I wasn't deriding the way in which you put across your arguments, just alluding to the viewpoint you generally express. One question and I'll leave you alone: Are you also annoyed with Roosevelt?Stingray24 wrote:
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.
It doesn't hurt anyone imo. If you guys think that Islam is taking over, get a reality check. I bet a fuss wouldn't be made if it was a guy who wanted to swear on a Jew Book or a Hindu book or Scientology Spaceship or something.
LOL! "I'd like to swear in on 'Dianetics' please."Mekstizzle wrote:
It doesn't hurt anyone imo. If you guys think that Islam is taking over, get a reality check. I bet a fuss wouldn't be made if it was a guy who wanted to swear on a Jew Book or a Hindu book or Scientology Spaceship or something.
Understood. Ask as many questions as you like, that’s an essential part of discussion and debate.CameronPoe wrote:
I wasn't deriding the way in which you put across your arguments, just alluding to the viewpoint you generally express. One question and I'll leave you alone: Are you also annoyed with Roosevelt?
In my opinion, every elected official should use the Bible for the reasons I’ve already detailed. Annoyed with Roosevelt? No, that's in the past, but it would’ve been nice for him to have used the Bible. This incident is happening now and just adds to the long list of the effects of the PC movement, which annoys me in general.
Not just from here, but this crap is all over the news. CNN, MSNBC, FOX....
I believe the ONLY reason this is getting blown WAY out of proportion (and it is) is because the book he chose is the Quran and his religion is Muslim. A Jewish senetor is not questioned about swearing in on the Torah. And it sure as hell didn't make nationwide news.
THis doesn't affect his duties or how he will perform his duties and it sure as hell isn't a problem to the point of needing nationwide news coverage.
Yet Bush opening everyones mail is pushed to the sidelines of Yahoo news. At best.
I believe the ONLY reason this is getting blown WAY out of proportion (and it is) is because the book he chose is the Quran and his religion is Muslim. A Jewish senetor is not questioned about swearing in on the Torah. And it sure as hell didn't make nationwide news.
THis doesn't affect his duties or how he will perform his duties and it sure as hell isn't a problem to the point of needing nationwide news coverage.
Yet Bush opening everyones mail is pushed to the sidelines of Yahoo news. At best.
Why would you be annoyed with Ellison but not annoyed with Roosevelt? Surely any instance where the 'tradition' is broken should be equally annoying, logically speaking. In ten years time, the Ellison event will be well in the past - will it not annoy you then? I sense there is more than a grain of truth in what Mason just said. I'm sad for America if that's the case - because if it is the case then America's 'tradition' of plurality is dead.Stingray24 wrote:
Understood. Ask as many questions as you like, that’s an essential part of discussion and debate.CameronPoe wrote:
I wasn't deriding the way in which you put across your arguments, just alluding to the viewpoint you generally express. One question and I'll leave you alone: Are you also annoyed with Roosevelt?
In my opinion, every elected official should use the Bible for the reasons I’ve already detailed. Annoyed with Roosevelt? No, that's in the past, but it would’ve been nice for him to have used the Bible. This incident is happening now and just adds to the long list of the effects of the PC movement, which annoys me in general.
I don't think this is a PC thing. Jews swear in on the Torah, and over a demi-century ago Roosevelt was swearing in without a bible - this isn't some sort of highly current PC issue. The fact of the matter is that he is the FIRST muslim candidate to be elected ever in USA, there are two buddhists elected for the FIRST time ever too. Does it occur to you that it might seem like 'tradition' because NO-ONE but Christians and Jews have ever been elected in the past? That is - it is only 'tradition' by default.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-01-04 13:40:59)
Exactly, right there. Stingray, your tradition is invalidated.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
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?
In any case, is this minor tradition so direly important that no change should ever be made? What harm has truly come of this? Clearly, you are merely afraid of change, paranoid even, or have a deep hatred of Muslims, or even desire only Christian traditions to continue. There is no reason to stop this situation other than tradition, and tradition is hardly a valid reason. It is not part of the "PC movement", but a genuine attempt by an elected representative to honour his committment. Many Christians would do the same thing would they be in the same situation, and I doubt you would call foul.
