I’m not really sure how you can say that, magellan. As you can see from this thread, there are a lot of people who disagree with you about there being any such tradition as swearing on the Bible when taking office. I certainly disagree with you on that score. If I were elected to office, I wouldn’t swear on a Bible. This would not be because I am willing to “throw away American traditions,” but rather, because I have an entirely different idea of what constitutes American traditions than you do. So, the question becomes, what does this difference in opinion over what constitutes a “tradition” tell you about my (or Ellison’s) fitness to hold government office in the United States?
Agreed.
I think we have uncovered another…oh what’s the word I am looking for?
hmmm…
magellan thinks “tradition” in the USA in encapsulated in what he thinks tradition is…
Who wants to take a bet that magellan is a white male who, contrary to his namesake, is not very well travelled?
We already did!
And by a big margin – all 4 of his opponents added together didn’t come close to his vote total.
And I can’t see that knowing this before the election would have made any difference. We all knew he was Muslim. I think most people just assumed (like I did) that each Congressperson would swear on their own holy book; a Christian on a Bible, a Jew on a Torah, a Muslin on a Koran, a Quaker not swearing at all, etc. Seemed the obvious way, the way it had always been done. I just don’t see what all the fuss is about.
His opponents seem to do a lot of attacking with really weak weapons*. Like all thru the campaign, negative personal attacks on Keith because he had unpaid parking tickets. The voters responded with a resounding “so what”, and elected him to Congress.
*Perhaps this is because his opponents hang around only with their own kind, and are out of touch with the general public. If you’re a fundamentalist Christian and think everyone else is too, or should be, the idea of NOT swearing on a Bible is probably very shocking to you and all your friends, and you think it will make for a good attack on him. But most people are used to dealing with people from various faiths, and don’t find that particularly shocking.
For the record, I am not a fundamentalist Christian. I practice no religion.
Sorry, I wasn’t talking about you personally.
By “you” I meant the groups of people who have been attacking Keith Ellison over this. It seems pretty clear that they are of the fundamentalist type.
Trouble is, magellan01 is among those who agrees with Prager about this issue. I won’t go so far as to say he has been attacking Ellison over this, as he may wish to deny it, and I’m not particularly interested in investing the time and energy in haggling over the point.
He has, however, said that it would be a good idea to place the “what Book are you going to swear in on?” question on the table in all future electoral contests, an idea that strikes me as a willingness to appeal to an unworthy and unAmerican bigotry based on symbolistic fetishism. It also strikes me as shameful.
You are a total moron. I say this with full understanding that the general average 100% moron has more intelligence than you hav emanaged to muster.
I am a natural-born citizen of the United States of America. I also served in the Armed Forces of that illustrious land and I served to retirement. Each time I reenlisted, I affirmed my oath of enlistment. I did not swear. I also served as a witness for two courts-martial. Both times, I affirmed my oath as a witness. What does that tell you about me?
As has been pointed out time after time, the Constitution of the United States of America is the governing law of the country. That very law itself provides for the oath-taker to affirm, not swear, the oath of office.
I find it rather sad that you managed to learn little at all of the governing principles of the United States during your years in school there.
That you have poor reading comprehension. The Constitution gives one the option of affirming when swearing an oath is required. This option predates actually opredates the Constitution. During the Revolutionary War, The Bronx and lower Westchester County(just north of Manhattan) was a no man’s land. There were certainly revolutionaries in the areas, but there were also plenty of loyalists who were actiing as spies against Washington. Washington issued an order that people would have to swear an oath of allegiance to the cause, or, in then case of Quakers, an affirmation. Just thought I’d share that little bit of history I find interresting.
So, Ellison’s actions do not fall within any religious exception. He swore his oath with no book, fulfilling his obligation to be able to hold office. He then chose to break with tradition and swear on the Koran. It is his right. It is my right to evaluate that decision.
See above.
As should be evident to anyone who actually read the citations provided earlier in this thread, the quoted statement is false.
The only tradition, for those who choose to swear rather than to affirm, has been to use some text that provides meaning to their lives. The bible is, coincidentally, the book that most (being Christian) have used, but there is no tradition to “use the bible” that Ellison has broken. That statement is simply false.
And just what percent of the time would you estimate that the bible has been used? And at what percent do you think it wold move into the realm of a tradition?
I hear Scrabble is a good word game, too. And Boggle.
Don’t you have some non-apologizing to do somewhere else?
I take it English isn’t your first language.
What percentage of people elected to office have been non-Christian? Does that mean that any non-Christian who wins an election is violating an American tradition?
If you choose to swear on a book other than the bible you choose to break with tradition. That’s what it tells me. You might argue that you are doing a good thing—and you may be—but you are doing a thing other than what the vast number of people before you have done. That is breaking with tradition. In Ellison’s case it was intentional. There was already a flap about this and he slimed his way through. His faith did not dictate he swear in on any book, or that he swear an oath at all, he chose to do it to make a point. At first I was a little upset about this, then I realized the upside: increased scutiny down the road. This little setback had to occur.
I noticed that no one has commented on the post of mine that resurrected this particular discussion. I find it extremely interesting that those aroiund these parts that scrutinize every word and logical transition with things they don’t agree with actually celebrate the move to use a book owned by Jefferson. As if that indicates anything. I shouldn’t be surprised, but I guess hope springs eternal.
I guess what it all comes down to, Miller, is how multi-everything you (impersonally) would like our society to be. I think the more we try to become everything the more we cease to be anything. I know most around here will disagree with that. Hell, I just need to look across the Bay to Bezerkely and see Ground Zero for what I view as this type of nonsense.
He what?
You’re fucking insane, aren’t you?
Good.
Honestly, I could give a flying fuck-all about tradition. Tradition is just the dead hand of the past working its zombie will on the present. Every tradition should be scrutinized to see if it’s preserved because it’s useful, or preserved because “that’s the way we’ve always done it”.
People who worship tradition as if it were sacred writ puzzle the hell out of me.
Maybe. Not that you would be the best judge. But to clarify, he slimed his way through the flap by choosing—cue Angels, harps and volins—a book owned by Jefferson.
And maybe you can enlighten us, how does the fact that a book was owned by Jefferson alter the equation—in either direction—one iota. Come on Frankie, try to offer something for a change.
Now this is a response that I can respect. IN fact, I love it. Seriously. I come at the concept of tradition differently, but this is perfectly valid and makes perfect sense.
May I ask, what it is about tradition that you find so distastefiul?
Maybe Al Franken can write a book called “Prager is a Big, Dumb Doo Doo Head” and candidates can promise to swear on that.
Mostly the idea that the only reason to do something like this is because it’s always been done that way. No thinking required, just blind obedience to the dictates of whole multitudes of dead people.
For Ellison to use a Bible as his photo-op book would be subsuming his own religious beliefs to those of the dominant religion in the country, only because gasp the vast majority of past Congresspersons were members of the religion that holds the Bible as sacred. If the Bible doesn’t mean anything to Ellison personally, why should he have photos taken of himself swearing on it, other than to placate the mindless bleaters like Prager?