Oh Noes! Muslim Congressman Plans To Swear In On Koran!

[Revenant_Threshold]

I’m not actually seeing where magellan’s point is going. In his opinion, Ellison is going against tradition. If that was right… why is that bad?

It seems like the only adverse affect is that it’s annoyed Prager and magellan (as well as anyone else who thinks along their lines). In fact, annoying people who wanted to keep the old ways is pretty much the only adverse affect of going against tradition. And, since the guy’s been voted in, it does seem like the amount of people annoyed isn’t substantial enough to effect the outcome.

But I could be overlooking something. magellan, what adverse affect will this have, if indeed it is going against tradition?

[rayh]

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
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?
[/QUOTE]

Look at my location. It will miss me.

[tomndebb]

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, since the Houses of Congress are inaugurated en masse, they have never officially been sworn in using any book–so much for that “tradition.” On the other hand, the photo-op probably only began some time in the 20th century, when cameras of any quality moved from plate development to film development and were later improved in sufficient quality to allow the photographs to be printed in the home-town newspapers, so we appear to be “breaking” a tradition approximately 100 years old (in a nation that is 230 years old).

(And, of course, I am a bit skeptical of basing my electoral choices on the actions of a representative during a flipping photo-op when absolutely nothing of substance is occurring–it is merely the promotion of campaign material for the subsequent election.)

[E-Sabbath]

The nation may be 230 years old, but some of us have been here for longer. Bout… three-fifty years ago, some of my ancestors came over from Ireland to be laborers. Better than being hung, as I understand it.

Now, they had an agreement with the Pilgrims… yes, pilgrims, Plymouth Colony. They’d work for the pilgrims, and they’d be allowed to hold services in the church.
http://cms.plymouthuu.org/
First Parish Church, it’s called.

Now, this happens to be the same faith, but you know, the Pilgrims disagreed with my ancestors and forced 'em out of the church. As I remember the story, what happened next was my ancestors started a second parish, and built their own church.

Then the pilgrims came at night and tore it down.

Freedom of religion is important. Freedom from other’s religions, and freedom for your own.

[Monty]

[QUOTE=magellan01]
That you have poor reading comprehension. The Constitution gives one the option of affirming when swearing an oath is required.

[/quote]

Is it your assertion that the oath of enlistment is not required? If so, please provide the law which negates the law requiring it.

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.

1. Ellison’s actions fall well within the requirements of the Constitution.
2. Other officeholders (even Presidents) have chosen to not swear their oaths.
3. The Constitution permits either affirming or swearing. For the swearing option, it does not specify any religious book nor does it require the mention of a deity.
4. Everyone has a right to an opinion; however, nobody has the right to have a moronic treatement treated as anything other than moronic. Your opinion is receiving the treatment it deserves.

[Monty]

Yo, magellan01!

I realize you’re getting buffetted about like there’s no tomorrow in other threads; however, I really would appreciate an answer about the enlistment question above.

[magellan01]

[QUOTE=Monty]
Is it your assertion that the oath of enlistment is not required? If so, please provide the law which negates the law requiring it.

I was referring to the requirements for congressmen. They do not have to swear on anything. Ellison, like others, chose to do so after his legal requirement was fulfilled.

[QUOTE=Monty]

1. Ellison’s actions fall well within the requirements of the Constitution.

2. Other officeholders (even Presidents) have chosen to not swear their oaths.

3. The Constitution permits either affirming or swearing. For the swearing option, it does not specify any religious book nor does it require the mention of a deity.

4. Everyone has a right to an opinion; however, nobody has the right to have a moronic treatement treated as anything other than moronic. Your opinion is receiving the treatment it deserves.
   [/QUOTE]

5. I never said they didn’t. We agree that he was legally permitted to do just what he did.

6. For some of them it was probably not a matter of choice, as they were sworn in after an assination and were away from Washington, but the fact remains.

7. Agreed.

8. So much for free speech. But since I believe in it, let me exercise it: go fuck yourself.

Happy now?

[dropzone]

Mag, if you haven’t noticed, you are getting fucked in this thread six ways from Sunday. May I suggest you READ AND ATTEMPT TO UNDERSTAND what you’ve been told repeatedly?

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

[QUOTE=magellan01]
2. For some of them it was probably not a matter of choice, as they were sworn in after an assination and were away from Washington, but the fact remains.
[/QUOTE]
This is not correct.

Only 2 of the 6 Presidents who did not swear on a Bible were sworn in after an assassination. Both of them clearly chose not to swear on a Bible.

Lyndon Johnson was sworn in on Air Force 1 after Kennedy’s assassination. He deliberately chose to use a Catholic Missal (Jackie Kennedy’s, actually) even though a Bible was available on the plane.