If it's a minor tradition then why doesn't the senator elect just honor it? Quite a few assumptions about my views in your post. Perhaps re-reading posts #17, 20, 23 and 25 would clear that up. They state my views quite plainly and none of them involve fear, paranoia, hatred for anyone, or a desire for only Christian traditions to continue.Drakef wrote:
Exactly, right there. Stingray, your tradition is invalidated.
In any case, is this minor tradition so direly important that no change should ever be made? What harm has truly come of this? Clearly, you are merely afraid of change, paranoid even, or have a deep hatred of Muslims, or even desire only Christian traditions to continue. There is no reason to stop this situation other than tradition, and tradition is hardly a valid reason. It is not part of the "PC movement", but a genuine attempt by an elected representative to honour his committment. Many Christians would do the same thing would they be in the same situation, and I doubt you would call foul.
Harm done? As I said in my other posts, no. It's nice to have some traditions around that have been around since the beginning of the country I call home. For nostalgia's sake if nothing else. Is that too much to ask? Apparently so.
Yeah, Americans have all the religions - Baptist, Methodist, Episcolopian, Evangelism, Catholiscsm. They're all there.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.
Then why argue so passionately against it? As you have said, no harm has been done. As you have said, it is a minor tradition. No rational person will even remotely care about it in a year, and few should care about it now. It does not even affect you, unless you actively involve yourself. I did not mean to make assumptions, but merely questions regarding why you are attacking the choice of Ellison to do so. Traditions always start somewhere, and this Bible tradition is not always honoured. It is only an attempt to genuinely respect the oath and duty of the office by the most holy document he knows of, and this one is most definitely of American tradition: Freedom of speech and religion, tolerance, and an honoured view of your forefathers.Stingray24 wrote:
If it's a minor tradition then why doesn't the senator elect just honor it? Quite a few assumptions about my views in your post. Perhaps re-reading posts #17, 20, 23 and 25 would clear that up. They state my views quite plainly and none of them involve fear, paranoia, hatred for anyone, or a desire for only Christian traditions to continue.Drakef wrote:
Exactly, right there. Stingray, your tradition is invalidated.
In any case, is this minor tradition so direly important that no change should ever be made? What harm has truly come of this? Clearly, you are merely afraid of change, paranoid even, or have a deep hatred of Muslims, or even desire only Christian traditions to continue. There is no reason to stop this situation other than tradition, and tradition is hardly a valid reason. It is not part of the "PC movement", but a genuine attempt by an elected representative to honour his committment. Many Christians would do the same thing would they be in the same situation, and I doubt you would call foul.
Harm done? As I said in my other posts, no. It's nice to have some traditions around that have been around since the beginning of the country I call home. For nostalgia's sake if nothing else. Is that too much to ask? Apparently so.
WTF do you mean "is supposed to be the great cultural melting pot". You don't know jack about America if you spout stupid shit like that. Your hate for America betrays your envy. Now go eat mutton.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 Major_Spittle (2007-01-06 15:04:01)
Ellison swears in on Thomas Jefferson's personal copy of the Koran.
With his whole family present, his wife holding them, and Nancy getting another cool photo-op out of the situation...basically her way of giving the middle-finger to braindead fucks like Goode.
Looks pretty traditional to me, and using Thomas Jefferson's Koran, you don't get much more American than that.
Last edited by GorillaTicTacs (2007-01-07 06:52:54)
Why not argue so passionately for it? There are plenty of other things we will forget about a year from now, yet we still discuss them. That's what we do here - comment on today's issues.Drakef wrote:
Then why argue so passionately against it? As you have said, no harm has been done. As you have said, it is a minor tradition. No rational person will even remotely care about it in a year, and few should care about it now. It does not even affect you, unless you actively involve yourself. I did not mean to make assumptions, but merely questions regarding why you are attacking the choice of Ellison to do so. Traditions always start somewhere, and this Bible tradition is not always honoured. It is only an attempt to genuinely respect the oath and duty of the office by the most holy document he knows of, and this one is most definitely of American tradition: Freedom of speech and religion, tolerance, and an honoured view of your forefathers.
Exactly. It's better to swear a oath on something you believe in.blademaster wrote:
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.
At first I didn't like it, hell, I don't even want Muslims involved in our government. Why? They demand special treatment.
For example, cabbies in NY who are Muslims are refusing to pick up passengers if they have booze or smell like it, which is a violation of the law.
