CurlTalk

Keith Ellison - what is your opinion?

PoodleheadPoodlehead Posts: 6,959Registered Users
Keith Ellison is requesting to take his oath of office with his hand on the Koran instead of a Bible, because he is Muslim. There is great uproar over it. What do you think, should it be okay, or should he be required to swear on a bible?
Swearing by the Koran?

If someone doesn't believe in the Christian bible, what is the point of making him swear a vow on it?
Minneapolis, MN

Comments

  • AmnerisAmneris Posts: 15,117Registered Users
    I think the point is to swear on a set of beliefs you have the greatest respect for and the greatest desire to uphold to give your vows the most meaning, so if for him the Qu'ran fits the bill, then he should swear on the Qu'ran.

    I don't see the big deal. He's not preventing other people from swearing on the Bible. And all the holy books call for upstanding moral behaviour each in their own way, so whichever a person is most comfortable with shouldn't matter in the context of an oath. The people complaining are ridiculous.

    I love Keith Ellison by the way!
    Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali


    .png


    534Pm5.png





  • mad scientistmad scientist Posts: 3,530Registered Users
    Wow, that excert of Prager's essay actually sent shivers up my spine. People actually feel that way?

    To me, swearing an oath is about giving your word the value of what you hold as sacred. What value would it be for Ellison (or me, for that matter) to swear on the bible when I have never read it, don't own one, and don't personally hold it as sacred? To me that makes a mockery out of the bible as much as it does of my right to hold something else as sacred.

    What do atheist Congressmen do? Has that ever come up?
  • KraytKrayt Posts: 765Registered Users
    I could care less what book he swears on. As long as he doesn't follow the tradition of breaking those vows set forth by his new peers in congress.

    The article makes good points.

    Why should we make him swear on something he doesn't hold dear, such incentive to make sure he doesn't disgrace his word there.

    Also, in response to the quoted congressman in the article. If America chooses the book we must use to swear people in, how is that separation of church and state?
  • AmnerisAmneris Posts: 15,117Registered Users
    Yeah, madscientist, Prager's comments were awful.
    He should not be allowed to do so — not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

    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.

    Say what? How is the Bible integral to American civilization? It was written in the Middle East describing events and people in the Middle East, not in America. It was disseminated through the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Europe long before it reached America.

    The original habitants of America are the aboriginal people, who were not Christian and did not have the Bible, so to go back to American civilization, everyone should be burning sweetgrass and having pow wows, not swearing on the Bible. (Incidentally, aboriginal politicians in Canada who follow their traditional religions can choose to swear on an eagle's feather.)
    Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali


    .png


    534Pm5.png





  • PartyHairPartyHair Posts: 7,713Registered Users
    The original habitants of America are the aboriginal people, who were not Christian and did not have the Bible, so to go back to American civilization, everyone should be burning sweetgrass and having pow wows, not swearing on the Bible.

    Oh, now. You stop with that silly talk. You KNOW that isn't the "American Civilization" that counts!

    (That was sarcasm. I say let the guy swear on whatever document/item/historical artifact MEANS something to him.)
    *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

    Rock on with your bad self.

    *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

    Be excellent to each other. ~ Abraham Lincoln

    *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
  • NetGNetG Posts: 8,116Registered Users
    It makes more sense than a Bible in his case.

    It has always bugged me that we use the Bible. Why not use a leather-bound version of the Constitution? It seems more appropriate, applies to all elected to office, in the court system, etc., and doesn't get church and state confused.

    Maybe if that were what they had to swear on, there would be a little more thought on what it means, and fewer attempts to violate the intent of the Constitution altogether?
    The pews never miss a sermon but that doesn't get them one step closer to Heaven.
    -Speckla

    But at least the pews never attend yoga!
  • Little Miss Snarky BooyahLittle Miss Snarky Booyah Posts: 452Registered Users
    Amneris wrote:

    Say what? How is the Bible integral to American civilization? It was written in the Middle East describing events and people in the Middle East, not in America. It was disseminated through the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Europe long before it reached America.

