[QUOTE=magellan01]
…book that—like it or not—divides this nation more than it unites it.
[/QUOTE]
Howso? How is the Koran divisive? Does the Bible not divide? The sheep from goats and all that?
Show me one example of the Koran being divisive and I will match it with two instance of the Bible being divisive.
Hell, biblical scripture itself is what divides the baptists from the methodists from the jews from the catholics from the presbyterians…
Challenge issued. How is the Koran divisive?
[QUOTE=newcrasher]
Challenge issued. How is the Koran divisive?
[/QUOTE]
To be fair - look at this thread. 
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
To be fair - look at this thread.
[/QUOTE]
Point taken, but I contend it is ignorance, idiocy and bigotry at fault here…
I agree. But even though the opposition are idiotic, that doesn’t mean that no such opposition exists (unfortunetly).
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
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.
[/QUOTE]
I disagree. I see no reason why someone who is devout could have great respect for the bible as something tied to our founding (I think you will grant that it could be viewed that way). The same way he might swear upon The Constitution. The bible is respected by many as a book of phiolosophy, even though it may hold no religous significance for them.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
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?
[/QUOTE]
This is an apt question. The reason the need arises now, as opposed to the past, is that in the past “everyone” used the bible. The posibility of simply affirming has always been there, mainly as an exception for Quakers. (See may earlier point about Washingtonasking people in Westchester to swear allegiance.) Christians, and Quakers, have been a part of the fabric of the country since the beginning. It is our heritage. It is the default.
The more diverse we become as a country the more important those few things that bond us become. If we are to remain one country, we need to share some common things. Now, you and others may not feel that the past is anything worth holding on to; that tradition is sacchrine sentimentality; that because diversity is good and healthy, that the more of it you have the better it is. Again, I disagree. Because of that, I think that we must act now to enshrine some aspects that point to our shared history and act as a common denominator for us all. The sooner we do, the easier and less jolting it will be. The longer we wait the more we will fill the need and the more difficult it will be to do.
There have been many societal experiments in the world over the millenia. I happen to believe that this is the best one yet. I feel lucky to be a part of it. I fell it should be protected. Not so much for me, personally, but for what the idea of it shows the world. I guess there are those who would not agree with my assessment and therefore see no need to want to protect it. We are simply in disagreement.
No while I fully support someone’s right to worship any religion they want on a personal level, I am wary of insinuatiing new ones into the running of this country. I look around the world and see societies that I think do a good job of giviing people good lives. I see those who don’t do so good a job. None does as good a job as we do. To back up from that and provide some niggle room for you and other I’ll say that the vast majority of countries that do a good job are Christian. Japan is I think the best execption. So when someone wants me to embrace another religion as an equal part of the American fabric I have the right to evaluate it. Again, we’re not talking about personal expressions of faith here. The religion of Islam has not shown itself to me to be a building block for society that I would want. Even leaving the Sharia Law aside, from a purely secular, humanistic point of view it has not shown itself to be as good a tool for the type of society I want. Again, we can look to examples around the globe.
If a resident of the planet Pluto arrived on earth and had to choose to bring either Christianity or Islam back to his planet, which would he pick? More to the point, which would you recommend? Now, he having allegiance to neither religion would evaluate them on using the practical criterion of which fosters the healthiest society. To determine that you give him a tour of each country of the world. Would he not choose Christianity? Would you not recommend it? If you would, why do you not recommend we do what we can to make sure that Christianity remains the religion most closely tied to government. This leaves alone the argument as to what degree the religion should be woven into governement and to what degree it would be secular. But if there is a religion, shouldn’t it, from a historical perspective, be the one most closely tied to our founding. Shouldn’t it, from a purely rational level, be the one that has proven itself to build those societies that do the best job of protecting the rights all people are born with and helping them in their pursuit of the life they desire for themselves and their children?
I find it interesting that many posters who usually advocate less religion in governent are advocates of injecting Islam (for now) into it. Tomorrow it will be another religion. Maybe there is a calculation on their part that this will weaken religion and result in a more secular state. They are probably right in the short term. But do they really think that if the balance in the country ever shifted that Islam would make for a more open and free America. If so, I ask them to point to a real world example.
