, OUR way of life, and OUR rules. If you don't agree with them then fuck off!"
let them swear in what ever they want to swear in, half of or most of those people who swear dont ever respect the bible, they are just Christian by name.
YOUR country chose this man to be its representative, and if he wishes to do so, then let him be. If the electorate disagrees, then no longer will he be in office. That is why it is a democracy. No one is forcing anyone to use a Mein Kampf in such a manner, nor is anyone doing so because it is a democracy. Can you honestly see anything wrong with the use of Quran in this ceremony?BeerzGod wrote:
I say fuck Muslims, the extremist ones who want the Islamicization of America. NO religious text (This includes the Bible) has EVER been used in this ceremony before. The only thing you ever see is the symbolic photo-ops showing people with their hand on the Bible. It has NEVER been used in a ceremony before and never should be. The fact that this Senator wannabe is trying to force the issue is ludacris. If this guy can swear in on a copy of the Quran then what stops someone from swearing in on a copy of Mein Kampf, the Nazi Bible. Wait, let's not stop there... why not allow someone to swear in to office on a copy of the Satanists Bible. Where do we draw the line? I'm so tired of this country lately and how we're completely laying down our way of life to "understand" everyone else. If we're doomed to be the most hated country in the World then let's at least uphold that title and get back to: "This is OUR country, OUR laws, OUR way of life, and OUR rules. If you don't agree with them then fuck off!"
No man should be forced to take an oath on a Bible or any other religious text. If any representative chooses an alternative source, then let it be. No harm is caused. And one can hardly insinuate that atheists would be unfaithful to their duty without a religious text. Too many corrupt politicians, especially in the US lately, have shown that the oath is simply an exercise, not a true oath and promise.
Thomas Jefferson said it best -
Or better yet, more Jefferson -
In other words, who gives a rat's ass about another person's religion so long as he follows the law and does his job? In even more words, who cares which book he puts his hand on so long as he does what he swears he will do?"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
Or better yet, more Jefferson -
In other words, some religious nut (not sure which?) proposed putting solely Christian reference in our Constitution, and the majority rejected it because it would disenfranchize and reject every other religion from our great experiment in constitutional democracy. This was thought to be tyrranical and counter-productive to what our Founding Fathers were trying to accomplish."Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."
Just like to top it off with this...in other words, once you submit yourself to being a sheep of whatever religious authority that's fashionable, you become nothing but a tool to be manipulated by pundits and preachers of any similar stripe. You have willingly turned your mind over to someone else to be controlled and will believe anything from made-up demons hiding under every bed to vast conspiracies of people that debunk your truths."Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind."
Last edited by GorillaTicTacs (2007-01-04 01:44:05)
He's a muslim. Taking an oath on a bible would be horseshit. What the OP appears to be implying (i.e., OMG muslimz tak1ng 0v3r) is kind of depressing given that USA is supposed to be the great cultural melting pot, with freedom of speech, religion, etc.
You inferred my opinion on the topic from me posting- "do you agree?" ? Wow Cam your perception skills are like uber l33t.CameronPoe wrote:
He's a muslim. Taking an oath on a bible would be horseshit. What the OP appears to be implying (i.e., OMG muslimz tak1ng 0v3r) is kind of depressing given that USA is supposed to be the great cultural melting pot, with freedom of speech, religion, etc.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Plenty of people of other religious affiliation and no religious affiliation have taken their oath on the Bible to honor tradition. Taking the oath of office on a Bible has been a part of our heritage since the first elected officials took office. The senator-elect is showing his contempt for our country's traditions and he's not even in office yet. That is what's sad.CameronPoe wrote:
He's a muslim. Taking an oath on a bible would be horseshit. What the OP appears to be implying (i.e., OMG muslimz tak1ng 0v3r) is kind of depressing given that USA is supposed to be the great cultural melting pot, with freedom of speech, religion, etc.
