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

The BBQ Pit
621

[QUOTE=magellan01]
I’m not telling them anything of the sort. What is wrong with having everyone swear on the bible?
[/quote]

Have you not read the last twelve pages?

  1. It is in direct violation of the Constitution.
  2. It is an insult to the person taking the oath.
  3. It is an insult to the book the oath is being taken on.
  4. It is socially divisive.

No, I don’t think that it would be okay. It would be better than what you’re proposing, in that it would avoid items two through four on my list above, but I’m pretty sure it would still be unconstitutional. Because, as you keep forgetting, we’re not talking about the actual oath of office, which is taken from all congresspeople at once and uses no text at all. We’re talking about an after-the-fact photo opportunity. In effect, you’re asking if we should craft a law dictating what sort of oaths members of congress can swear on their own time. I have trouble seeing how we could get a law like that past the first ammendment.

Yes, absolutely. It makes a country in which everyone is treated the same, and no faith is given special status or recognition by the government, as required by the first ammendment. Requiring people to swear on the Bible would be incredibly divisive. You may insist that it’s not insulting or objectionable, but I suspect you’d have a very hard time finding non-Christian congressmen who would agree.

No, I cannot imagine a situation in which the choice of book for a photo op would influence my vote. I probably wouldn’t vote for someone swearing on The Book of Magellan because he would have campaigned on issues that I don’t agree with. But that would be determined during the normal campaign/election process. Similarly, a candidate who planned to swear on Mein Kampf, or The Communist Manifesto, or the Left Behind series, would certainly have had their inclinations in those directions exposed long before election day rolls around. I cannot imagine a scenario in which what book a candidate swears on would tell us anything about that candidate that we did not already know.

Now, let me ask you a question: if you had to choose between a congressman who was a Christian, but a liberal democrat who supported gay marriage, full amnesty for illegal immigrants, and frequently bad-mouthed the troops in Iraq, versus a conservative Muslim who favored civil unions but not marriage, deportation of all illegals and hefty sanctions against companies who employed them, and had nothing but praise for our guys on the ground in the Middle East, who would you vote for?

And, once again, your stated goal is directly contradicted by your preferred course of action.

Sorry, we’re re-writing history? You’re the one who wants to invent new traditions when it is politically expedient for you to do so. You’re the one who wants to ignore centuries of legal precedent, and the explicit desires of the founders of this country, in how you interpret the first ammendment. You’re the one who wants to ignore the explicit tradition behind using a holy book as an oath in pursuit of some imaginary sense of national unity that excludes any American not sufficiently like yourself. What you’re calling for is a drastic, destructive, and incredibly fool-hardy change to how this nation is run. Which, as you say, is your right. But let’s not pretend that you’re supporting the ancient instituions of this country, okay? You’re trying to tear them down.

Do you think that Ellison is a violent, anti-Western Muslim who favors Sharia law? No? Then what does the existence of these violent, anti-Western, Sharia Muslims have to do with his election?

See, you always claim that you’re not bigoted, but what you’ve said right here is the very essence of prejudice. You’ve pre-judged Ellison’s worthiness, not on his political platform, or personal character, or past behavior, but instead on how a select group of his co-religionists behave. This is precisely the same behavior you get hit with in every illegal immigration thread you participate in: you oppose illegal immigration, and called a bigot for it, because some other opponents of illegal immigration, with whom you have absolutely no affiliation, are a pack of racists. I believe you’ve complained about this treatment in the past. So why are you treating Ellison just as unfairly? You don’t see anything remotely hypocritical about that?

Another strawman. One congressman taking a photo op with a Koran is not giving “control” of our nation to the Muslims. Three quarters of the population of this country is Christian, and that demographic is not changing anytime soon. Muslims are not going to take over here. It’s simply not. Going. To happen.

And using France and the Netherlands as examples of why you think you’re right is particularly silly, because those two nations got into their present fix precisely because they followed the sort of policies you advocate. They allowed Muslims to move to their country, but they made it clear that Islam was at best a secondary religion that was not welcomed as part of their culture. Take a good look at those riots they had in France recently, and ask yourself if that’s what you want to happen here. Because that’s precisely the sort of enviroment you are advocating we establish in the United States.

622

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
No, I am not. You are pretending that an artifact that happens to be associated with an inauguration is, somehow, connected to governance.
[/QUOTE]

You’re simply looking at the whole tradition and cleaving away that which you agree with by simply declaring “it is not tradition, it is coincidence” (not your actual words, of course).

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
I have demonstrated no logical fallacy.
[/QUOTE]

You did. You were implying that all rallying behind such a book is based on xenophobia. Here is where you did that:

[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]
You cannot take a characteristic of a subset and than at whim apply it to all contents of the larger set to which it belongs.