Sorry about the rambliing. But to paraphrase Soroyan, I think, Please forgive the long note, I diodn’t have time to write a shorter one.
24 is on NOW!
[QUOTE=magellan01]
No while I fully support someone’s right to worship any religion they want on a personal level, I am wary of insinuatiing new ones into the running of this country.
[/QUOTE]
This comment, far more than any other you’ve made so far, shows how little comprehension you have of SOCAS.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
The more diverse we become as a country the more important those few things that bond us become. If we are to remain one country, we need to share some common things. Now, you and others may not feel that the past is anything worth holding on to; that tradition is sacchrine sentimentality; that because diversity is good and healthy, that the more of it you have the better it is. Again, I disagree. Because of that, I think that we must act now to enshrine some aspects that point to our shared history and act as a common denominator for us all. The sooner we do, the easier and less jolting it will be. The longer we wait the more we will fill the need and the more difficult it will be to do.
[/quote]
I don’t at all disagree with the first two sentences of this paragraph. The problem is, you’re entire argument in this thread works against the ideas you’ve just stated. We do need to focus on the things that we have in common. We do not all have the Bible in common. Therefore, by focusing on that as the “common factor” for Americans, you are being more divisive. You are excluding people from being American, not including them. This is madness. It’s the most self-destructive thing we could do as a nation. The policy for which you argue works precisely against the goals you claim to target. Can you really not see that? Can you not see that, by criticizing Ellison for using the Koran, you’re telling Muslims that they’re not part of this nation? Is that the message you want to send?
If we didn’t want to protect this nation, we wouldn’t still be here, thirteen pages into this thread. We do, all of us, tomndebb, Monty, myself, everyone who’s been hammering you in this thread: we all want to protect this nation. From you.
You really don’t remotely understand what religious tolerance means, do you? I’m an atheist. I don’t want an atheist government. I don’t want a Christian government. I don’t want a Muslim government. I want a religiously neutral government. I want a government that favors no religious viewpoint, and that is open to people of all religious denominations. The Enlightenment ideals that founded this country tamed Christianity, and they can tame Islam, too. Keith Ellison is a Muslim, which by your lights is a reactionary and violent religion. But he was elected as a democrat, and a fairly liberal one, at that. And let’s face it, it’s going to be a long, long time before you see a Republican Muslim candidate. The Muslim candidates we’ll see in the US are going to be coming from the left side of the political spectrum, and in the larger scene of the war on terror, that’s exactly what we need: prominent, liberal, Muslim politicians. That’s a goddamned role model, right there, showing Muslims that they can work within a democratic, secular system, and still succeed. This is a good thing. This is a vital thing. To argue against this, to criticize this, to say this shouldn’t have happened, displays a short-sightedness that is simply breathtaking.
Why is it that every time someone starts screaming about how we have to enshrine our “common ideals” in order not to balkanize as a country, those “common ideals” are always the ones that the person screaming personally holds? (and of course, this is the point where magellan enters and says he’s an atheist, so I’m wrong…)
[QUOTE=magellan01]
I disagree. I see no reason why someone who is devout could have great respect for the bible as something tied to our founding (I think you will grant that it could be viewed that way). The same way he might swear upon The Constitution. The bible is respected by many as a book of phiolosophy, even though it may hold no religous significance for them.
[/quote]
Anyone with a certain amount of consideration could demonstrate respect for all sorts of things. However, as I noted in earlier posts, the actual tradition was never to demonstrate respect for “the bible.” The actual tradition for 230 years was for each individual to demonstrate respect for the office by pledging their integrity on the book that meant the most to them in the context of the office. Imposing the bible as some sort of shibboleth based on the coincidence of history is a violation of the actual tradition. You make exactly this point (while ignoring its significance) in your very next paragraph:
[QUOTE=magellan01]
This is an apt question. The reason the need arises now, as opposed to the past, is that in the past “everyone” used the bible. The posibility of simply affirming has always been there, mainly as an exception for Quakers. (See may earlier point about Washingtonasking people in Westchester to swear allegiance.) Christians, and Quakers, have been a part of the fabric of the country since the beginning. It is our heritage. It is the default.
