Congressman to use Koran at swearing-in

[Hatz]

I think you may be misunderstanding me. I am NOT in favor of a state supported Christianity. I DON'T think that is biblically or a good idea in any way, shape or form.

 

I also don't think America is as strong as it once was. So many of the ideas and work ethic that made this country great has fallen by the wayside. One example, it used to be the American dream to work hard and earn your own home. Now our government has setup up ways for anyone to have one and the "work hard" part has gone by the wayside.

 

Our country has moved from "earning" our rights to "demanding things that are not necessarily our "rights" but we think they are.

 

We have moved away from "working hard" to screaming and yelling about injustices until we get what we want without having to put in any hard work.

(BTW, before any of the P & P people jump on me, it doesn't matter how hard most public/rural schools work, they still won't be able to compete on an annual basis with private/urban schools. )

 

 

First of all let me say, I wouldn't touch the last statement with a 10 foot constitution. :lol:

 

I hear what you are saying. I can't refute that feeling. I think in many of the ways you described, yes we are not as strong as we were.

 

But then again we have gained in many areas that we were weak in back in the "golden days." (Which I tend to believe are like Frederick Buechner once said, "If the truth be told those days were a little more yellow than golden.")

[mcpapa]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

 

This particular case dances on the edge of both phrases - "an establishment of religion" and "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The opposition to the use of the Koran in the swearing-in ceremony seems to be one of semantics. The argument that I've heard against Mr. Ellison's intention that the use of the Bible swearing-in ceremony is not the exercise of religion, but rather a requirement of the ceremony - and therefore is fundamentally different from deciding what deity to pray to, where to attend religious services, etc. Habib makes an excellent point in speculating if the insistence of the use of the Bible is not indeed a form of government-sponsored religion. HHS's point that this is an example of the validity of the First Amendment is also well taken.

 

I very distinctly remember a classmate in the 1960s whose parents were foreign (maybe from the Philippines). I would have been in the 8th or 9th grade. This young lady did not recite the Pledge of Allegiance with the rest of the class; and I don't recall her getting any grief from the school or from classmates. That was probably my first real experience with respect to 1st Amendment issues, and I vaguely recall being very pleased that the young lady was treated without predjudice for standing up (or in this case, sitting down) for her beliefs.

[ladiesbballcoach]

I had to double check to see if this was written by Acemona.

 

 

Frances

Ace and I are not far apart in what we believe. :eek:

[All Tell]

Offensive? Really?

 

If that offends you, I don't know how you make it in the world. A Muslim man would rather use his holy book to be sworn in than the book of another religion. He's not asking that Christians use the Koran, or that no one use a religious book.

 

I really can't see that as offensive. I'd rather he swore on something he believed in, personally.

Let me clarify.

 

I am offended that a person who practices what appears to be one of the most dogmatic and intollerant religions feels that he is too good to follow tradition.

[Hatz]

Let me clarify.

 

I am offended that a person who practices what appears to be one of the most dogmatic and intollerant religions feels that he is too good to follow tradition.

 

 

Pat Robertson is being sworn in somewhere?

 

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist. :lol:

[the mathemagician]

Not expressing an opinion here, but just curious as to yours. If a Congressman were a member of Anton Lavey's Church of Satan and wanted to take his/her oath on the Satanic Bible...okay?

[ladiesbballcoach]

Not expressing an opinion here, but just curious as to yours. If a Congressman were a member of Anton Lavey's Church of Satan and wanted to take his/her oath on the Satanic Bible...okay?

I will go out on a limb here and say if a Satanist is elected to Congress, there are bigger problems going on.

 

Also, a little gender bias here, why couldn't it be a female Satanist to get elected?:sssh:

[Hatz]

Not expressing an opinion here, but just curious as to yours. If a Congressman were a member of Anton Lavey's Church of Satan and wanted to take his/her oath on the Satanic Bible...okay?

 

 

According to the Constitution, yes. It's not about what I like or what I think is okay, it's about two things: The Constitution that governs the land and the Liberty for people to seek God. (Now I'm not going to get into "then it's okay to sacrifice this person," stuff. That's different and most sane people know it.) I don't like the Satanic Bible but answer me this:

 

Which is worse? An individual who choses that Satanic Bible for his/her oath or a professing Christian who places his/her hand on the Bible but is a Klansman? That's happened a lot more than the first scenario you mentioned.

 

BTW, let me know when the Congressman gets elected. :lol:

[the mathemagician]

I will go out on a limb here and say if a Satanist is elected to Congress, there are bigger problems going on.

 

Also, a little gender bias here, why couldn't it be a female Satanist to get elected?:sssh:

 

 

I said his/her . I know women can be devilish.

[AHSPanther23]

I said his/her . I know women can be devilish.

How much truer can you be mathemagician? It is true :jump:

[the mathemagician]

It is certainly theoretically possible that a recent convert to Satanism could be elected to Congress w/o the electorate knowing his/her change of heart on the religious side. Can you imagine the outcry if the newly elected Congressman chose to take the oath with his/her hand on the Satanic Bible?

 

 

 

I am not a Satanist, BTW, just a bit of a liberal (on some issues). Some may say they are one and the same.(lol)

[Habib]

It is certainly theoretically possible that a recent convert to Satanism could be elected to Congress w/o the electorate knowing his/her change of heart on the religious side. Can you imagine the outcry if the newly elected Congressman chose to take the oath with his/her hand on the Satanic Bible?

 

 

 

I am not a Satanist, BTW, just a bit of a liberal (on some issues). Some may say they are one and the same.(lol)

 

I think their would be a huge outcry on him decieving the public and people wanting him out because he failed to tell them he was a satanist. The outcry about what book to swear in on would be superfluous compared to that of him being elected.

[ladiesbballcoach]

It is certainly theoretically possible that a recent convert to Satanism could be elected to Congress w/o the electorate knowing his/her change of heart on the religious side. Can you imagine the outcry if the newly elected Congressman chose to take the oath with his/her hand on the Satanic Bible?

 

 

 

I am not a Satanist, BTW, just a bit of a liberal (on some issues). Some may say they are one and the same.(lol)

I would safely assume we are talking a one term Congressperson.

[02Ram54]

I think their would be a huge outcry on him decieving the public and people wanting him out because he failed to tell them he was a satanist. The outcry about what book to swear in on would be superfluous compared to that of him being elected.

You couldn't throw him out, even if he lied.

[Habib]

You couldn't throw him out, even if he lied.

 

I know that. But you can't tell me the public would just look the other way. People would be crying in the streets.