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
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.
[/QUOTE]

You inadvertently ( :dubious: ) moved the goal posts here. I never claiimed that the bible was the object of the tradition". (Empahasis mine.) Only that it was part of tradition.

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
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]

There were no protests because the deviations were minor, and they fell within the realm of our common heritage. Using a missal is hardly a deviation in the same degree that using a book from a religion in which millions of adherents claim dictate that they kill Christians. This goes to the heart of the matter. What do people view as their common heritage. As long as something falls reasonably within it it will get almost no notice. If it falls outside it will recive votice and commentary commensurate with the degree that they feel it deviates. That is why I don’t think your previous arguments claiming that the bible may be as much in conflict with the Constitution as the Koran holds water. The bible may very well be a solemn book, but it is also a traditional symbol and part of ceremony, a nod to our beginnings. While the bible has things in it that do not relate to our time (never mind benefit from a less literate interpretation), there is a general unspoken agreement as to which parts we see as inapplicable. We do this without discussion because we share so much. Now when someone chooses to take some idea found in the bible that we ignore and makes it a rallying cry, like Phelps does, it gains our attention we see that his ideas are not our ideas and can dismiss him.

Using a book of law, as J. Q. Adams I think did, does not inject any potentially conflicting philosophy into the debate. It necessarily aligns with the Constitution.

Taking any other book will raise eyebrows. Whether it’s Dianetics, the Koran, or any book someone holds up and says “I feel the need to deviate from tradition because this book is of vital imprtance to me”, because those books are outside our common experience we are right to look at the issue with a critical eye. As I’ve said earlier in this discussion, my extremely limited knowledge of the Koran does not allow me to conclude if and to what degree the ideas in it conflict with the Constitution and the ideals penned in the D of I. I am aware that millions feel the book justifies the killing of non-Muslims. So when someone dispenses with tradition and tells me that this book is so important to him that he is compelled to do so, I am perfectly within my rights to wonder about the degree of that importance. If there is something in that book—any book—that conflicts with the Constitution they have sworn to uphold, which takes precedence. For many people, their faith is the most important thing in their lives, right? Trumping nationality and civic duty in even the most patriotic. Those who seek Conscientious Objector status on religious grounds are proof of that.

And that raises an interesting question. If someone is a true pacifist and believes killing is wrong for any reason, do you think that person is capable of being President? Don’t the duties of the office necessitate that whoever holds the office be williing to wage war if necessary? That he be willing to order a bomb strike in which he is certian people, possibly civilians, will be killed? Would you vote for such a person? Would anyone be wrong for not doing so? Would it be an attack on his religious beliefs and therefore run afoul of The Constitution? Please answer these questions.

623

[QUOTE=rayh]
In 1877, Rutherford B Hayes did not use a bible when being sworn in as President of the United States.
[/QUOTE]

I came across this, which seems to disprove your claim. (emphasis mine)

It doesn’t say he placed his hand on it (or didn’t), but I’d say that kissing it is even more of an aknowledgemnt of the reverence held for it. Just thought you might want to know.

624

Magellan01,

I’m really curious now about one thing: exactly what pleasure are you getting out of being a darned liar?

625

[QUOTE=rayh]
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).

[/QUOTE]

Yipes! Just found this, as well.

Perhaps the confusion arises because he was sworn in twice. Once in NY and once when he got to DC.

And this from that same site:

So although we can conclude with a fair amount of certainty that Roosevelt did not swear on a bible in 1901, we see that he did so previously when sworn in as Governor of NY and later in 1905 for the Presidency. Based on the information I provided regarding McKinnleys assination and the scrambling to find Roosevelt, who returned from a camping trip 12 hours after McKinnley’s death, I feel it reasonable to conclude that his not using a bible in 1901 was nothing more than accident to the circumstances.

I think that Johnson’s use of a missal might have been due to the circumstances, as well. Support for that view is similar to Roosevelt, in that we have him swearing an oath of office both before and after 1963. Both times he used the same bible.

626

Nobody’s “sworn in twice” for the same period of presidential office-holding, friend. The first one is what made him officially president. The so-called second one is, essentially, a photo op.

627

[QUOTE=magellan01]
You’re simply looking at the whole tradition and cleaving away that which you agree with by simply declaring “it is not tradition, it is coincidence” (not your actual words, of course).
[/quote]

How is that different from what you’re doing? At the very least, you’re both looking at a set of actions carried out by a large number of people, and identifying what you think is the imortant part. You accuse tomndebb of “throwing away” the fact that most people have used a Bible. You’re “throwing away” the fact that most of the people who used a Bible, did so because the Bible held immense, personal, religious signifcance for them. Why is focusing on that aspect necessarily more incorrect than focusing on the aspect you think is important?