Theodore Roosevelt was sworn in after McKinley was assassinated. But McKinley lingered for 8 days before dying from his wounds. So there was plenty of time to have located a Bible, if Roosevelt had wanted to swear on one.

Your information is just plain wrong.

[magellan01]

[QUOTE=t-bonham@scc.net]
This is not correct.

Only 2 of the 6 Presidents who did not swear on a Bible were sworn in after an assassination. Both of them clearly chose not to swear on a Bible.
[/QUOTE]

Three. Chester Arthur replaced James Garfiled after his assination in 1881.

[QUOTE=t-bonham@scc.net]
Theodore Roosevelt was sworn in after McKinley was assassinated. But McKinley lingered for 8 days before dying from his wounds. So there was plenty of time to have located a Bible, if Roosevelt had wanted to swear on one.
[/QUOTE]

I thought I recalled hearing on the History Channel that they were scrambling to have Roosevelt sworn in. They had been trying to locate Roosevelt, who was camping in the Adirondacks. He didn’t arrive, travelling through the night, until 12 hours after McKinnley had died. So, while we are in agreement that no bible was used, I don’t think the last part of your claim is correct.

[QUOTE=t-bonham@scc.net]
Your information is just plain wrong.
[/QUOTE]

How is what you quoted from me wrong? I said that for some of them it was probably not a choice. Three of the six Presidents were sworn in after assinations. Johnson, I’ll accept your recollection on. Roosevelt had arrived after McKinnley died, so he didn’t have the luxury of time you claimed. And I don’t think you can say that he “clearly chose to not swear on a bible”. And Arthur was sworn in twice. Once in New York the day after Garfield died and agin a few days later in Washington. At least one of them was private, so while it is accepted (by me, as well) that no bible was used, I don’t know how “clear” that is or how “plain wrong” what you quoted from me was.

[magellan01]

[QUOTE=dropzone]
Mag, if you haven’t noticed, you are getting fucked in this thread six ways from Sunday. May I suggest you READ AND ATTEMPT TO UNDERSTAND what you’ve been told repeatedly?
[/QUOTE]

If that’s your estimation, fine. I know what I think and consider it a valid opinion. Whether it makes sense to a bunch of anonymous posters on a left-leaning message board is not as important to me as it making sense to me. But what makes you think I don’t understand what other posters have been saying? Have I not responded to a great many questions (most)? What is it, specifically, that you don’t think I understand? I’d like to hear your answer. And, I’ll ask, why can’t I simply be in disagreement?

Now I know that you’ve insulted me a few times, albeit in the third person while speaking to other posters, in this and other threads. But I’ll still take this opportunity to let you know that your thread title quoting Buggs Bunny—maybe the best EVER. Beautifully done.

Now please don’t mistake that for obsequiousness or a veiled request for leniency or gentleness.

Fire away. Or, if you prefer, “feed” me. :rolleyes:

[magellan01]

[QUOTE=MEBuckner]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Yes. They have legally fulfilled taking the oath of office.

[magellan01]

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
I’m not actually seeing where magellan’s point is going. In his opinion, Ellison is going against tradition. If that was right… why is that bad?
[/QUOTE]

There have been a few. One was that I think Prager had a valid point in that a non-Christian sweasring in a bible n eed not be construed as an insult to that person’s convictions or faith; that it couls easily be construed—as it has by some—as following a tradition and a view which paces the bible as a founding document of sorts.

Another point was that by making the bible the one book to be sworn upon we would avoid, down the road, having to evaluate each and every book some person might want to swear on.

Yet another point is that whan a person makes a choice, that we are allowed—obligated—to evaluate that decision. Ellison chose to break with tradition. Now while he can find limited cover in the idea that we have Presidents who have not sworn on a bible, it’s not the same. First, he was sworn in with everyone else with no book, so his subsequent swearing in was optional. Second, he used a book that—like it or not—divides this nation more than it unites it. When he first decided to use the Koran, well before his swearing in in the House, there was a bit of outrage. But he still decided to make a spectacle. That is his right. And it is my right to evaluate that decision.

The post of mine that resurrected this outrage at me was a response to those who saw such meaning in his using a book owned by Jefferson. All my inquiries along thiose lines have been ignored. I can ask it again, I guess I can just point you to my post #519.

There may have been more. It’s been a long thread over many weeks and I don’t feel like going back through it.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
It seems like the only adverse affect is that it’s annoyed Prager and magellan (as well as anyone else who thinks along their lines). In fact, annoying people who wanted to keep the old ways is pretty much the only adverse affect of going against tradition. And, since the guy’s been voted in, it does seem like the amount of people annoyed isn’t substantial enough to effect the outcome.

But I could be overlooking something. magellan, what adverse affect will this have, if indeed it is going against tradition?
[/QUOTE]

I think I answered this above. Let me know if somehting is unclear.

