Keith Ellison, D-Minn. to swear on Koran...

😆

Originally posted by FeceMan
Why don't we just have people swear an oath without the Bible? I mean, really, does it add anything to a person's oath? Liars, cheaters, and thieves will swear themselves blue over a Bible--I'm sure there's a pun to be made in there--and continue to lie, cheat, and steal. Honest people will swear themselves blue over a Bible and continue to be honest.

And, contrary to contemporary thought, worshiping the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a valid religious belief. (I'm sure I'll be flamed to hell and back for that one.)

Originally posted by FeceMan
Why don't we just have people swear an oath without the Bible? I mean, really, does it add anything to a person's oath? Liars, cheaters, and thieves will swear themselves blue over a Bible--I'm sure there's a pun to be made in there--and continue to lie, cheat, and steal. Honest people will swear themselves blue over a Bible and continue to be honest.

And, contrary to contemporary thought, worshiping the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a valid religious belief. (I'm sure I'll be flamed to hell and back for that one.)

any legally recognised religion is valid regardless of how ridiculous you find it.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Can't be any different than worshopping a wizard in the clouds.

Come up with something stronger than that.

Originally posted by PVS
any legally recognised religion is valid regardless of how ridiculous you find it.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Why don't we just have people swear an oath without the Bible? I mean, really, does it add anything to a person's oath? Liars, cheaters, and thieves will swear themselves blue over a Bible--I'm sure there's a pun to be made in there--and continue to lie, cheat, and steal. Honest people will swear themselves blue over a Bible and continue to be honest.

I agree whole heartedly here.

Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
America is the land of Religious Freedom jackass. He can take the oath on the book of the Flying Spaghetti Monster if he ****ing feels like it.

America isn't meant to be Christian, it's meant to be secular. Get that through your thick skull, please. For the love of humanity.

Really, so then you'd have no problem with a racist (if one was ever fairly elected by vote) taking his oath on Mien Kampf?

Or a Scientologist taking an oath on Dianetics?

Or a Mormon requesting to swear before a trial jury or into the congress on the book of Mormon?

Perhaps a secular liberal such as yourself should be allowed to swear before a judge or into our political system on some N.Y. Times editorials?

Please.

America is indeed a Christian nation bud, we were founded by Christians wishing to escape persecution from an English king.

They came here to practice their religion freely, and we have amended that over time to say that ALL people can come here to practice their relgion freely. (or lack of religion thereof)

Which is fine.

But let's get over this myth that the founding fathers weren't Christians, or at least believers in the God of Abraham of the Bible.

Washington, Lincoln, and a host of others have said as much in numerous speeches.

(I could post Washington's final speech before leaving office as president, where he says that the country needs to seek after God and the Scriptures if it is to succeed. Would you like that?)

The Constitution's original writings about Faith and Government says that congress shall make no law regarding religion, meaning:

We won't be like the old king in England and let any leaders get in the Christians way.

But somehow it's become this "Seperation of Church and State" MYTH that never even appears in the constitution.

Thats a fact. Those words aren't even in it.

But I'll tell you what is:

A system of law based on the Judeo-Christian Ten Commandments.

Anyways, back on topic here.... this whole notion is stupid. Plenty of Liberal Democrats, including President Clinton, his wife the distinguished senator of NY, Sen. Ted Kennedy, and others have been sworn in on the Bible.

You know that they support freedoms of privacy, choice, and probably most other ideals that you do.

Yet they were sworn in over a Bible.

Why?

Because they know it's a tradition. They know it's representative of what this country stands for, where it's come from, and how it's been intended to be run.

They don't even have to believe in the Bible, or God, or anything, but they know that this is a Christian nation.

(You ever been to D.C.? Take a look at our national monuments, buildings, and statues. An awful lot of God on those things for a "secular" nation.)

I'm curious, what would an athiest swear over?

Nothing? Thin air?

Would kind of defeat the purpose of swearing truth on something that all people agree with as a sign of truth, morality, and honesty wouldn't it?

If that tradition is old and pointless now, then perhaps it needs to go.

But changing it all around for any individual kinda waters it down and defeats the whole purpose.

Shit. Now the thread just went straight to hell.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Really, so then you'd have no problem with a racist (if one was ever fairly elected by vote) taking his oath on Mien Kampf?

Mein Kampf isnt a religious text

you fail

ill leave it to someone else to knock down the rest of your house o' cards because you bore me

Can I swear on the Lotus sutra?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Really, so then you'd have no problem with a racist (if one was ever fairly elected by vote) taking his oath on Mien Kampf?

Or a Scientologist taking an oath on Dianetics?