Showing contempt? Him swearing an oath on the bible would be an affront to his own religious beliefs I would imagine. I thought it was a nice gesture that he used Thomas Jefferson's Q'uran, on the 'tradition' side of things. As a Christian, would you swear an oath on the Q'uran or the Torah if taking some position that required YOU to swear an oath. The oath would be meaningless.Stingray24 wrote:
Plenty of people of other religious affiliation and no religious affiliation have taken their oath on the Bible to honor tradition. Taking the oath of office on a Bible has been a part of our heritage since the first elected officials took office. The senator-elect is showing his contempt for our country's traditions and he's not even in office yet. That is what's sad.CameronPoe wrote:
He's a muslim. Taking an oath on a bible would be horseshit. What the OP appears to be implying (i.e., OMG muslimz tak1ng 0v3r) is kind of depressing given that USA is supposed to be the great cultural melting pot, with freedom of speech, religion, etc.
And I thought USA was meant to be an enlightened secular country anyway?
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-01-04 06:05:04)
No I inferred that from a) the opinions you usually express and b) the fact you are even questioning this or bringing it up at all.DBBrinson1 wrote:
You inferred my opinion on the topic from me posting- "do you agree?" ? Wow Cam your perception skills are like uber l33t.CameronPoe wrote:
He's a muslim. Taking an oath on a bible would be horseshit. What the OP appears to be implying (i.e., OMG muslimz tak1ng 0v3r) is kind of depressing given that USA is supposed to be the great cultural melting pot, with freedom of speech, religion, etc.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-01-04 06:09:18)
it was the Native American's country, Europeans stole it, it's a highly multi-cultural country and should accept every religionBeerzGod wrote:
I say fuck Muslims, the extremist ones who want the Islamicization of America. NO religious text (This includes the Bible) has EVER been used in this ceremony before. The only thing you ever see is the symbolic photo-ops showing people with their hand on the Bible. It has NEVER been used in a ceremony before and never should be. The fact that this Senator wannabe is trying to force the issue is ludacris. If this guy can swear in on a copy of the Quran then what stops someone from swearing in on a copy of Mein Kampf, the Nazi Bible. Wait, let's not stop there... why not allow someone to swear in to office on a copy of the Satanists Bible. Where do we draw the line? I'm so tired of this country lately and how we're completely laying down our way of life to "understand" everyone else. If we're doomed to be the most hated country in the World then let's at least uphold that title and get back to: "This is OUR country, OUR laws, OUR way of life, and OUR rules. If you don't agree with them then fuck off!"
Stingray, respectfully, do you really feel that this is another PC BS matter? Are you really offended that someone would break a time honored tradition without thinking about it lightly? And of this tradition...as you well pointed out, other elected officials of differing faiths have taken the oath from the Bible...which leaves me to conclude that this tradition really doesn't have much value...but this alas is my opinion. As an example...can you trust a Jew to take the oath on a Bible....can you trust a Muslim who takes an oath on the Bible? Am I splitting hairs?Stingray24 wrote:
Plenty of people of other religious affiliation and no religious affiliation have taken their oath on the Bible to honor tradition. Taking the oath of office on a Bible has been a part of our heritage since the first elected officials took office. The senator-elect is showing his contempt for our country's traditions and he's not even in office yet. That is what's sad.CameronPoe wrote:
He's a muslim. Taking an oath on a bible would be horseshit. What the OP appears to be implying (i.e., OMG muslimz tak1ng 0v3r) is kind of depressing given that USA is supposed to be the great cultural melting pot, with freedom of speech, religion, etc.
BeerzGod, get a grip man, j/k...if an official ever got elected by duping the public that he's not a neo-facist...wanted to use Mein Kampf as the oath "device"...You will find that the American public would be very attentive toward this manner...and surely he'd be blackballed immediately by his peers in governance...so this is a good thing right? See...what we have to look out for are the sneaky ones...see their not going to stick their neck out on the line for something as trivial as tradition....they'll use clandestine activities to implement policy.....muahahahahaha...BeerzGod wrote:
I say fuck Muslims, the extremist ones who want the Islamicization of America. NO religious text (This includes the Bible) has EVER been used in this ceremony before. The only thing you ever see is the symbolic photo-ops showing people with their hand on the Bible. It has NEVER been used in a ceremony before and never should be. The fact that this Senator wannabe is trying to force the issue is ludacris. If this guy can swear in on a copy of the Quran then what stops someone from swearing in on a copy of Mein Kampf, the Nazi Bible. Wait, let's not stop there... why not allow someone to swear in to office on a copy of the Satanists Bible. Where do we draw the line? I'm so tired of this country lately and how we're completely laying down our way of life to "understand" everyone else. If we're doomed to be the most hated country in the World then let's at least uphold that title and get back to: "This is OUR country, OUR laws, OUR way of life, and OUR rules. If you don't agree with them then fuck off!"