[/quote]
Which is why Protestants burned neighborhoods and churches of Catholics (murdering some along the way) when they decided theat “their” bible was the only appropriate symbol of national unity. We have already tried that experiment and we have established that it is not unity, but xenophobia, that drives it.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
I find it interesting that many posters who usually advocate less religion in governent are advocates of injecting Islam (for now) into it. Tomorrow it will be another religion. Maybe there is a calculation on their part that this will weaken religion and result in a more secular state. They are probably right in the short term. But do they really think that if the balance in the country ever shifted that Islam would make for a more open and free America. If so, I ask them to point to a real world example.
[/QUOTE]
This is simply a complete distortion of the points against which you are replying. No one–no one–has advocated “injecting Islam” into the government. Islam is here. It has been here for many years. There are over 1.6 million Muslims here, now (using the relatively conservative numbers from the Glenmary Research Center in 2000 rather the specualtive numbers ranging from 4.5 - 6.6 million Muslims taken from other sources). A claim that anyone is trying to “insert Islam” into the government is a strawman that is wholly without foundation. There has been no claim that Islam should even be represented in government, just an assertion that a citizen should not be denied the right to represent his fellow citizens in Congress for having the temerity to decline to disown his beliefs.
Dunno about you guys, but IMO magellan01’s responses in this thread are a textbook example of why it’s taking longer than we thought…
[QUOTE=magellan01]
No while I fully support someone’s right to worship any religion they want on a personal level, I am wary of insinuatiing new ones into the running of this country. I look around the world and see societies that I think do a good job of giviing people good lives. I see those who don’t do so good a job. None does as good a job as we do. To back up from that and provide some niggle room for you and other I’ll say that the vast majority of countries that do a good job are Christian. Japan is I think the best execption. So when someone wants me to embrace another religion as an equal part of the American fabric I have the right to evaluate it. Again, we’re not talking about personal expressions of faith here. The religion of Islam has not shown itself to me to be a building block for society that I would want. Even leaving the Sharia Law aside, from a purely secular, humanistic point of view it has not shown itself to be as good a tool for the type of society I want. Again, we can look to examples around the globe.
[/quote]
In accordance with the Constitution, NO religion should be insinuated into the running of this country. In this country, we don’t just have the right to freedom of religion “on a personal level”–which is the sort of pseudo-freedom many Islamist theocrats claim exists or would exist under Islamic law–we have full and equal rights for all citizens, regardless of their religious convictions, and we have a government which ought to be neutral with respect to religion in order to guarantee that.
I don’t want ANY religion to be “closely tied to government”. The Founding Fathers went to some length to see to it that no religion be “closely tied to government”; after the religious revivalism of the 19th century, and the anti-atheist hysteria (justified by anti-Communism) in the first half of the 20th century, we finally made a good bit of progress twoards establishing that government should in fact uphold the equality and liberty of all citizens, rather than give wink-wink nudge-nudge support for Protestant Christianity while “tolerating” Catholics, Jews, or atheists. (President George Washington in a letter to the congregation of Touro Synagogue, 1790: “All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights.”)
No, I don’t want to inject Islam into the government, but I don’t want to enshrine Christianity in the government either. And yes, as it says in the Federalist Papers:
I see no danger in the forseeable future of Islam coming to dominate a country which is still over three-quarters Christian; I do see (some) danger that, with the country still so overwhelmingly Christian, the Christianists rather than the Islamists will damage our traditions of separation of church and state and religious freedom for all.
[QUOTE=Miller]
I don’t at all disagree with the first two sentences of this paragraph. The problem is, you’re entire argument in this thread works against the ideas you’ve just stated. We do need to focus on the things that we have in common. We do not all have the Bible in common.