And if it isn’t more incorrect, if it’s just down to a matter of opinion over what the tradition is here, how can you accuse Ellison of breaking a tradition, when you have no idea if he believes that tradition exists in the first place?

And yet you still want to distrust Ellison because he’s a Muslim.

How do you know there were no protests? At the time of Johnson’s swearing in, anti-Catholic hysteria was not unknown in this country. Early in Kennedy’s campaign, people seriously questioned wether it was possible for a Catholic to overcome this bias in a national election. I would not at all be surprised to learn that there was a Prager-analogue back then who levied exactly the same sort of criticism against Johnson. If I could provide evidence of such protest (if being the operative word; I wouldn’t even know where to look) would you reconsider your argument at all?

Do you think there’s a serious question as to wether Keith Ellison thinks his faith makes it okay to slaughter Americans indiscriminatly? If not, what is the relevance of this paragraph?

Okay.

No, I would not vote for such a person as president. It would not be an attack on his religious beliefs, nor would refusing to vote for a pacifist run afoul of the constitution.

A president cannot be an effective leader if he is categorically unwilling to use our military in any fashion. The president is the Commander in Chief, and a total pacifist president would be unable to fulfill his duties as Commander in Chief, making him unfit for the role of president. Although his pacifism may be derived from his religious principles, refusing to vote for a pacifist is not an attack on his religion. It is a judgement based on the policies he would follow while in office. Many Christians oppose abortion because of their religious beliefs. I would not vote for them, either. Not because they are Christian, but because they are anti-abortion. I’m judging them on policy, not on motivation. I would not have any qualms about voting for a pro-choice Christian, again, because I’m not voting on them based on their religion. I’m voting on them based on their policies. What you are suggesting in this thread is tantamount to refusing to vote for a pro-choice Christian because a bunch of other Christians are pro-life.

All of the above has nothing to do with the Constitution at all. As an individual, you are free to refuse to vote for Ellison for whatever reason you want, wether it’s because he’s too liberal, because you distrust the effect a Muslim congressman will have on the fabric of society, or simply because you hate the dirty sand nigger. The constitution only comes into play when you try to use the law to dictate what choices are available to everyone else. You don’t have to vote for a Muslim if you don’t want to. You can’t prevent Muslims from running for office because you don’t like them. You can bitch and moan all you want about a Muslim swearing an oath on a Koran instead of a Bible. That doesn’t violate the Constitution. When you suggest that we pass a law making it illegal for a Muslim to swear an oath on the Koran, you have violated the first ammendment in about as blatant and undeniable a fashion as I can imagine. The law must remain blind to differences in race, religion, and gender. You, as a person, are free to judge people on those factors as much as you want.

Just remember, though: as you judge, so shall you be judged in turn.

628

[QUOTE=magellan01]
There were no protests because the deviations were minor, and they fell within the realm of our common heritage.
[/QUOTE]
You’re making this up. Where is the commentary that indicates that anyone, anywhere cared what book was used for any ceremony? (The remote possibility of anti-Kennedy/Johnson rhetoric aside because it was certainly not front page news in November, 1963.)

Not really. It is only the coincidental book of worship used at the time. There is no “nod to our [U.S.] beginnings” in using a bible except when someone wants to retroactively make that spurious claim. Have you a citation from someone prior to Prager making a claim that they swore on the bible as a sign that they were looking back to the Declaration of Independence or Constitution? Or is this simply more stuff made up to create an argument out of whole cloth?

A tradition that a lot of people ignored without any one of them ever being censured for it–until you and Prager decided to invent new rules for the “tradition.”

[QUOTE=magellan01]
You did. You were implying that all rallying behind such a book is based on xenophobia. Here is where you did that:
[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]
You cannot take a characteristic of a subset and than at whim apply it to all contents of the larger set to which it belongs.
[/QUOTE]
No. You are inventing things. You have asserted that the bible is some hallmark of the American tradition. I have pointed out that the one actual occasion in American history where the bible has been the focus of a call to common cultural roots was in the instance of one group of Americans violently declaring that the simple act of using a different translation of the same book was sufficient grounds to riot against and murder other Americans who chose to follow their faith. I put forth no “cause,” only an observation of history. Now, if you and Prager continue with your particularly odd campaign, I could certainly see a repetition of such events, but I have made no fallacious claim that the one necessarily leads to the other.