I do feel it's PC bs. I'm weary of time honored traditions being adjusted because an extremely small minority demanding their way. In this case, one man demanded to break tradition and the PC establishment is scared to death to "offend" him by telling him no. Am I offended? Yes. The senator elect should honor tradition and then proceed to worship whomever he chooses. This is about respect, not worship. If I was in a Muslim country, lived their long enough to qualify for election (assuming there are democratic elections), and had to pledge my oath on the Muslim holy book, I would not demand to use my Bible. Why? It's disrespectful to the tradition of the nation I'd be pledging to serve.HornyToady wrote:
Stingray, respectfully, do you really feel that this is another PC BS matter? Are you really offended that someone would break a time honored tradition without thinking about it lightly? And of this tradition...as you well pointed out, other elected officials of differing faiths have taken the oath from the Bible...which leaves me to conclude that this tradition really doesn't have much value...but this alas is my opinion. As an example...can you trust a Jew to take the oath on a Bible....can you trust a Muslim who takes an oath on the Bible? Am I splitting hairs?Stingray24 wrote:
Plenty of people of other religious affiliation and no religious affiliation have taken their oath on the Bible to honor tradition. Taking the oath of office on a Bible has been a part of our heritage since the first elected officials took office. The senator-elect is showing his contempt for our country's traditions and he's not even in office yet. That is what's sad.
If he cannot respect the traditions we hold in the US, he should not run for office. Did he mention his intention to refuse to pledge on the Bible before the election? If he did not I find that at best curious, at worst deceitful. If he truly feels that strongly about the issue, he should have expressed it to his constituents.
Last edited by Stingray24 (2007-01-04 09:51:38)
Ahhh, yes, the ridiculous 'tradition' arguement...lets see....If he cannot respect the traditions we hold in the US, he should not run for office. Did not mention his intention to refuse to pledge on the Bible before the election? If he did not I find that at best curious, at worst deceitful. If he truly feels that strongly about the issue, he should have expressed it to his constituents.
- Teddy Roosevelt didn't swear in on a bible at all, no bible was even present.
- Kennedy insisted on the "Douay" Catholic version of the bible when sworn in.
- Franklin Pierce did not swear on the bible or touch it, only affirmed his oath.
- Eisenhower said an improvised prayer in lieu of "so help me god."
- Both Nixon and Carter chose to use personal bibles instead of the "official" traditional bible.
Now, I'm sure if things can be flexible for presidents, they can be flexible for anyone. Nobody to my knowledge has ever questioned Roosevelt's or Kennedy's patriotism. As to the other comment:
Traditionally, they would insist that you use your own bible, as there are several countries where Christians and Muslims serve in some numbers (Lebanon, Turkey, Israel, Egypt), and each uses their own holy books. Second, a purely Islamic nation that calls themselves an "Islamic Republic" is just that...totally islamic. WE are not a "Christian Republic", we are a purely Constitutional Republic, one where freedom of religion is a fundamental right as is free excercise thereof.If I was in a Muslim country, lived their long enough to qualify for election (assuming there are democratic elections), and had to pledge my oath on the Muslim holy book, I would not demand to use my Bible. Why? It's disrespectful to the tradition of the nation I'd be pledging to serve.
So, why don't we cut to the chase and call this exactly what it is. Right-wing whacko bigotry. No real adults are making a stink about this, I could care less if he swears in on a hardcover Harry Potter book and claims to be a Jedi, so long as he does his job and represents his constituents as well as the best interests of the American people.