Or a Mormon requesting to swear before a trial jury or into the congress on the book of Mormon?

Perhaps a secular liberal such as yourself should be allowed to swear before a judge or into our political system on some N.Y. Times editorials?

Uh, psstt dude they are elected officials, think about the discussion your trying to make about religion and state. If they are a freakin satanic cult worshipping freak the people who voted him in would know ahead of time, huh, maybe???

America is indeed a Christian nation bud, we were founded by Christians wishing to escape persecution from an English king.

They came here to practice their religion freely, and we have amended that over time to say that ALL people can come here to practice their relgion freely. (or lack of religion thereof)

Yes and over time it's fair to say changes will occur and we need to allow that to occur. Simply being christian and swearing on the bible doesn't make you a more honest nor caring soul.

But let's get over this myth that the founding fathers weren't Christians, or at least believers in the God of Abraham of the Bible.

So who cares if they were? We are a nation evolved from clay (actually still evolving.)

A system of law based on the Judeo-Christian Ten Commandments.

Know what else though, the founding fathers knew that the system put in place in their time wouldn't/couldn't be the same one as today so change is imminent and they knew this, which is where we are at, huh.

Anyways, back on topic here.... this whole notion is stupid. Plenty of Liberal Democrats, including President Clinton, his wife the distinguished senator of NY, Sen. Ted Kennedy, and others have been sworn in on the Bible.

I agree the whole swearing in on the bible is a stupid notion and regardless of political beliefs that should be acknowledged rather then praised.

If that tradition is old and pointless now, then perhaps it needs to go.

But changing it all around for any individual kinda waters it down and defeats the whole purpose.

I would agree on the whole thing needs to go however if the guy can get his oath to the Koran then you should be happier knowing the man is a man of principle and unswearing faith rather like you.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Really, so then you'd have no problem with a racist (if one was ever fairly elected by vote) taking his oath on Mien Kampf?

Wow, long ass post. Glad I'm in class not learning anything so I have time to respond.

Anycrap, racism isn't a religion and Mein Kampf isn't a religious text. This one is invalid. Next.

Or a Scientologist taking an oath on Dianetics?

Nope. Although, Scientology is a bit more like a cult. Next.

Or a Mormon requesting to swear before a trial jury or into the congress on the book of Mormon?

Nope. Next.

Perhaps a secular liberal such as yourself should be allowed to swear before a judge or into our political system on some N.Y. Times editorials?

I'd rather swear on a copy of the Constitution of the United States of America, personally. Since that's what I'm trying to uphold. Not religion.

Please.

America is indeed a Christian nation bud, we were founded by Christians wishing to escape persecution from an English king.

They came here to practice their religion freely, and we have amended that over time to say that ALL people can come here to practice their relgion freely. (or lack of religion thereof)

Which is fine.

But let's get over this myth that the founding fathers weren't Christians, or at least believers in the God of Abraham of the Bible.

Washington, Lincoln, and a host of others have said as much in numerous speeches.

(I could post Washington's final speech before leaving office as president, where he says that the country needs to seek after God and the Scriptures if it is to succeed. Would you like that?)

If it makes you feel better, but it has no bearing on the fact that the American Government and religion was always meant to be kept separate.

The "country needs to seek God" means that it's people need a source of faith and religion, not it's government.

The Constitution's original writings about Faith and Government says that congress shall make no law regarding religion, meaning:

We won't be like the old king in England and let any leaders get in the Christians way.

No, it means that congress has no say in religious matters. How you can read it any other way than literal English is beyond me.

But somehow it's become this "Seperation of Church and State" MYTH that never even appears in the constitution.

Thats a fact. Those words aren't even in it.

That's true, but it was written by the same guy who wrote the Declaration and the Constitution.

There is however, this phrase: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Well, there goes your "KRISTIANITY RUELZ AWL"

He's free to swear an oath on anything he likes. It's right there in that second half of that phrase.

But I'll tell you what is:

A system of law based on the Judeo-Christian Ten Commandments.

Aaaaand this matters because..?

Anyways, back on topic here.... this whole notion is stupid. Plenty of Liberal Democrats, including President Clinton, his wife the distinguished senator of NY, Sen. Ted Kennedy, and others have been sworn in on the Bible.

You know that they support freedoms of privacy, choice, and probably most other ideals that you do.

Yet they were sworn in over a Bible.

Why?

Personal choice. Yea, that sounds about right.

Because they know it's a tradition. They know it's representative of what this country stands for, where it's come from, and how it's been intended to be run.

They don't even have to believe in the Bible, or God, or anything, but they know that this is a Christian nation.