At a time when there are, indeed, xenophobes wandering around muttering imprecations against Muslims, one Muslim chooses to use a photo-op to demonstrate that he is both a devout Muslim and a good citizen and you and Prager have siezed on that action (an action that would probably have gone unremarked outside his own district had Prager not made it a national news item) as some sort of “divisive” action despite the fact that you have had to invent all sorts of reasons not supported by history to rationalize your claims.

I do not claim that using any book leads to xenophobia. I note that rallying around that particular religious book in a secular setting with xenophobic comments (as Prager has done) has already resulted in divisiveness.
You are creating the phenomenon against which you claim to be opposed.

629

Many, many people do NOT buy that argument, including people you seem to want to force to swear on a Bible.
The Bible is historic, religious, and philosophical. A prohibition against religion prohibits its use. The contention that it is more than a religious text doesn’t mean it’s not a religious text. It’s like Magic: The Gathering’s rules about multi-colored cards.

It seems to me that your desire to see all governmental representatives swear on the Bible rests solely on your idea that there is a tradition of swearing on the Bible, rather than the fact that the Bible meant something to the people who chose to swear on it, and to someone for whom the Bible doesn’t mean anything such an act would be less than disingenuous, but rather an insult to themselves and to those people, especially his or her constituents, for whom the Bible does mean something.
I know an 89-word sentence might be difficult for you to understand, but try.

I still haven’t seen a response to these two similiar posts:

630

I think magellan is right on one point: we need to uphold American ideals and values.

Like freedom of religion.

Like a “melting pot” society where people from all parts of the world are welcome to find their niche in a Land of Opportunity (the motto of a U.S. state where Spanish is an official language, BTW).

Like not attempting to impose majority-held values on the minority, but respecting the freedom of the individual to legally do as he chooses.

Those are the American values I was raised with. In the middle of World War II against totalitarian Nazism and Japanese imperialism, the President had this to say:

In the marketplace of free ideas, magellan is privileged to preach his cryptotheocratic antiimmigrant bullshit. But when he dares to call it “American values” he deserves to be called liar and hypocrite.

631

[QUOTE=Miller]
As an individual, you are free to refuse to vote for Ellison for whatever reason you want, wether it’s because he’s too liberal, because you distrust the effect a Muslim congressman will have on the fabric of society, or simply because you hate the dirty sand nigger.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, magellan01 is not free to vote against Keith Ellison (nor to vote for him) because he doesn’t live in Minnesota CD-5.

Those of us who do live there already voted to elect him, both in a primary & the general election.
And when we voted for him, we did know that he was a liberal, a Muslim and a ‘nigger’ (an actual one, not a ‘sand nigger’.) We did not find any of those to be reasons to refuse to vote for Keith Ellison.

We voted for him in part because of his record in the State Legislature. When his term ends in 2 years, I expect we’ll vote for (or against) re-electing him based mainly on his record in Congress. Because these other things won’t have changed – it’s likely he will still be a liberal, a Muslim, and a ‘nigger’ in 2008. And they still won’t matter to us voters in Minnesota CD-5 near as much as his performance in the job.

632

Sorry I didn’t get to this before you posted another long rebuttal. I’ll address them both in this one post. I would first like to say that these two posts of yours I think are excellent and have given me more pause than any others. Thank you for the amount of thought you put into them.

[QUOTE=Miller]
Have you not read the last twelve pages?

  1. It is in direct violation of the Constitution.
  2. It is an insult to the person taking the oath.
  3. It is an insult to the book the oath is being taken on.
  4. It is socially divisive.
    [/QUOTE]

But you piss me off a little right here. You know damn well I’ve read the last twelve pages. Your question is just a veiled translation of “Duh, how could you be so dense?” You are not usually guilty of this hubris. But let’s move on.

  1. Not if you view it as a document tied to the founding.
  2. Ditto.
  3. Ditto
  4. I’d say it’s less divisive than allowing people to swear on the Koran, Dianetics, etc. If we took a poll, which course do you think the American people would choose?

[QUOTE=Miller]
No, I don’t think that it would be okay. It would be better than what you’re proposing, in that it would avoid items two through four on my list above, but I’m pretty sure it would still be unconstitutional. Because, as you keep forgetting, we’re not talking about the actual oath of office, which is taken from all congresspeople at once and uses no text at all. We’re talking about an after-the-fact photo opportunity. In effect, you’re asking if we should craft a law dictating what sort of oaths members of congress can swear on their own time. I have trouble seeing how we could get a law like that past the first ammendment.
[/QUOTE]

If the document was a secular one (I actually meant to type The Constitution) I don’t think there would be a first ammendment issue. Yes, we have been talking about an additional, optional oath of office. I also think posters constantly referring to just a “photo op” is an attempt to strip it of the significance that it has. But the fact that it is voluntary is important. Ellison chose to make it an issue. He chose to inject the Koran into his secular duties. As has been pointed out, he had already fulfilled the oath requirement. He then actively and deliberately—knowing it was an issue—tried to shove the Koran down our throats. Those are his voluntary actions in the public arena. It has nothing to do with the requirements of his faith. Like I said, part of me want’s to tell him to go fuck himself. Part of me wants to thank him.