Last edited by GorillaTicTacs (2007-01-04 10:14:58)
This country also had a time-honored tradition of enslaving black people, which was "adjusted" after the brave actions of an "extremely small minority" convinced the public that humanity should be respected above unbridled capitalism. We also had a time-honored tradition of denying women the right to vote, until an "extremely small minority demanded their way".Stingray24 wrote:
I do feel it's PC bs. I'm weary of time honored traditions being adjusted because an extremely small minority demanding their way. In this case, one man demanded to break tradition and the PC establishment is scared to death to "offend" him by telling him no. Am I offended? Yes.
The only way for a country, a business, or an individual to progress is through improvement. To stand in the way of improvement by upholding tradition, just because it IS a tradition, is the opposite of progress.
Once you've reached perfection, then you can stop trying to improve. Personally, I believe that although this country is great, it's far from perfect.
I stand corrected, Roosevelt was the only US president out of 43 that did not have a Bible present. Of course we're not a "Christian Republic" and I did not suggest that we are. Once again the point is tradition and respect, not worship. It is recorded in history and undeniable that our nation has Christian roots. Hence the Bible present at all but one oath of office. The oath is an acknowledgment of our heritage, not a "here's my religion" contest.
Are you really comparing an oath of office to the issues of slavery and women’s rights, Shipbuilder? That’s way beyond left field to put these three subjects in the same paragraph. It does not hurt or enslave the senator elect in any way to honor this tradition regarding the oath of office, nor does it take away any civil right.
Are you really comparing an oath of office to the issues of slavery and women’s rights, Shipbuilder? That’s way beyond left field to put these three subjects in the same paragraph. It does not hurt or enslave the senator elect in any way to honor this tradition regarding the oath of office, nor does it take away any civil right.
I'm sure his electorate are well aware he was muslim before they elected him Stingray. The archaic and non-progressive mindest you are putting on display here today is thankfully becoming ever more a part of the past. 'Tradition' is often just symbolic nonsense and in this case, where OATHS are concerned, is complete bullshit. Do you not realise that you live in a secular country by the way? I can't believe bibles are entertained at such events. I would be damn sure not to swear on a bible in a court of law, as a diehard atheist, and I'm sure that in th US, as in Europe, I'd be constitutionally well within my rights to do so.Stingray24 wrote:
I do feel it's PC bs. I'm weary of time honored traditions being adjusted because an extremely small minority demanding their way. In this case, one man demanded to break tradition and the PC establishment is scared to death to "offend" him by telling him no. Am I offended? Yes. The senator elect should honor tradition and then proceed to worship whomever he chooses. This is about respect, not worship. If I was in a Muslim country, lived their long enough to qualify for election (assuming there are democratic elections), and had to pledge my oath on the Muslim holy book, I would not demand to use my Bible. Why? It's disrespectful to the tradition of the nation I'd be pledging to serve.
If he cannot respect the traditions we hold in the US, he should not run for office. Did he mention his intention to refuse to pledge on the Bible before the election? If he did not I find that at best curious, at worst deceitful. If he truly feels that strongly about the issue, he should have expressed it to his constituents.
'PC establishment scared to death to 'offend' him by telling him no'? What do you suggest? If he doesn't swear on the bible then he doesn't get to exercise his mandate as the elected representative of the people? Get real. This is real caveman mentality here, not least because of your lack of logic with respect to the concept of taking a meaningful oath.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-01-04 10:42:23)
Wrong. Many representatives have sworn in on the Torah.Stingray24 wrote:
Everyone up until this man has taken their oath of office on the Bible. Each does not get to pick his own book. What are the atheists supposed to use, several copies of the New York Times?
Sure, they were aware he was Muslim, that has nothing to do with this in any way.CameronPoe wrote:
I'm sure his electorate are well aware he was muslim before they elected him Stingray. The archaic and non-progressive mindest you are putting on display here today is thankfully becoming ever more a part of the past. 'Tradition' is often just symbolic nonsense and in this case, where OATHS are concerned, is complete bullshit. Do you not realise that you live in a secular country by the way? I can't believe bibles are entertained at such events. I would be damn sure not to swear on a bible in a court of law, as a diehard atheist, and I'm sure that in th US, as in Europe, I'd be constitutionally well within my rights to do so.
