I don't know Belle, being a Christain, I would prefer the bible, but I feel that most of the men and women that sware on the bible don't really know or take the book that seriously when it comes to their politics anyhow....is that pessimistic...yeah..one of the few things I really believe has lost integrity.
I don't really see the point of having a person swear in on a book from a religion they don't follow--what's the value in that? A person who is not Christian may not see the Bible as a symbol of truth.
First, I personally couldn't care less whether Ellison is sworn in with his hand on the Bible, the Qu'ran, or on a roll of toilet paper. Whatever. For the vast majority elected officials, the "oath of office" is meaningless, anyway.
Second, I think that, rather than being a statement of his faith, it is him trying to "make a statement." Best cure for him "making a statement" is to ignore it.
WW, I think that the Bible has lost its value as a representation of what we were raised to respect. It's just a symbol now and so many so-called "Christian" politicians are anything BUT good examples of Christians, much less decent, law abiding citizens that it's rather silly to even have that as part of the ceremony anymore. Especially since, as Bramble pointed out, there are elected officials who aren't even Christians.
The whole swearing in requiring swearing on anything is rather vacuous and laughable, really. Maybe they should just stand there and recite the age old, "cross my heart, hope to die, stick a needle in my eye."
So you would rather see that portion of the Constitution that states that no religious test shall be required of those who run for office ... ignored? Was it a mistake made by our founding fathers to put it in there?
I'd rather not have any Christians, Scientologists, Mormans, Hindus, Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any other religious person in office either.
I'd rather have people who can think and act with their own brain, who don't rely on ancient (or current) myths.
I'd rather see someone from the Church of Elvis holding the lyrics to "You Ain't Nothing But a Hound Dog" to his heart. :lol:
If the Quaran makes this guy hold up to his integrity, then sobeit. Not all Muslims are terrorists. I don't believe a Muslim would necessarily give avenue to terrorists. To me, a "regular" Muslim is different than the wack jobs who kill themselves for Allah. It's the same as a fundamentalist Christian group in comparision to a "regular" Christian group.
Having worked for several public officials including members of Congress, I can relate from personal experience that members of Congress are not legally sworn into office using a book of any sort. The public ceremony involving the use of a holy book, which takes place after members are legally sworn in, is merely a photo opportunity. The fact that Congressman Ellison chose to use Thomas Jefferson's Quran for his photo opportunity illustrates to me that he has a deep respect for the religious freedom and tolerance that America's founding fathers stood for.
Below are just a few quotes from Jefferson on the topic of religion:
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."
"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."
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
"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." (This quote is in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom.)
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."
I'd echo several of the well-thought out posts, but am most thankful for the thoughtful and reflective post our new compadre William shared.
So, thanks William. I appreciate the quotes from Jefferson.
and btw, my own personal view on this subject probably comes pretty close to how MarkO put it for himself (the part before ignoring the new Congressman's "statement").
That guy's statement is quite benign compared to what the Imam's did last month to get themselves tossed off of a US Airways flight.
And as to whether I'd "be more comfortable" if there were no Muslims in Congress... I'd rather see more of them.
Diversity of thought, or rather TOLERANCE of diversity of thought (and of race, and of gender, and of sexual persuasion) is BETTER for America than homogenized thinking and behavior. And by HOMOGENIZED I do NOT mean making them like HOMOs, and DO mean social mores (unwritten rules) that enforce a lack of tolerance and diversity.
In our current situation most people view him swearing on the Koran the same way as a congressman from the Nazi party during WW2 swearing in on a copy of "Mein Kampf."
In our current situation most people view him swearing on the Koran the same way as a congressman from the Nazi party during WW2 swearing in on a copy of "Mein Kampf."
MarkO I agree we should ignore it - we should take it in stride. I agree with Rocky too that he should be welcomed and that there should be more of them. IF we claim that "all men are equal..." put your money where your mouth is - is the only acceptable thing to do. The same thing is true of separation of church and state...not just "churches" but all religious philosophies and practices.
I would hope that someday soon, our Congressmen and -women are a true representation of the population as a whole. Our diversity seems to present problems for some people; but I think that's one of the greatest things about this country.
Most of them are liars and crooks, so why bother having them take an oath anyway?
That being said, I have no problems with him using something that represents his religious beliefs, nor would I if he were Jewish, Christian, Pagan, Hindu, whatever - it makes more sense to use something that is meaningful to the individual being sworn in.
