And really, I can’t figure out why the people making a big deal out of this wouldn’t be insulted if Ellison were to use a Bible, since he would obviously be doing so just to curry favor with them. I’d rather have him be honest and sincere about his beliefs than have him knuckle under for fear of the mob.
Well, I think a sense of tradition that recalls history is good, as it acts as a reminder for what it took for us to be here now and have discussions like these. But I understand your point.
Regarding Ellison, I’d correct you on one part of what you said. He was not obligated to place his habd on any book. The swearing in in the house, en masse, used nor requires any book. He did that. He could of called it a day there and then. But he chose to do a photo op of a swearing in. That was of his own choosing, he didn’t have to do it. But even choosing to do it, again, he could have used no book and simply held up his hand. In fact, he didn’t even have to do that.
But why should he have to go without the book he believes in just because it’s not the Christian book? Why, solely because he’s a Muslim, should he have to do something categorically different from his Christian colleagues in the House, rather than simply substituting his own book for the one they use? How is this tradition so goddamn useful that the choice is to either be railroaded into following it exactly or not following it at all?
Yes, nut Prager’s interpretation would have him use the bible as a bit of ceremonial deism, similar to In God We Trust. That it not be a recognition by him of the faith itself, but rather, the role that Christianity has played in the formation of the country. I hestitate to bring that up, lest we rehash the entire thread. For those so interested, I recommend referring to earlier pages of the thread.
I think this is the crux of my inability to comprehend the mindset of traditionalists like yourself. How does this matter so much that it’s such a subject of debate and concern-trolling (not concern-trolling from yourself, but from people like Prager who all but accuse Ellison of aiding Al Qaeda based solely on his unwillingness to downplay his faith for public consumption)? It’s a stupid photo-op!
Personally, I think that if I were a Christian, I would consider Ceremonial Deism to be the most insulting thing the government has ever foisted upon the public. CD is a sham of Christianity, reduced to a minstrel show. It takes a meaningful faith and turns it into meaningless ritual. One of the things that amazes me is that the most fervent everyone-must-be-a-Christian Christians will enthusiastically embrace Supreme Court decisions that basically state that the outward signs of Christianity are perfectly fine as long as they don’t actually mean anything beyond their surface.
Well said, yet again. I think they were trying to strike a balance between freedom of religion and the one religion that is woven into our culture. Not perfect, no. Not by a long shot.
Okay, let’s try this again.
What does choosing to break with this particular “tradition” tell you about Representative Ellison?
Again, please answer my actual question: how do you know that Ellison is not following precisely the tradition as he perceives it? Many, many people in this thread have argued that the tradition is to swear on a book that holds personal significane for the person taking the oath. How do you know that Ellison did not view this tradition in precisely the same way?
Please justify your use of the term “slimed.” Normally, it implies deceit or dishonesty. How has Ellison’s action in this instance been either deceitful or dishonest?
What point was he making, and why should he have not made it?
Yes, well, see again my earlier question, best summarized as, “So fucking what?”
I don’t understand why that confuses you. There’s a certain segment of the population which tries, dishonestly, to paint the founding fathers as far-right Christian fundamentalists. It is this dishonesty that is at the heart of this debate (I mean that in the national sense, not this specific debate in this thread in which you’re participating). The fact that Jefferson owned a Koran at all sort of undercuts that argument. It’s not a devastating rejoinder. The devastating rejoinder would be everything Jefferson ever wrote on the subject of religion and politics, including the Constitution of the United States. But, since none of that gets through to these people, I very much doubt that the fact that Jefferson owned a Koran will penetrate, either. It does, however, offer those of us on this side of the argument a small source of merriment, and I doubt very much that any of the posters who brought up Jefferson’s Koran expected their post to do anything more than that.
Oh, I agree with you to a large extent, actually. Especially about Berkeley. The problem is (and you are consistent about this on virtually every subject where we’ve butted heads) is that you insist on defining “American” with the most asinine trivialities imaginable. You’re actually bent out of shape because a Muslim wants to take his oath of office on a Koran. I could understand if you were upset over there being a Muslim congressman at all. You’d drop off my list of “People I disagree with but can still respect” like a lead balloon, but the “America is for Christians” mindset is at least comprehensible. But you don’t have a problem with that. You’re upset because this guy wants to use a different book than normal for a meaningless photo op. This is what defines America, for you? What book people swear on?
It’s not our traditions that define our nation, magellan. It’s our ideals. You seem willing to sacrifice our ideals on the altar of our traditions. I find that terribly sad, and more than a little frightening.
Then why do we allow the option of not using a book at all? If it’s so important that we recognize the role that Christianity had in forming this country, and if using a Bible is not an expressiong (or imposition) of the Christian faith, then why not make everyone who wants to be in Congress swear on a Bible?