[/QUOTE]
You are missing a critical distinction that I am makiing. We DO all have the bible in common—as part of our heritage. That is a fact. THAT is the point. It needn’t have anything to do with one’s personal religious convictions.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Can you not see that, by criticizing Ellison for using the Koran, you’re telling Muslims that they’re not part of this nation? Is that the message you want to send?
[/QUOTE]
I’m not telling them anything of the sort. What is wrong with having everyone swear on the bible? How about the D of I? Would that be okay? No one is allowed to inject ANY book. You swear on the bible as a nod to our shared history and heritage. For those who do not swear on anything in their lives, we offer the choice to simply affirm.
Conversely, we have 435 congressmen swearing on 435 different books. Is that a good idea. Does that make for a more cohesive country? Now, I could even go for this, which is where we’re heading, which is why I think that a candidate should be asked about whether he will do an additional swearing and if he does, on what book.
Let me ask you something, Miller, is there ANY book a person might have great personal allegiance to that would cause you not to vote for them? ANY? Seriously. How about The Book of Magellan01?
[QUOTE=Miller]
If we didn’t want to protect this nation, we wouldn’t still be here, thirteen pages into this thread. We do, all of us, tomndebb, Monty, myself, everyone who’s been hammering you in this thread: we all want to protect this nation. From you.
[/QUOTE]
Fine. And I want to protect the nation from people I feel that are all too willing to allow our heritage and history to wither away as if they were some quaint affectations, not to mention lay the groundwork for Babel.
[QUOTE=Miller]
You really don’t remotely understand what religious tolerance means, do you? I’m an atheist. I don’t want an atheist government. I don’t want a Christian government. I don’t want a Muslim government. I want a religiously neutral government. I want a government that favors no religious viewpoint, and that is open to people of all religious denominations.
[/QUOTE]
That’s fine. But I have some horribly bad news for you. The country you want this from has a Christian heritage. It is part of the fabric of the nation. That’s just the way it is. Now, you can’t change the past, but you want to change the future. And it is your right to work for that change. I disagree with you. As I’ve shared repeatedly on these boards, I practice no religion whatsoever. Yet I don’t want our history to be erased and build the false impression that Christianity has no more to to do with America than Hinduism or Buddhism (a religion/philosophy, by the way, I find quite appealing). So I guess you will work in your direction. I’ll work in mine.
[QUOTE=Miller]
The Enlightenment ideals that founded this country tamed Christianity, and they can tame Islam, too. Keith Ellison is a Muslim, which by your lights is a reactionary and violent religion.
[/QUOTE]
No. Not the entire faith. But there is no arguing that it has an extremely violent, anti-western adherents. And there are places where the majority is Muslim that choose to operate under its Sharia Law. So I do think it is wise to be wary.
[QUOTE=Miller]
That’s a goddamned role model, right there, showing Muslims that they can work within a democratic, secular system, and still succeed. This is a good thing. This is a vital thing. To argue against this, to criticize this, to say this shouldn’t have happened, displays a short-sightedness that is simply breathtaking.
[/QUOTE]
Now this is a good point. I’m glad. At least what I perceive as the wrong road to travel down does have its merits.
But, as I mentioned to tomndebb, on the other side of the equation we have indicators around the world that when Muslims control, we get a society that I—and I would think you—would hope not to live in. While they have been accepted throughout Europe over the years, many countries—even the intolerant Netherlands and France is doubting the wisdom of that openness.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Anyone with a certain amount of consideration could demonstrate respect for all sorts of things. However, as I noted in earlier posts, the actual tradition was never to demonstrate respect for “the bible.”
[/QUOTE]
You may choose to define the tradition this way. To define it so narrowly as to exclude the other is semantics. To say we do not have a tradition tthat pays homage to the bible would be incorrect. A look into our courtrooms, our currency, and the date atop the D of I says we do. These maay be inconvenient facts you will attempt to eject through more semantic work, but they are facts. To then say that this tradition does not extend to the book the 99.9??? of elected officials have sworn upon is quite a stretch, I’d say.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Which is why Protestants burned neighborhoods and churches of Catholics (murdering some along the way) when they decided theat “their” bible was the only appropriate symbol of national unity. We have already tried that experiment and we have established that it is not unity, but xenophobia, that drives it.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, xenophobia can cause such things. But that doesn’t mean that all wariness to all religions are necessarily caused by xenophobia. I’m sure you can identify the logical fallacy demonstrated here.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
This is simply a complete distortion of the points against which you are replying. No one–no one–has advocated “injecting Islam” into the government. Islam is here. It has been here for many years.