[QUOTE=Miller]
Yes, absolutely. It makes a country in which everyone is treated the same, and no faith is given special status or recognition by the government, as required by the first ammendment. Requiring people to swear on the Bible would be incredibly divisive. You may insist that it’s not insulting or objectionable, but I suspect you’d have a very hard time finding non-Christian congressmen who would agree.
[/QUOTE]

I can join you here. And I think this to be the most likely course. But would you agree that we should be made aware of the book that will be used in a “photo op” before the election? After all, what would tell us more about what a candidates holds to be important more than THE ONE book they choose to swear an oath upon?

[QUOTE=Miller]
I cannot imagine a scenario in which what book a candidate swears on would tell us anything about that candidate that we did not already know.
[/QUOTE]

Stop being so damn real-world practical, Miller. Now imagine this: envision a very small district, perhaps in the boonies of Washington State or Wisconsin. The issues on the table are very few: logging rights, social security, the war, welfare, and eminent domain. Let’s say that not a lot separates the candidates, let’s make it easier and say it’s a primary. They’re both Christians, they’re both white males, they’re both veterans, etc, the only real difference is nuance on some of the 2 or 3 of the issues. Let’s say you pick candidate A, then candidate A has his photo op and what book is he swearing on? Some book by Fred Phelps. Wouldn’t you have wanted to know that before hand? as a voter, didn’t you have the right to know?

[QUOTE=Miller]
Now, let me ask you a question: if you had to choose between a congressman who was a Christian, but a liberal democrat who supported gay marriage, full amnesty for illegal immigrants, and frequently bad-mouthed the troops in Iraq, versus a conservative Muslim who favored civil unions but not marriage, deportation of all illegals and hefty sanctions against companies who employed them, and had nothing but praise for our guys on the ground in the Middle East, who would you vote for?
[/QUOTE]

Easy. The smarter one, the Muslim. :smiley: I’m not of the mind that Muslims or anyone else should be banned from holding office. I do think that the violence tied to the religion—in present time—recommends we be wary.

[QUOTE=Miller]
Sorry, we’re re-writing history? You’re the one who wants to invent new traditions when it is politically expedient for you to do so. You’re the one who wants to ignore centuries of legal precedent, and the explicit desires of the founders of this country, in how you interpret the first ammendment.
[/QUOTE]

I think it is unfair to imply that you know better than I or anyone else what the founders’ desires were. Their desire that we attempt to glean from writings over 200 years ago requires a much larger leap of faith then understanding a legal decision. I think a legitimate debate can be had over what the founders intended. What judges intended is clearer. And we are free to disagree with any decision.

[QUOTE=Miller]
You’re the one who wants to ignore the explicit tradition behind using a holy book as an oath in pursuit of some imaginary sense of national unity that excludes any American not sufficiently like yourself. What you’re calling for is a drastic, destructive, and incredibly fool-hardy change to how this nation is run. Which, as you say, is your right. But let’s not pretend that you’re supporting the ancient instituions of this country, okay? You’re trying to tear them down.
[/QUOTE]

Well, we disagree once again. I understand your point, but I think that injecting the Koran into the government (to the limited degree it was in this case) is a much greater change. The fact is that if Ellison didn’t do it we wouldn’t be having this debate. If you’d like to think that I’m the only one upset about this, you’re wrong.

[QUOTE=Miller]
Do you think that Ellison is a violent, anti-Western Muslim who favors Sharia law? No? Then what does the existence of these violent, anti-Western, Sharia Muslims have to do with his election?
[/QUOTE]

I don’t know anything about Ellison, He appears not to be violent. The degree to which he follows the words in the Koran I have no idea about. The degree to which he thinks U.S. law should move closer to Sharia is also unknown to me. What I can judge is his specific action with the Koran. I think he made an error. I was more accepting of him before he did this. I assumed that he was an American that happened to be Muslim. Now, I think he thinks of himself as a Muslim first. And if that is the case, how will he handle issues where he views the Constitution in being in conflict with the Koran.