[tomndebb]

[QUOTE=magellan01]
One was that I think Prager had a valid point in that a non-Christian sweasring in a bible n eed not be construed as an insult to that person’s convictions or faith; that it couls easily be construed—as it has by some—as following a tradition and a view which paces the bible as a founding document of sorts.

Another point was that by making the bible the one book to be sworn upon we would avoid, down the road, having to evaluate each and every book some person might want to swear on.
[/QUOTE]
The first point could only be advanced by a person who held no strong religious beliefs and who felt that empty ceremony was actually more important than a person’s actual beliefs. (This, in fact, appears to be the case with Prager.) That is clearly insulting to those who actually hold religious beliefs as an integral part of their lives and, in fact, elevates hypocrisy as the higher value than honesty.

The second point is irrelevant. We have never, (prior to Prager), evaluated the books upon which a person is sworn in, so why would we have a need to evaluate them in the future?

[Monty]

Nope. Still not happy. You have not answered my question regarding the enlistment oath.

[Monty]

[QUOTE=magellan01]
4. So much for free speech. But since I believe in it, let me exercise it: go fuck yourself.
[/QUOTE]

Free speech does not require others to treat an inane opinion as other than inane. Too bad you cannot grasp that simple fact.

Actually, it’s pretty apparent there are a couple of other simple facts that you can’t grasp.

[Captain_Carrot]

@magellan01

Second, he used a book that—like it or not—divides this nation more than it unites it.

True. His choice divides the nation into idiots and sensible people. Guess where you fit?

[Ludovic]

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.

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.

So yeah, it does seem like people want him to knuckle under to the mob. I suggest he knuckle under and take an oath to the Capitoline Gods: Praise Jupiter!

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Jesus Christ. I can’t believe you guys are still going at this.

Prager said something stupid. No rational person who can read and has a copy of the Constitution handy would agree with him. There’s simply no argument here.

[Revenant_Threshold]

[QUOTE=magellan01]
There have been a few. One was that I think Prager had a valid point in that a non-Christian sweasring in a bible n eed not be construed as an insult to that person’s convictions or faith; that it couls easily be construed—as it has by some—as following a tradition and a view which paces the bible as a founding document of sorts.
[/quote]
That’s true, it’s possible that it could not be construed as an insult. It’s up to the individual’s reasons, of course. This isn’t a reason for not using the Koran, though, just a reason why using a Bible isn’t necessarily bad.

Another point was that by making the bible the one book to be sworn upon we would avoid, down the road, having to evaluate each and every book some person might want to swear on.

Why would any kind of evaluation be necessary? What would such an evaluation consist of? Should we comb through the text to find any unAmerican sentiments? Do we make candidates admit which book they plan to use if they won an election before people go the polls, so the people get to choose? Considering that using the Bible isn’t itself the best choice, why don’t we just mandate the use of the Constitution as a swearing-in document, so we don’t have to evaluate anything else?

Yet another point is that whan a person makes a choice, that we are allowed—obligated—to evaluate that decision. Ellison chose to break with tradition. Now while he can find limited cover in the idea that we have Presidents who have not sworn on a bible, it’s not the same. First, he was sworn in with everyone else with no book, so his subsequent swearing in was optional. Second, he used a book that—like it or not—divides this nation more than it unites it. When he first decided to use the Koran, well before his swearing in in the House, there was a bit of outrage. But he still decided to make a spectacle. That is his right. And it is my right to evaluate that decision.

You seem to be saying that he shouldn’t be allowed to do it because people won’t like it. Yeah, that’s a pretty good choice. It does seem as though a lot of people have been driven to anger by his choice, or just don’t like it. And that’s fine (well, it isn’t, but you get what I mean). No-one’s saying people have to like it. You’re perfectly free to vote him out of power if his using of the Koran offends you. If his using it means he’ll get voted out - well, that’s his choice, just as it is yours to evaluate it. If you stop government members from causing the least bit of fuss, you’re going to have to change a whole lot of things.

The post of mine that resurrected this outrage at me was a response to those who saw such meaning in his using a book owned by Jefferson. All my inquiries along thiose lines have been ignored. I can ask it again, I guess I can just point you to my post #519.

“What difference does that it was Jefferson’s book make?” Absolutely none. As you say, Jefferson could have “The Very Hungry Caterpillar” and that wouldn’t make it a text he believed in or respected.

What it does do, however, is make people think “Hey, why did Jefferson have a Koran? He was a strict Christian, as all the founding fathers were”, and so prompt them to actually learn about the FF’s beliefs. Is it a sign that Jefferson wasn’t a Christian? No, not in and of itself. But it provides reason to evaluate his beliefs, and that’s a pretty good signal to send.