    The original habitants of America are the aboriginal people, who were not Christian and did not have the Bible, so to go back to American civilization, everyone should be burning sweetgrass and having pow wows, not swearing on the Bible. (Incidentally, aboriginal politicians in Canada who follow their traditional religions can choose to swear on an eagle's feather.)

    I completely agree with you, Amneris. 100%. Very well said.

    I'd rather see a politician swear on something that has sacred value for that person rather than make an empty gesture to satisfy a bunch of lying "Christian" hypocrites.
    You are an evil biatch, evil. Your life must suck!

    /home/leaving?target=http%3A%2F%2Fbooyahlicious.blogspot.com%2F" class="Popup
  • iris427iris427 Posts: 6,002Registered Users
    I could care less what book he swears on. As long as he doesn't follow the tradition of breaking those vows set forth by his new peers in congress.

    The article makes good points.

    Why should we make him swear on something he doesn't hold dear, such incentive to make sure he doesn't disgrace his word there.

    Also, in response to the quoted congressman in the article. If America chooses the book we must use to swear people in, how is that separation of church and state?


    I can't believe I'm saying this...but I agree with DJ Machismo :)

    Why shouldn't he swear on the book that is most holy to him? If the Bible is meaningless to him (although from what I gathered in my class in Islam, it is not meaningless, just not as holy as the Koran), then his vows would be meaningless, and we don't want that in a Congressman! Look where that has gotten us in the past.

    People should be happy that they have a Congressman who actually takes his vows seriously, unlike a lot of the corrupt pols we have had in office the last few years.

    And yeah, what about separation of church and state?
    3027585431_55b6195e50_s.jpg3028374752_0df4d81a1b_s.jpg3028422696_8dcef38baa_s.jpg
    TickerTicker.aspx?&TT=bdy&TT1=bdy&CL=29&CT=&CG=F&O=m_nestbirds&T=t_b14&D=20080913&M1=&D1=2009&T2=&T1=Baby+Iris&CC=0&CO=&step=5&radio=A
  • iris427iris427 Posts: 6,002Registered Users
    NetG wrote:
    It makes more sense than a Bible in his case.

    It has always bugged me that we use the Bible. Why not use a leather-bound version of the Constitution? It seems more appropriate, applies to all elected to office, in the court system, etc., and doesn't get church and state confused.

    Maybe if that were what they had to swear on, there would be a little more thought on what it means, and fewer attempts to violate the intent of the Constitution altogether?

    NetG, that is a great idea. Swearing to uphold the Constitution and using an actual copy of the Constitution--it's kind of amazing we don't already do that.
    3027585431_55b6195e50_s.jpg3028374752_0df4d81a1b_s.jpg3028422696_8dcef38baa_s.jpg
    TickerTicker.aspx?&TT=bdy&TT1=bdy&CL=29&CT=&CG=F&O=m_nestbirds&T=t_b14&D=20080913&M1=&D1=2009&T2=&T1=Baby+Iris&CC=0&CO=&step=5&radio=A
  • 2happy2happy Posts: 5,138Registered Users
    NetG wrote:
    Why not use a leather-bound version of the Constitution? It seems more appropriate, applies to all elected to office, in the court system, etc., and doesn't get church and state confused.

    Maybe if that were what they had to swear on, there would be a little more thought on what it means, and fewer attempts to violate the intent of the Constitution altogether?

    Brilliant!
    Handle every stressful situation like a dog. If you can't eat it or hump it.....Piss on it and walk away.
    Location - WI
  • PoodleheadPoodlehead Posts: 6,959Registered Users
    NetG wrote:
    It makes more sense than a Bible in his case.

    It has always bugged me that we use the Bible. Why not use a leather-bound version of the Constitution? It seems more appropriate, applies to all elected to office, in the court system, etc., and doesn't get church and state confused.

    Maybe if that were what they had to swear on, there would be a little more thought on what it means, and fewer attempts to violate the intent of the Constitution altogether?