Now, as a voter, should I be expected to become an authority on Islam and the Koran before casting my vote? Or Hinduism? Or Scientology? Or any book a candidate may dream up? And if I am expected to do some work, am I not entitled to have time to look into the matter?

[QUOTE=Miller]
See, you always claim that you’re not bigoted, but what you’ve said right here is the very essence of prejudice. You’ve pre-judged Ellison’s worthiness, not on his political platform, or personal character, or past behavior, but instead on how a select group of his co-religionists behave.
[/QUOTE]

No. I am judging an action he took, something he did of his own volition. The fact that millions of adherents to Islam have expressed in words and deeds their desire to kill Americans, and America is something I take into consideration, as well. Which seems wise.

[QUOTE=Miller]
This is precisely the same behavior you get hit with in every illegal immigration thread you participate in: you oppose illegal immigration, and called a bigot for it, because some other opponents of illegal immigration, with whom you have absolutely no affiliation, are a pack of racists. I believe you’ve complained about this treatment in the past. So why are you treating Ellison just as unfairly? You don’t see anything remotely hypocritical about that?
[/QUOTE]

Not quite. I rail against the idots in those threads on two counts. One, I repeatedly ask them to show what, specifically, makes me or others a racist. Two, I slap their stupidity and bias that claims or implies that all arguments against illegal immigration are racist. This is not to say that everyone arguing with me in those threads is guilty of this.

I think the example you raise is not perfectly analogous because I do judge Ellison on his action. On the issue of his swearing on the Koran, I am evaluating him on a choice that he took of his own volition.I admit that I am wary about the whole Muslim thing, but given the situation with many Muslims around the world plotting against Christians, that seems sensible.

[QUOTE=Miller]
Another strawman. One congressman taking a photo op with a Koran is not giving “control” of our nation to the Muslims. Three quarters of the population of this country is Christian, and that demographic is not changing anytime soon. Muslims are not going to take over here. It’s simply not. Going. To happen.
[/QUOTE]

A vote in congress is a degree of control. How many votes are there to be in congrees before you deem my concern justified. As long as it’s under 218 should I remain unconcerned? How many religious fundamentalists would you like to see in congress? As long as it is a minority are you supposed to be fine with it?

[QUOTE=Miller]
And using France and the Netherlands as examples of why you think you’re right is particularly silly, because those two nations got into their present fix precisely because they followed the sort of policies you advocate.
[/QUOTE]

The situation in those countries can hardly be summed up in the tight little package you wrapped. I would say that a large part of the reason things got the way they did was too much immigration too fast, not allowing time for assimilation. But I suggest we leave this for another debate.

[QUOTE=Miller]
How is that different from what you’re doing? At the very least, you’re both looking at a set of actions carried out by a large number of people, and identifying what you think is the imortant part. You accuse tomndebb of “throwing away” the fact that most people have used a Bible. You’re “throwing away” the fact that most of the people who used a Bible, did so because the Bible held immense, personal, religious signifcance for them. Why is focusing on that aspect necessarily more incorrect than focusing on the aspect you think is important?
[/QUOTE]

He takes an additional step. He ascribes motivation. I don’t think he can speak to the degree that each swearer used the bible because of personal religious conviction as opposed to tradition and a nod to history.

[QUOTE=Miller]
And if it isn’t more incorrect, if it’s just down to a matter of opinion over what the tradition is here, how can you accuse Ellison of breaking a tradition, when you have no idea if he believes that tradition exists in the first place?
[/QUOTE]

This is a good point. But if was unaware of it initially, he was made aware of it after it first came up.

[QUOTE=Miller]
And yet you still want to distrust Ellison because he’s a Muslim.
[/QUOTE]

Another good point. And the logic in it is why I have not assumed and do not assume him to be a terrorist. But given the world we live in and the recent actions and statements of some Muslims regarding Americans/Christians/non-Muslims, a degree of vigilance seems merited.

Do you disagree with that? If so, we are living in different universes.

[QUOTE=Miller]
How do you know there were no protests? At the time of Johnson’s swearing in, anti-Catholic hysteria was not unknown in this country. Early in Kennedy’s campaign, people seriously questioned wether it was possible for a Catholic to overcome this bias in a national election. I would not at all be surprised to learn that there was a Prager-analogue back then who levied exactly the same sort of criticism against Johnson. If I could provide evidence of such protest (if being the operative word; I wouldn’t even know where to look) would you reconsider your argument at all?
[/QUOTE]

Actually, I’d be surprised. Kennedy was well-liked, and his assination brought people even closer to his Presidency. Johnson’s action was probably either viewed as a tasteful nod to Kennedy or the unfortunate circumstances of having to be sworn in in the conference room of Air Force One.