(You ever been to D.C.? Take a look at our national monuments, buildings, and statues. An awful lot of God on those things for a "secular" nation.)

Because the people who had the built were Christian. That doesn't make the entire nation Christian.

I'm curious, what would an athiest swear over?

Nothing? Thin air?

Would kind of defeat the purpose of swearing truth on something that all people agree with as a sign of truth, morality, and honesty wouldn't it?

I already mentioned it above. The Constitution. Kind of makes more sense than any religious text anyway.

If that tradition is old and pointless now, then perhaps it needs to go.

But changing it all around for any individual kinda waters it down and defeats the whole purpose.

I've always seen tradition as pointless.

Why should a person be prohibited from swearing an oath on the text that means the most to them?

I'd think that a Muslim swearing an oath on a book that means jack shit to him wouldn't have a hard time breaking that meaningless oath.

Well, even Christians who've sworn on the bible have no problem breaking the oath, so I guess it doesn't even matter.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Why don't we just have people swear an oath without the Bible? I mean, really, does it add anything to a person's oath? Liars, cheaters, and thieves will swear themselves blue over a Bible--I'm sure there's a pun to be made in there--and continue to lie, cheat, and steal. Honest people will swear themselves blue over a Bible and continue to be honest.

And, contrary to contemporary thought, worshiping the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a valid religious belief. (I'm sure I'll be flamed to hell and back for that one.)

It is too. Stop insulting my Religious believes.

Anyways, on topic, I think the oath is what actually counts. If you want to swear it on Mein Kampf is fine with me. You just have to know that the oath is between you and the state...the bible, Koran, Chocolate Crisp Bar is just where you rest your hands while you swear.

Really, so then you'd have no problem with a racist (if one was ever fairly elected by vote) taking his oath on Mien Kampf?

Having read your posts in this forum, I can see how this would be important to you, should you ever choose to run for office. I don't think they'll let you though.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
I’m, curious. What would an atheist swear over?

The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin.

Perhaps a secular liberal such as yourself should be allowed to swear before a judge or into our political system on some N.Y. Times editorials?

I didn't notice this bit of lunacy the first time around. A secular liberal is free to swear before a judge "under penalty of perjury," without putting his hand on any document at all.

Furthermore, atheist Culbert Olson was sworn in as governer of California without putting his hand on a Bible, something the chief justice of the California Supreme Court affirmed was acceptable.

Now you know. And knowing is half the battle.

This whole thing reminds me of the episode of venture brothers where Orpheus is sworn in on the Necronomicon ("careful, he's a biter"😉. this whole controversy is ridiculous, spawned by bigotted morons like Sean "friends with christian identity" Hannity and Glen ****ing Beck.

What is the problem with this? America doesn't have an official religion, so why should the Bible be the de facto book that everyone must swear in by? Let the man swear on any book he wants. Swearing in won't affect a man either way, but even if it were to, wouldn't it make more of an impact on him if he were to swear in on a book he believes in?

Saying "I swear by everything I don't believe in I will not take bribes" just doesn't ring well to me.

Is it law to swear in on the Bible? Can you refuse to do it?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

At first, I supported what this guy wanted, but then, I thought that because the Koran is a completley different book than the Bible, Mr. Ellison should not be permitted to take his oath on it.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

Although I disagree (mostly) with Mr. Ellison's asking to take an oath on the Koran, part of me can see where he is coming from. Islam is his religion. As he not a Christian, it would not make sense for him to take the oath on the Bible. The same would go for if Ellison were an Athiest. Would someone be forbidden to join Congress because they were an Athiest, and therefore could not take an oath on the Bible?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- "my culture trumps America's culture". What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

But is refusing Ellison to take an oath on the book he holds as most holy respecting his religious beliefs? As I said above, would an Athiest be accepted into Congress if they could not take an oath on the Bible?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Forgive me, but America should not give a shit what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress.

One statement I agree with. America shouldn't care what Ellison's favourite book is-but at the same time, he shouldn't care what Americas's favourite book is.
The last statement I disagree with it, and leads me back to my earlier statement. You say 'If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress.' This is basically saying that anyone who does not believe in the Bible-anyone who is not a Christian-should not be allowed to serve in Congress.
Can I ask why not? Is it your opinion that only Christians should serve on Congress?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible.

I wasn't aware that America would do this. I have always seen the US as a very conservative country, a country that would baulk at the thought of someone making fun of a book the majority of Americans consider sacred.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
What say you?

Originally posted by Robtard
As far as which religious book someone swears upon, who cares, one religious book is as pointless as the other.