Belle, I would add in regard to your link about what Muslem's believe about "white men" - you can find some very negative and offensive beliefs within sects of any religion. The OT is rife with the killing of those who did not adhere to Judaism, yet I think you would find very few Jews who would propound such acts today. The history of Christianity likewise has some very very dark eras, yet again, I think you would find few Christians who would support such acts today. Note, I said few. There are extremist sects within most religion groups.
Protect the border, limit immigration like the laws state. This guy is a convert, though.
Actually, in my opinion, Muslims at least stand for something, even if a few are violent and many peaceful. The current Senate and Congress, made up of Christians supposedly like myself, are useless and sell out to money. Many are immoral, personally, spiritually, morally, politically or otherwise. I prefer a good Christian, but what if Muslims come up and set a good example for kids, like no drugs, prostitution and such? And they believe in only ONE GOD.
But, I was asked about this thing on the guy sworn in on the Koran. It's his belief, and had the right to do so. I disagree with it, but it is his religious choice and by law I can't do anything about it. He may turn out okay.
Yes, I still disagree with it. But I recognize his religious exercise. Not all Muslims can be condemned on the actions of a few. I do worry about his connections politically, however.
It's his belief, and had the right to do so. I disagree with it, but it is his religious choice and by law I can't do anything about it. He may turn out okay.
Yes, I still disagree with it. But I recognize his religious exercise.
If you recognize his right to do it, what is it that you disagree about?
Back in '83 or so I played music for a TWI wedding. The clergyman who performed it did not use a bible; he used a copy of RHST, the leather bound one with red on the borders of the pages that everybody got who went to Living Victoriously, which LOOKED like a bible.
As far as I know, the couple was still legally married.
I understand that America is made up of immigrants. Fine.
I understand that there are diverse cultures here. Fine.
I also understand that one tends to identify with their heritage. Fine.
But ---- those initial immigrants worked to become a whole -- not a separate entity.
America used to be called a melting pot -- because that is what it was.
Folks sought freedom, personal wealth, whatever, and came here to find it.
And they didn't do so by being *independant*, as in culture.
Immigrants ( and we are not talking about immigrants but someone who was born here) never abandoned their religion.
From very early on. one of the first things that they typically did was build their own churches. In the Northeast especially there are Irish churches, Polish churches, Italian churches, Lithuanian churches etc etc you name it--that follow the waves of immigration. I have an appointment today to see a Korean church.
The initial immigrants maintained their own forms of spirituality and still somehow were able to contribute to the whole, as do most people still today.
I still dont see what the ruckus is all about, it was one of Jeffersons' guiding principals that seems to have worked out well-- and to me it seems appropriate that Ellison would respect that and symbolically give recognition and a hat tip to Jefferson by using his Quran.
People dont change though-- the Puritans hated the Quakers for fouling their state as well.
Things of course would always work smoother if people would choose the right religion ( which BTW is always MY religion) and not cause such a fuss, but in lieu of that --things havent worked out all bad with the setup weve got which makes room for everyone equally.
It broadens and strengthens our country immensely and keeps us from turning into a theocracy
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
4
7
4
5
Popular Days
Jan 4
22
Jan 5
13
Jan 7
9
Jan 8
8
Top Posters In This Topic
HAPe4me 4 posts
Belle 7 posts
mstar1 4 posts
markomalley 5 posts
Popular Days
Jan 4 2007
22 posts
Jan 5 2007
13 posts
Jan 7 2007
9 posts
Jan 8 2007
8 posts
washingtonweather
I don't know Belle, being a Christain, I would prefer the bible, but I feel that most of the men and women that sware on the bible don't really know or take the book that seriously when it comes to their politics anyhow....is that pessimistic...yeah..one of the few things I really believe has lost integrity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
I don't really see the point of having a person swear in on a book from a religion they don't follow--what's the value in that? A person who is not Christian may not see the Bible as a symbol of truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
First, I personally couldn't care less whether Ellison is sworn in with his hand on the Bible, the Qu'ran, or on a roll of toilet paper. Whatever. For the vast majority elected officials, the "oath of office" is meaningless, anyway.