[QUOTE=Miller]
No, I would not vote for such a person as president. It would not be an attack on his religious beliefs, nor would refusing to vote for a pacifist run afoul of the constitution.

A president cannot be an effective leader if he is categorically unwilling to use our military in any fashion. The president is the Commander in Chief, and a total pacifist president would be unable to fulfill his duties as Commander in Chief, making him unfit for the role of president. Although his pacifism may be derived from his religious principles, refusing to vote for a pacifist is not an attack on his religion. It is a judgement based on the policies he would follow while in office. Many Christians oppose abortion because of their religious beliefs. I would not vote for them, either. Not because they are Christian, but because they are anti-abortion. I’m judging them on policy, not on motivation. I would not have any qualms about voting for a pro-choice Christian, again, because I’m not voting on them based on their religion. I’m voting on them based on their policies. What you are suggesting in this thread is tantamount to refusing to vote for a pro-choice Christian because a bunch of other Christians are pro-life.
[/QUOTE]

But your leaving out that in my example the pacifist position was mandated by religious beliefs. Perhaps I wasn’t clear. To clarify, based on what you’ve stated above, is it safe to say that you could never vote for a strict Quaker or Menonite? (Strict = complete pacifism dictated by the religion.)

[QUOTE=Miller]
All of the above has nothing to do with the Constitution at all. As an individual, you are free to refuse to vote for Ellison for whatever reason you want, wether it’s because he’s too liberal, because you distrust the effect a Muslim congressman will have on the fabric of society, or simply because you hate the dirty sand nigger. The constitution only comes into play when you try to use the law to dictate what choices are available to everyone else. You don’t have to vote for a Muslim if you don’t want to. You can’t prevent Muslims from running for office because you don’t like them. You can bitch and moan all you want about a Muslim swearing an oath on a Koran instead of a Bible. That doesn’t violate the Constitution. When you suggest that we pass a law making it illegal for a Muslim to swear an oath on the Koran, you have violated the first ammendment in about as blatant and undeniable a fashion as I can imagine. The law must remain blind to differences in race, religion, and gender. You, as a person, are free to judge people on those factors as much as you want.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah. I don’t think that a law would ever pass. I’ve been exploring here an idea put forth by Prager that I feel was being too quickly pooh-poohed. I do support the intent of such a law: crafting a society that contiues tradition and connects us to the founding ideals of the country, even tangentially or symbolically.

Miller, sorry I haven’t been able to be more available. I’ll let you know in advance that it will be even more difficult for me to reply for most of the week. I will be able to check in a read what how you respond (if you do), as I think you have made some good arguments.
[/QUOTE]

Based on the totality of your points, and those of a few others, I abandon my position that there should be a law mandating one book for oaths. I also agree with you, and others, that given the best interpretation of the facts the idea runs counter to the Constitution. (BUt I do think that is not necessarily the case.)

I do also think that if soemone is going to break with tradition that they should give voters an opportunity to evaluate that decision. Whether they plan to swear on the Bible, the Koran, Atlas Shrugged, A People’s History of the U.S., or a the sheet music for Lennon’s “Imagine” is somethig that voters have a right to know in advance.

Thanks for the serious participation.

633

[QUOTE=Monty]
Nobody’s “sworn in twice” for the same period of presidential office-holding, friend. The first one is what made him officially president. The so-called second one is, essentially, a photo op.
[/QUOTE]

Contact the site I quoted, twit. But just the fact that you felt compelled to post this and stooped to doing so shows what at worthless shithead you are.

And of course someone can swear twice. Watch:

  1. 12:07 AM: I swear on the spirit of my dead dog that Monty is an arrogant little twit who thinks he is much smarter than he actually is.
  2. 12:08 AM: I swear on the spirit of my dead dog that Monty is an arrogant little twit who thinks he is much smarter than he actually is.

See? Same swearing, done twice. But no, not nearly enough.

634

tomndebb,

I fear that you and I are heading into familiar territory. Territory I have neither the desire nor time to revisit. So, I will do us both a favor and bow out of the discussion with you altogether. I may give it another shot in the future. I may not. I will just leave you with soome good news: if you ever decide to grant a concession/admit an error/apologize, the world will not end.

Really.

635

[QUOTE=magellan01]
…if you ever decide to grant a concession/admit an error/apologize, the world will not end.
[/QUOTE]
I concede errors all the time. Of course, I never have to do it when in discussions with you because you faithfully choose the wrong position, rarely supported by facts (that you generally misinterpret), and always skewed by bad logic.

(You also might look into the psychological concept of projection. I am not the one who often tells other posters that their primary problems are ones that I display most blatantly.)