Also, I’d like an answer to my earlier question: the vast majority of elected representatives have been Christians. Does that make voting for a non-Christian a “break with tradition?” Should voting for a non-Christian meet with the same level of public censure that Ellison’s decision to swear on a Koran has met?
“Percent of the time” is really irrelevant. If the tradition was “use the bible” rather than “use a book with personal significance” then you could not make the claim that Ellison was breaking that tradition, because that tradition has been shattered with numerous prior exceptions.
It is only by putting on your jingo sunglasses that you can change the tradition of “book with personal significance” (that happens to have been coincidentally a bible because large numbers of U.S. citizens have been Christian) to “bible” as though it was that book that has been the specific tradition.
(And, of course, your “tradition” was thoroughly destroyed around 160 years ago when the first Catholics began using their (different) bible when they were sworn in–the same Douai-Challoner bible for which mobs of good Americans burned Catholic churches and neighborhoods and murdered people for having the temerity to use that papist bible in our good traditional schools. Now THERE is American tradition at work.)
(And I can fail to apologize right here, without any problem–particularly since I have only been shredding poor arguments with facts and logic without calling people names or using silly verbs like “slime” to indicate the legitimate taking of office of a duly elected official.)
'Cos if this isn’t a comment on that particular post, I don’t know what is…
The fun thing is, if I’m right, he’ll never know he’s being contradicted, and we can point and laugh at him behind his back. So don’t anyone quote my linked post, okay?
And Mods, if this constitutes some sort of inside-out transgression of the “don’t talk about your ‘ignore list’” rule, please accept my humble mea culpa, and deal with the title as you see fit.
If “breaking tradition” means pissing off bigots and morons like magellan01, then I say break away! 
Oh, that’s a lovely little typo.
So, just so I can figure out where we are now, magellan01, would you say that, under the religious tests clause of Article VI as it is currently written, a holder of a public office in the United States has a legal right to be sworn in on the Qur’an (or some other non-Christian scripture or holy book)? I mean in an actual oath or affirmation, and not just a photo-op after the real swearing or affirming ceremony; that is, said holder of public office is taking the oath or affirmation of office individually and not in a big room along with 434 other people. I’m also not asking whether you, personally, would vote for such a person; only whether you would consider them to have legally entered into the said office or public trust by the act of swearing to support the Constitution of the United States of America with their hand on the Qur’an, the Torah or Tanakh, the Rig-Veda, the Zend-Avesta, or copy of Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.
bolding mine
"our culture?
WTF man?
Our “culture” as a whole is basically 300 million people bowing down before the altar of materialism to the best of each person’s financial ability. Does that mean we should swear in on the latest Sharper Image catalog? Perhaps a Lexus brochure?
If your frame of reference so incredibly narrow that you think the Christian religion defines our culture? Have you ever been to Chicago? New York? Miami? Within 10 minutes of my house in Richmond, VA you can visit christian churches, mosques, a Jehovah’s Witness Kingdom Hall, a Hindu temple, a Mormom church and several synagogues. Are the fine people who worship in these buildings not woven into the fabric of our culture? How dare you presume or imply that because they have faith traditions that differ from the majority that they are not important parts of “America” and its traditions!
He’s stupid. What’s not to understand?
It never ceases to amaze me that more rigidly emphatic a person becomes regarding ostensibly American Dogmatism, the more likely it is that that person is an ignorant, close-minded fool who has entirely missed the philosophy underlying the founding of the country, and is, in almost every way, a bad American. Ironic, isn’t it?
Kind of like the ostensible Christians who worship the Bible rather than Christ.
Proposed New Definition: moron - (n) A person who, after twelve pages of painstaking and patient explanation, still doesn’t get it
Proposed New Abbreviation: DNFTM - Do Not Feed The Moron
People, you are banging your heads against a wall of reinforced concrete. Quit wasting your time; you’ve gotten nowhere and are showing no signs of ever getting anywhere.
What, and let Magellan get the last word?
The person who posts last in a thread wins the debate, didn’t you know?
In 1825 John Q. Adams was sworn in as President of the United States using a book of US law.
In 1853, Franklin Pierce was affirmed President of the United States.
In 1877, Rutherford B Hayes did not use a bible when being sworn in as President of the United States.
In 1881, Chester A Arthur did not use a bible when being sworn in as President of the United Sates.
In 1901, Theodore Roosevelt did not use a bible when being sworn in as President of the United States.
In 1963, Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in as President of the United States using a missal (a liturgical book containing all instructions and texts necessary for the celebration of Masses throughout the year).
Your tradition seems to have had some notable exceptions.
But that’s PRESIDENTS, not Representatives!
Yeah, sure, our tradition is that Presidents can swear on whatever the fuck they want. But if one of our Representatives ever swears on anything other than the King James Bible, God will withdraw his hand of protection from our country.
You don’t really want to be responsible for the wrath and the smiting and the HEY LADY, do you?