'PC establishment scared to death to 'offend' him by telling him no'? What do you suggest? If he doesn't swear on the bible then he doesn't get to exercise his mandate as the elected representative of the people? Get real. This is real caveman mentality here, not least because of your lack of logic with respect to the concept of taking a meaningful oath.
The US is certainly a very secular country in it's current form. You keep ignoring what I've said time and time again in this thread - this is completely about honoring our heritage (which of course is in the past). You'd absolutely be within your rights to not swear on the Bible in court and as an elected official, you're also within your rights to not swear on the Bible. However, the majority have taken the oath with the Bible for what it is - not an act of worship, rather a symbolic gesture that is meaningful no matter what religion one chooses or does not choose. I don't suggest he doesn't get to serve as elected, that's your assumption. What I am asking the senator elect to do is this: willingly forego his right and simply respect our heritage by having the Bible present as so many others have chosen to do. Archaic and non-progressive? Where'd the defense of our unique culture wander off to? Everyone else gets to crow about the traditions of their country, so why must we abadon the very few traditions that the US has in relation to it's government until they're are eliminated. "Progressive" ideals? Ok, then the whole process will becomes very bland.
Do you watch racing? At the Indy 500 the race winner always drinks milk in the victory circle - it's tradition and something everyone waits to see. One driver owned a large portion of an orange juice company, so he drank orange juice. Wrong? No. Ruined the nostalgia of the moment? Yes.
Was it a big deal to you that Roosevelt didn't swear himself in with a bible present? The concept of 'tradition' in a highly dynamic, culturally diverse, religiously diverse and progressive country only 230 years old is a little laughable. I do acknowledge it is nice to have traditions but this doesn't seem like some cast-in-iron one given the well-respected Roosevelt's actions and the swearing in of Jewish folk on the Torah. I think that you are more irate at the fact that the bible was snubbed, not the tradition itself (going on your general tone in religious based threads - I could be wrong, and if so then sorry).Stingray24 wrote:
Sure, they were aware he was Muslim, that has nothing to do with this in any way.
The US is certainly a very secular country in it's current form. You keep ignoring what I've said time and time again in this thread - this is completely about honoring our heritage (which of course is in the past). You'd absolutely be within your rights to not swear on the Bible in court and as an elected official, you're also within your rights to not swear on the Bible. However, the majority have taken the oath with the Bible for what it is - not an act of worship, rather a symbolic gesture that is meaningful no matter what religion one chooses or does not choose. I don't suggest he doesn't get to serve as elected, that's your assumption. What I am asking the senator elect to do is this: willingly forego his right and simply respect our heritage by having the Bible present as so many others have chosen to do. Archaic and non-progressive? Where'd the defense of our unique culture wander off to? Everyone else gets to crow about the traditions of their country, so why must we abadon the very few traditions that the US has in relation to it's government until they're are eliminated. "Progressive" ideals? Ok, then the whole process will becomes very bland.
Do you watch racing? At the Indy 500 the race winner always drinks milk in the victory circle - it's tradition and something everyone waits to see. One driver owned a large portion of an orange juice company, so he drank orange juice. Wrong? No. Ruined the nostalgia of the moment? Yes.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-01-04 11:16:35)
I was not aware that a tradition had to be repeated longer than 230 years to be valid. Focus on the few who have have chosen not to have the Bible present if you wish. The fact is the majority did have the Bible present over those 230 years. I've repeately stated this is not about worship. The Bible is a key part of the tradition which we're discussing and it's the lack of respect for the tradition as a whole with which I'm annoyed, not irate.
My general tone in religious based threads is very accepting. Questions that challenge my beliefs are welcome and I acknowledge the logical thinking of others who disagree with my views. My questions may challenge the beliefs of others, but I post in a civil manner and see no need to apologize for defense of my beliefs.
My general tone in religious based threads is very accepting. Questions that challenge my beliefs are welcome and I acknowledge the logical thinking of others who disagree with my views. My questions may challenge the beliefs of others, but I post in a civil manner and see no need to apologize for defense of my beliefs.