[/QUOTE]
You are choosing to ignore the word “government”.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
A claim that anyone is trying to “insert Islam” into the government is a strawman that is wholly without foundation.
[/QUOTE]
You are wrong here. That’s exactly what Ellison did. A congressmen swore an oath of office for a U.S. congressional district on the Koran. Tell me, how many other elected congressmen have sworn upon the Koran? He was already a congressman after he swore in the chamber. He then chose, after it had become an issue, to formally inject it. I’d say “fuck him”, but I actually think he did us a favor. So, as I said, I am somewhat elated about this when I look at the big picture.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Conversely, we have 435 congressmen swearing on 435 different books. Is that a good idea. Does that make for a more cohesive country? Now, I could even go for this, which is where we’re heading, which is why I think that a candidate should be asked about whether he will do an additional swearing and if he does, on what book.
[/QUOTE]
The congressmen do not swear on any book at their inaugurations. The books are only used for the photo op for the folks in their own districts.
Further, no one had any idea what books the congresscritters were (not) using until Mr. Ellison was hailed out to be excoriated for his choice. (So much for the “cohesion” of using one book or another.) Given the hatred and xenophobia currently demonstrated against Muslims in this country, his original intent was probably the fairly innocuous one of showing his constituents that the Muslims in their midst can be good citizens. Prager turned that upside down with his false claim that the swearing-in had the bible as its focal point and that Ellison should be ashamed to break a “tradition” that Prager falsely invented for the occasion.
If you would like to see cohesion, I suggest that we get the representatives and senators to actually uphold their oaths of office and stop trying to divide the country by writing unconstitutional laws that elevate the Christian God over other beliefs or inserting God into loyalty oaths, mottoes, and the currency.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
The congressmen do not swear on any book at their inaugurations. The books are only used for the photo op for the folks in their own districts.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I know. I’ve said so countless times. I was merely painting a picture with great contrast.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
If you would like to see cohesion, I suggest that we get the representatives and senators to actually uphold their oaths of office and stop trying to divide the country by writing unconstitutional laws that elevate the Christian God over other beliefs or inserting God into loyalty oaths, mottoes, and the currency.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, at least now I know where you’re coming from. We may simply have to agree to disagre on this. On many levels, including “unconstitutional” and yes, the interpretation of the Establishment Clause.
[QUOTE=MEBuckner]
In accordance with the Constitution, NO religion should be insinuated into the running of this country.
[/QUOTE]
We simply disagree on the interrpretation of the Establishment Clause. I’ve been through it in threads before and don’t have the energy to go explore what would be a lengthy hijack.
[QUOTE=MEBuckner]
In this country, we don’t just have the right to freedom of religion “on a personal level”–which is the sort of pseudo-freedom many Islamist theocrats claim exists or would exist under Islamic law–we have full and equal rights for all citizens, regardless of their religious convictions, …
[/QUOTE]
The two parts of this sentence (my emphasis) say the same thing, which I don’t think was your intent. There both talking about individual rights. Care to rephrase?
[QUOTE=MEBuckner]
The Founding Fathers went to some length to see to it that no religion be “closely tied to government”;…
[/QUOTE]
What great lengths would that be? Please be specific.
[QUOTE=MEBuckner]
No, I don’t want to inject Islam into the government, but I don’t want to enshrine Christianity in the government either.
[/QUOTE]
Well, we may somewhat agree here. I don’t want to inject any religion (as Ellison did) into governement. But I also do not want to strip our government, or our country, of its factual heritage.