Second, I think that, rather than being a statement of his faith, it is him trying to "make a statement." Best cure for him "making a statement" is to ignore it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TOMMYZ
I'd be more comfortable with it if a Christian could swear on a Bible in an Islamic country.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
I agree with all of you. :)
WW, I think that the Bible has lost its value as a representation of what we were raised to respect. It's just a symbol now and so many so-called "Christian" politicians are anything BUT good examples of Christians, much less decent, law abiding citizens that it's rather silly to even have that as part of the ceremony anymore. Especially since, as Bramble pointed out, there are elected officials who aren't even Christians.
The whole swearing in requiring swearing on anything is rather vacuous and laughable, really. Maybe they should just stand there and recite the age old, "cross my heart, hope to die, stick a needle in my eye."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
I'd rather they put it over their own heart.
Swear on that.
And if you cheat or are untrue to the oath... you die!
Dangit Belle!!! I didn't see that last line of your post...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef
call me bias
i am
i would rather not see a muslam hold a high office in this country
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
So you would rather see that portion of the Constitution that states that no religious test shall be required of those who run for office ... ignored? Was it a mistake made by our founding fathers to put it in there?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
I would rather see no Muslims in office either.
I'd rather not have any Christians, Scientologists, Mormans, Hindus, Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any other religious person in office either.
I'd rather have people who can think and act with their own brain, who don't rely on ancient (or current) myths.
Then we might not end up with stuff like this:
God told me to invade Iraq, Bush tells Palestinian ministers
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nottawayfer
I'd rather see someone from the Church of Elvis holding the lyrics to "You Ain't Nothing But a Hound Dog" to his heart. :lol:
If the Quaran makes this guy hold up to his integrity, then sobeit. Not all Muslims are terrorists. I don't believe a Muslim would necessarily give avenue to terrorists. To me, a "regular" Muslim is different than the wack jobs who kill themselves for Allah. It's the same as a fundamentalist Christian group in comparision to a "regular" Christian group.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
William
Having worked for several public officials including members of Congress, I can relate from personal experience that members of Congress are not legally sworn into office using a book of any sort. The public ceremony involving the use of a holy book, which takes place after members are legally sworn in, is merely a photo opportunity. The fact that Congressman Ellison chose to use Thomas Jefferson's Quran for his photo opportunity illustrates to me that he has a deep respect for the religious freedom and tolerance that America's founding fathers stood for.
Below are just a few quotes from Jefferson on the topic of religion:
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."
"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."
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
"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." (This quote is in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom.)
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jim
The last I heard, he was going to use Thomas Jefferson's copy of the Quran. Which I find deliciously ironic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I'd echo several of the well-thought out posts, but am most thankful for the thoughtful and reflective post our new compadre William shared.
So, thanks William. I appreciate the quotes from Jefferson.
and btw, my own personal view on this subject probably comes pretty close to how MarkO put it for himself (the part before ignoring the new Congressman's "statement").
That guy's statement is quite benign compared to what the Imam's did last month to get themselves tossed off of a US Airways flight.
And as to whether I'd "be more comfortable" if there were no Muslims in Congress... I'd rather see more of them.
Diversity of thought, or rather TOLERANCE of diversity of thought (and of race, and of gender, and of sexual persuasion) is BETTER for America than homogenized thinking and behavior. And by HOMOGENIZED I do NOT mean making them like HOMOs, and DO mean social mores (unwritten rules) that enforce a lack of tolerance and diversity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
richnchrispy
Hey, William!
Thank you for the quotes!
Jefferson is very cool. He was way ahead of his time.
Chrispy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TOMMYZ
In our current situation most people view him swearing on the Koran the same way as a congressman from the Nazi party during WW2 swearing in on a copy of "Mein Kampf."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Really? According to....?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
My exact question Rocky
Who is MOST people??
As far as Im concerned he is an American,
voted in as a congressman by his district and has earned the same respect that any congressman should have...
Edited by mstar1Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
I think so too.
MarkO I agree we should ignore it - we should take it in stride. I agree with Rocky too that he should be welcomed and that there should be more of them. IF we claim that "all men are equal..." put your money where your mouth is - is the only acceptable thing to do. The same thing is true of separation of church and state...not just "churches" but all religious philosophies and practices.
I would hope that someday soon, our Congressmen and -women are a true representation of the population as a whole. Our diversity seems to present problems for some people; but I think that's one of the greatest things about this country.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Most of them are liars and crooks, so why bother having them take an oath anyway?
That being said, I have no problems with him using something that represents his religious beliefs, nor would I if he were Jewish, Christian, Pagan, Hindu, whatever - it makes more sense to use something that is meaningful to the individual being sworn in.