    Excellent idea, NetG!
    Minneapolis, MN
  • iris427iris427 Posts: 6,002Registered Users
    NetG for president!
    3027585431_55b6195e50_s.jpg3028374752_0df4d81a1b_s.jpg3028422696_8dcef38baa_s.jpg
    TickerTicker.aspx?&TT=bdy&TT1=bdy&CL=29&CT=&CG=F&O=m_nestbirds&T=t_b14&D=20080913&M1=&D1=2009&T2=&T1=Baby+Iris&CC=0&CO=&step=5&radio=A
  • KraytKrayt Posts: 765Registered Users
    iris427 wrote:
    I could care less what book he swears on. As long as he doesn't follow the tradition of breaking those vows set forth by his new peers in congress.

    The article makes good points.

    Why should we make him swear on something he doesn't hold dear, such incentive to make sure he doesn't disgrace his word there.

    Also, in response to the quoted congressman in the article. If America chooses the book we must use to swear people in, how is that separation of church and state?


    I can't believe I'm saying this...but I agree with DJ Machismo :)

    Why shouldn't he swear on the book that is most holy to him? If the Bible is meaningless to him (although from what I gathered in my class in Islam, it is not meaningless, just not as holy as the Koran), then his vows would be meaningless, and we don't want that in a Congressman! Look where that has gotten us in the past.

    People should be happy that they have a Congressman who actually takes his vows seriously, unlike a lot of the corrupt pols we have had in office the last few years.

    And yeah, what about separation of church and state?

    Is it really that surprising? :) Cmon.
  • geekygeeky Posts: 4,995Registered Users
    NetG wrote:
    It makes more sense than a Bible in his case.

    It has always bugged me that we use the Bible. Why not use a leather-bound version of the Constitution? It seems more appropriate, applies to all elected to office, in the court system, etc., and doesn't get church and state confused.

    Maybe if that were what they had to swear on, there would be a little more thought on what it means, and fewer attempts to violate the intent of the Constitution altogether?

    I've always thought we should do the same.
    To Trenell, MizKerri and geeky:
    I pray none of you ever has to live in a communist state.

    Geeky is my hero. She's the true badass. The badass who doesn't even need to be a badass. There aren't enough O's in cool to describe her.
  • KraytKrayt Posts: 765Registered Users
    geeky wrote:
    NetG wrote:
    It makes more sense than a Bible in his case.

    It has always bugged me that we use the Bible. Why not use a leather-bound version of the Constitution? It seems more appropriate, applies to all elected to office, in the court system, etc., and doesn't get church and state confused.

    Maybe if that were what they had to swear on, there would be a little more thought on what it means, and fewer attempts to violate the intent of the Constitution altogether?

    I've always thought we should do the same.

    Well it makes perfect sense.
  • NetGNetG Posts: 8,116Registered Users
    iris427 wrote:
    NetG for president!

    :oops:

    I'm too young
    
    The pews never miss a sermon but that doesn't get them one step closer to Heaven.
    -Speckla

    But at least the pews never attend yoga!
  • PoodleheadPoodlehead Posts: 6,959Registered Users
    Check this out! They are going to use Thomas Jefferson's Quran for his swearing in! Ellison To Be Sworn In With Jefferson's Quran
    Minneapolis, MN
  • nextmovenextmove Posts: 686Registered Users
    What do atheist Congressmen do? Has that ever come up?
    In a court you can affirm so I assume the same thing can be done to be sworn in for office.

    I agree with NetG and think using the Constitution is a great idea. I wonder if anyone has ever proposed the idea to the powers that be?
  • ScarletScarlet Posts: 3,125Registered Users
    Well, when Congress is officially sworn in as a full body, there are no religious texts used. None. It's during a second, private swearing in that members can choose to use one.

    If that is his holy book, then he should use it. There should be no problem with it.
    The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics - Thomas Sowell
  • spiderlashes5000spiderlashes5000 Posts: 17,495Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    Just an aside -- but it says in the Bible you're not supposed to swear on anything.

    Maybe it is acceptable to Muslims to swear on the Q'uran. If it is, that's fine with me. It would be pointless for a Muslim to swear on the Bible...and sinful for a Christian. I think the practice of swearing on holy texts, etc. should end.

  • spiderlashes5000spiderlashes5000 Posts: 17,495Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    I did think it was cool how Ellison found a copy of the Q'uran that had been owned by Thomas Jefferson. So old! I'm sure it is very valuable.