:stuck_out_tongue:

636

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Contact the site I quoted, twit. But just the fact that you felt compelled to post this and stooped to doing so shows what at worthless shithead you are.
[/quote]

Such language. On the other hand, I’m not at all surprised by the incredible level of dishonesty you’ve displayed here.

Too bad that has nothing to do with what I posted, you liar.

637

[QUOTE=magellan01]
And of course someone can swear twice.
[/quote]

And how many times does that officially begin your term as President of the United States of America? The answer, of course, is zero.

Actually, you just made a false oath–twice, if you actually uttered those words.

638

[QUOTE=magellan01]
I would first like to say that these two posts of yours I think are excellent and have given me more pause than any others.
[/quote]
Pause to what? Pause to think? Pause to realize, finally, just how fucking wrong you are? Or pause to formulate a new round of ambiguous weaseling in an attempt to defend the indefensible?

I don’t think I’m the only one with serious doubts on this point.

See again the note from tom about projection.

You’re the one who’s making an issue out of it, you prat. You and Prager and all the rest of the knuckledraggers. Did Ellison climb up onto his desk and wave his Evil Raghead Bible around? Nope. He went quietly about his business. It’s reactionary fuckholes like you who’re leaning out their car windows bullhorning the news and raising a stink. Not Ellison.

Yet. Until you think you can get away with it.

Please explain, in great detail, how exactly the Koran was injected into government by this action.

Morally equivalent to:

“If all them queers just stayed in the closet, we homophobes wouldn’t have to firebomb their bars! It’s their fault!”

“If all them niggers would just quit complaining about Jim Crow laws, we racists wouldn’t have to turn the dogs and firehoses on them! It’s their fault!”

“If all them Jews would get out of banking and finance and stop being so successful in business, we mass-murdering fuckheads wouldn’t have to herd them into camps and turn them into ashes! It’s their own fucking fault we’re mass-murdering fuckheads!”

So fuck you very much.

If? If? That’s how the fucking system works, dipshit. The fact that millions of Americans fail to accept their responsibility under the system does not absolve you of same.

And you’ve had plenty of fucking time to look into the matter. The fact that you haven’t, that instead you’ve chosen to adhere blindly to a reactionary, divisive, hateful position in the face of the efforts of dozens of people to get you to wake the fuck up, is a bright illumination of your position, and says everything about you and nothing about Ellison.

I would like to see none. However, in reality, we have, probably, hundreds in elected federal positions, and hundreds of thousands, if not more, stretching down through the various levels. But they’re Christians, and they are, by any objective standard, absolutely religious fundamentalists. And besides, you still have yet to prove that just because Ellison chose to stick his hand on the Evil Raghead Bible instead of the Good White People Bible, that makes him a fundamentalist.

Just because the Christians have an overpowering presence in government, I’m supposed to be fine with it, because it’s like traditional or some shit?

I don’t know what universe you’re living in, but mine is called Reality. You might try visiting some time. It isn’t all that frightening. If you have more than two brain cells, that is. …Okay, never mind, stay in your own.

We weep for joy.

And our tears dry up.

It’s one thing to defend the right of people to be fearful, stupid, and ignorant. It’s another thing entirely to defend those qualities as positive. And that’s what you’re doing.

639

Y’know, it would be one thing if Ellison has run for office wearing whiteface and pretending to be a conservative Christian, then when he was about to be sworn in yelled, “Psych!” and revealed he was actually a liberal Black Muslim.

Voters have the right to vote against any candidate for any reason, even bigoted reasons. I somehow can’t understand how Magellan thinks there were people in Ellison’s district who voted for him knowing he was a Muslim, but if only they had known he didn’t plan to swear an oath of office on the Bible they would have voted against him. He’s a fucking Muslim! Anybody who didn’t realize he was a Muslim who followed Muslim religious practices is too stupid to listen too.

Sure, Magellan, you’re free to vote against Muslims, and you’re free to argue that everyone else should vote against Muslims. They’ve got furrin ideas, they’re all dangerous terrorists, and we don’t want their kind. Fine. But surely you realize that’s stupid, which is why you won’t explicitly make that argument. But arguing that Muslims, Jews, Hindus and atheists should swear an oath on the Christian holy book is arguing that we are second class citizens.

640

I just like the idea that the auspices of Tradition are more worth protecting than, er, free religious expression and keeping religious tests out of government (not that I agree with magellan’s idea of what is tradition in this case).

I have a theory that when people cite Tradition, they’re trying to wear the mantle of idealism without actually embodying any kind of ideals.** Tradition ** becomes in and of itself the right path, instead of the ideals upon which it is based.