[QUOTE=MEBuckner]
I see no danger in the forseeable future of Islam coming to dominate a country which is still over three-quarters Christian; I do see (some) danger that, with the country still so overwhelmingly Christian, the Christianists rather than the Islamists will damage our traditions of separation of church and state and religious freedom for all.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, I agree with the first part. But by taking some minor steps now we can be done with it. If we tried to act if and when that might realistically happen, it owuld be extremely difficult, if not impossible.
Think of it as a pre-emptive strike. 
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Tell me, how many other elected congressmen have sworn upon the Koran?
[/QUOTE]
None. Of course, that’s because Ellison is the first Muslim congressmember. Ever.
I still say this “tradition” thing is bullhockey. Historical accident dictated that our shared national heritage in the last 220-odd years has been predominantly informed by Christianity. To blindly bull our way forward dragging that historical accident on our shoulders in some sort of desperate attempt to force cohesion in the old model is a tragic mistake that I really hope we are able to prevent from happening.
No, I am not. You are pretending that an artifact that happens to be associated with an inauguration is, somehow, connected to governance.
Regardless what book is used, the oath has no bearing on the laws passed or enforced. THAT is the government. Ellison inserted NOTHING into the government. That he is a member of the government does not make his use of a Qur’an an insertion of Islam into the government unless you are also going to claim that all the other congresscritters are “inserting” Christianity into the government in violation of the Constitution. If that is true, then you are actually insisting on a religious test for office–in direct violation of the Constitution.
I have demonstrated no logical fallacy. I have provided evidence that we have already used the selection of a particular book as a focal point around which to rally xenophobia–just as Prager is doing. There is no difference between saying that only people with good American values* use the bible and saying only people with good American values use the King James Version of the bible.
Piffle. To pretend that the bible was the object of the tradition when we have ample evidence that other members of the government have been sworn in over many years, using books other than the bible while raising no objection from the populace, is to retroactively create a precedent where no precedent existed. If the “tradition” clearly invoked the bible, where are the myriad protests against all the earlier persons who used books other than the bible? Clearly the tradition was that of using a meaningful book, not explicitly using the bible, and to define the issue as a tradition of “the bible” in opposition to the evidence is not semantics but horribly flawed rhetoric.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
You are wrong here. That’s exactly what Ellison did. A congressmen swore an oath of office for a U.S. congressional district on the Koran.
[/quote]
That is false. Ellison swore no congressional oath whatsoever on the Qur’an or any other sacred or secular book. He, along with the others elected into Congress uttered the oath of office and that was it as far as oath-taking is concerned for that particular office. The photo-op, on the other hand, did have him using a Qur’an but there was no uttering in the photograph (a photo, of course, being a static item).
Zero. That would be the same number of Congresspersons who swore into office on a Bible.
Do you not realize that you are proving that you do not care about the truth?
Actually, he chose to informally inject it in an informal setting known as a photo-op.
The favor he did us was to show which people understand and appreciate the actual workings of our government and which people don’t. He, without knowing it, has shown us which camp you’re in.
Magellan, let me understand something. What is the purpose of the ceremony in question? Is it to honor the book by involving it in such a lofty ceremony? Or is it to demonstrate the depth of the elected’s commitment by having them place their hand on a book that means so much to them, showing the seriousness withwhich they take their new endevor? Who is being served here? Are they trying to demonstrate the greatness of the book or the greatness of the commitment?
Two people are legally married by filing completely irreligious paperwork, usually down at the courthouse. The vast majority of couples also demonstrate their commitment to each other in a religious cermony. The purpose of the ceremony is not to honor God, but to make their commitment to each other in His presence. It is the couple in essence saying I commit myself to this relationship, and to demonstrate how seriously I take this pledge, I am invoking the name and asking the blessing of God. There are very few instances in a person’s life where they feel they need to invoke the name of God to sufficiently illustrate their commitment.
Would you ask Muslim or Hindu or atheist couples to plege their eternal love for each other on the Bible, since Christianity is the traditional religion of the realm? Or would you want to see them make this serious commitment by bringing in the traditions and ceremonial trappings that will invoke in them the holiness of the pledge they are making?
Also, I am still waiting for you to give examples of the Koran being divisive.