Belle, I would add in regard to your link about what Muslem's believe about "white men" - you can find some very negative and offensive beliefs within sects of any religion. The OT is rife with the killing of those who did not adhere to Judaism, yet I think you would find very few Jews who would propound such acts today. The history of Christianity likewise has some very very dark eras, yet again, I think you would find few Christians who would support such acts today. Note, I said few. There are extremist sects within most religion groups.
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
Oh heck,
Protect the border, limit immigration like the laws state. This guy is a convert, though.
Actually, in my opinion, Muslims at least stand for something, even if a few are violent and many peaceful. The current Senate and Congress, made up of Christians supposedly like myself, are useless and sell out to money. Many are immoral, personally, spiritually, morally, politically or otherwise. I prefer a good Christian, but what if Muslims come up and set a good example for kids, like no drugs, prostitution and such? And they believe in only ONE GOD.
But, I was asked about this thing on the guy sworn in on the Koran. It's his belief, and had the right to do so. I disagree with it, but it is his religious choice and by law I can't do anything about it. He may turn out okay.
Yes, I still disagree with it. But I recognize his religious exercise. Not all Muslims can be condemned on the actions of a few. I do worry about his connections politically, however.
Eagle
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
This subject has been discussed MUCH -- up here in Minney-soda.
There are many here who are outraged (staunch Lutherans, and Catholics),
because of the Q'ran vs. the Bible. (please note I capitalized them BOTH).
Personally -- I don't like it -- but my opinion has NO religious connection.
HERE IS A SITE, THAT GIVES HIS BIO.
He seems like a nice guy, he represents a diverse neighborhood,
they voted him in, altho *greater* Minney-soda is not happy.
(*Greater* is a term used up here for any outlying district from Mpls/ St. Paul).
I, personally, see this as another *chink in the armor of the USA*.
With all the heated debate going on up here -- one fact has been established.
William made the point earlier here that the actual swearing in had NO book involved.
And that the "book photo swearing in" was just that -- a photo-op.
That fact has been established (to the consternation of the staunch folks here),
but the fact I want to address remains, sans religion.
I understand that America is made up of immigrants. Fine.
I understand that there are diverse cultures here. Fine.
I also understand that one tends to identify with their heritage. Fine.
But ---- those initial immigrants worked to become a whole -- not a separate entity.
America used to be called a melting pot -- because that is what it was.
Folks sought freedom, personal wealth, whatever, and came here to find it.
And they didn't do so by being *independant*, as in culture.
These days -- I'm hearing that America should be a *salad*, not a *stew*.
In a salad, each individual retains their own unique identity,
whereas in a stew -- you have to mesh with others -- no unique identity.
Not a bad thing --if (as in the past), you *rise above your raisings*.
Bit by bit -- I see the armor weakening, that used to be strong and unifying,
but it is being undermined daily by folks like these.
FYI -- there is a huge battle going on in Mpls/ St. Paul with muslim cab drivers --
but that is another topic entirely.
Call me ignorant, call me backwards, call me whatever you want
(and this is not to you personally, Oak) ---
This is (as usual) -- just an IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Hmm. This reminds me of something.
Back in '83 or so I played music for a TWI wedding. The clergyman who performed it did not use a bible; he used a copy of RHST, the leather bound one with red on the borders of the pages that everybody got who went to Living Victoriously, which LOOKED like a bible.
As far as I know, the couple was still legally married.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Immigrants ( and we are not talking about immigrants but someone who was born here) never abandoned their religion.
From very early on. one of the first things that they typically did was build their own churches. In the Northeast especially there are Irish churches, Polish churches, Italian churches, Lithuanian churches etc etc you name it--that follow the waves of immigration. I have an appointment today to see a Korean church.
The initial immigrants maintained their own forms of spirituality and still somehow were able to contribute to the whole, as do most people still today.
I still dont see what the ruckus is all about, it was one of Jeffersons' guiding principals that seems to have worked out well-- and to me it seems appropriate that Ellison would respect that and symbolically give recognition and a hat tip to Jefferson by using his Quran.
People dont change though-- the Puritans hated the Quakers for fouling their state as well.
Things of course would always work smoother if people would choose the right religion ( which BTW is always MY religion) and not cause such a fuss, but in lieu of that --things havent worked out all bad with the setup weve got which makes room for everyone equally.
It broadens and strengthens our country immensely and keeps us from turning into a theocracy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.