I argue passionately for him to do what he wishes, free to do so, without all this criticism and some hatred of what he is doing. It does not do any harm to anyone, and it only affects you if you decide to get involved. Don't get involved.Stingray24 wrote:
Why not argue so passionately for it? There are plenty of other things we will forget about a year from now, yet we still discuss them. That's what we do here - comment on today's issues.Drakef wrote:
Then why argue so passionately against it? As you have said, no harm has been done. As you have said, it is a minor tradition. No rational person will even remotely care about it in a year, and few should care about it now. It does not even affect you, unless you actively involve yourself. I did not mean to make assumptions, but merely questions regarding why you are attacking the choice of Ellison to do so. Traditions always start somewhere, and this Bible tradition is not always honoured. It is only an attempt to genuinely respect the oath and duty of the office by the most holy document he knows of, and this one is most definitely of American tradition: Freedom of speech and religion, tolerance, and an honoured view of your forefathers.
Now I understand. You are allowed to comment because you agree. I disagree, so I must be silent. Where's the tolerance?Drakef wrote:
I argue passionately for him to do what he wishes, free to do so, without all this criticism and some hatred of what he is doing. It does not do any harm to anyone, and it only affects you if you decide to get involved. Don't get involved.Stingray24 wrote:
Why not argue so passionately for it? There are plenty of other things we will forget about a year from now, yet we still discuss them. That's what we do here - comment on today's issues.Drakef wrote:
Then why argue so passionately against it? As you have said, no harm has been done. As you have said, it is a minor tradition. No rational person will even remotely care about it in a year, and few should care about it now. It does not even affect you, unless you actively involve yourself. I did not mean to make assumptions, but merely questions regarding why you are attacking the choice of Ellison to do so. Traditions always start somewhere, and this Bible tradition is not always honoured. It is only an attempt to genuinely respect the oath and duty of the office by the most holy document he knows of, and this one is most definitely of American tradition: Freedom of speech and religion, tolerance, and an honoured view of your forefathers.
Pretty much... I think we could simplify the situation by having all Senators, House Members, and Presidents swear on the Constitution, because that is truly the document they must follow when serving their offices.RedTwizzler wrote:
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 like to break from tradition whenever possible. People become so damn attached to their ways that when someone wants to change something (Heaven Forbid), everyone just explodes with confusion and anger. Who cares what book he swears in on? Who cares if it's tradition. Traditions are just habits. We've gotten to the point where this "Tradition" doesn't even mean anything anymore. Someone could swear on the Bible on Monday and on Tuesday kill and rape an intern, and bury her corpse and have it not be found for weeks, and still get away with it.
I don't care what religion this man is. He could be pastafarian for all I care. As long as he does his job, THATS what matters.
I don't care what religion this man is. He could be pastafarian for all I care. As long as he does his job, THATS what matters.
Clearly you are misinterpeting my words, perhaps deliberately to make me seem irrational. I am only commenting to defend him, which I do only after someone attacks Ellison's choice. I am not in favour of silence, I am merely making my opinion known. It is simply an observation that you are offended only because you make it your business. I wish to be tolerant of other people's choices of religion, and choice to use a Koran in an oath. Elamdri makes a good point. Traditions are nothing more than habits, and can and should be easily broken, because tradition is hardly a good reason to prevent such an event from occuring. It is even more disappointing when I think of the consequences of Ellison taking an oath on a Bible; likely, some will criticize him for taking an oath that may be meaningless. He is doing what he thinks is right.Stingray24 wrote:
Now I understand. You are allowed to comment because you agree. I disagree, so I must be silent. Where's the tolerance?Drakef wrote:
I argue passionately for him to do what he wishes, free to do so, without all this criticism and some hatred of what he is doing. It does not do any harm to anyone, and it only affects you if you decide to get involved. Don't get involved.Stingray24 wrote:
Why not argue so passionately for it? There are plenty of other things we will forget about a year from now, yet we still discuss them. That's what we do here - comment on today's issues.
How else does one interpret "don't get involved"? I decided to "get involved" because I disagreed with his decision. You decided to "get involved" because you agree. Seems like business as usual for a forum. Anyway, I'm glad we're both tolerant of other people's choices of religion.