PDA

View Full Version : The Koran replaces the Bible at swearing-in oath



sooner n houston
12/1/2006, 10:03 AM
America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on
By Dennis Prager - Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- my culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison's right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?

Of course, Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either. Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible. Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of "Dianetics" by L. Ron Hubbard.

So why are we allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done -- choose his own most revered book for his oath?

The answer is obvious -- Ellison is a Muslim. And whoever decides these matters, not to mention virtually every editorial page in America, is not going to offend a Muslim. In fact, many of these people argue it will be a good thing because Muslims around the world will see what an open society America is and how much Americans honor Muslims and the Koran.

This argument appeals to all those who believe that one of the greatest goals of America is to be loved by the world, and especially by Muslims because then fewer Muslims will hate us (and therefore fewer will bomb us).

But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible. In fact, the opposite is more likely: Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America.

When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11. It is hard to believe that this is the legacy most Muslim Americans want to bequeath to America. But if it is, it is not only Europe that is in trouble.

jk the sooner fan
12/1/2006, 10:10 AM
i totally disagree, if muslim is his religion, he should be allowed to take the oath on "that bible"

the word in the oath wont change.......just the book under his hand

TUSooner
12/1/2006, 10:10 AM
That's a lot of words to say nothing sensible.
It's "freedom of religion." And besides, the oath taker should decide what gives his oath significance. As long as he swears to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, what's the big deal?

Thye article is just a lame (and superfluous) excuse to stir up indignation at Muslims. The author needs to find a real argument (there are planty) about the dangers of radical Islam, not this inane poofery.
That's all for me!

OklahomaTuba
12/1/2006, 10:15 AM
Yeah, not sure why this is a problem.

PrideTrombone
12/1/2006, 10:19 AM
Wow, I agree with Tuba.

WILBURJIM
12/1/2006, 10:20 AM
Congresspeople should swear their alligence to the Constitution. Eliminate the Bible and the Koran in these ceremonies.

Tear Down This Wall
12/1/2006, 10:25 AM
Yeah, not sure why this is a problem.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/911/images/01810r.jpg

OklahomaTuba
12/1/2006, 10:32 AM
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/911/images/01810r.jpg

Well, we have a freedom of religion here. If he wants to swear by that book, then thats his business IMO.

OklahomaTuba
12/1/2006, 10:33 AM
Congresspeople should swear their alligence to the Constitution. Eliminate the Bible and the Koran in these ceremonies.

No way.

The Constitution, while important, is meaningless compared to The Word.

WILBURJIM
12/1/2006, 10:51 AM
No way.

The Constitution, while important, is meaningless compared to The Word.

A congresspersons duty is to uphold the Constitution, not the Bible. I am not argueing what is a more meaningfull document.


Well, we have a freedom of religion here. If he wants to swear by that book, then thats his business IMO.

Islam is not just a religion, it is a political force. The koran is the total, end all, rule book for muslims, their "Constitution". Muslims cannot be sworn to uphold constitutional laws that are contrary to what is prescribed in the koran. The koran and hadith have specific prescriptions on how to deal with
infidels that go against what is in our Constitution.

skycat
12/1/2006, 10:53 AM
He should swear to whatever he deems is most important. What sense does it make for someone to swear on the Bible, if they think that the Bible is hooey?

I don't care if it's a copy of Dianetics.

Jimminy Crimson
12/1/2006, 11:11 AM
"....so help me Allah."

Doesn't sound right.

OklahomaTuba
12/1/2006, 11:17 AM
Islam is not just a religion, it is a political force. The koran is the total, end all, rule book for muslims, their "Constitution". Muslims cannot be sworn to uphold constitutional laws that are contrary to what is prescribed in the koran. The koran and hadith have specific prescriptions on how to deal with
infidels that go against what is in our Constitution.


All true, however he is simply taking an oath of office, not trying to institute Shari'a law.

OklahomaTuba
12/1/2006, 11:19 AM
I don't care if it's a copy of Dianetics.

Now THAT would be greatness.

Frozen Sooner
12/1/2006, 11:25 AM
Most of you are spot on.

OUstudent4life
12/1/2006, 11:25 AM
Islam is not just a religion, it is a political force.

And Christianity isn't?

IMO, way to go, Congressman.

WILBURJIM
12/1/2006, 11:28 AM
All true, however he is simply taking an oath of office, not trying to institute Shari'a law.
Well, that's because he is wayyyyyyy outnumbered, but every nook and crany of what is good for islam will be Congressman Ellison's main agenda.
Every victory for islam is a defeat for infidel me.

Frozen Sooner
12/1/2006, 11:32 AM
Well, that's because he is wayyyyyyy outnumbered, but every nook and crany of what is good for islam will be Congressman Ellison's main agenda.
Every victory for islam is a defeat for infidel me.

People said the same thing about Catholics.

JohnnyMack
12/1/2006, 11:33 AM
I think he should swear on a copy of D&D 3.5 Monster Manual. But then again, I'm kind of a nerd.

WILBURJIM
12/1/2006, 11:49 AM
People said the same thing about Catholics.
The reality is, there is much difference in what Catholics and muslims believe.
A strict Catholic has no biblical commandments on subjugation of unbelievers that are so prominent in the koran and hadith.

OklahomaTuba
12/1/2006, 11:58 AM
Well, that's because he is wayyyyyyy outnumbered, but every nook and crany of what is good for islam will be Congressman Ellison's main agenda.
Every victory for islam is a defeat for infidel me.

Well, if that happens he will hopefully be quickly defeated.

This is a Christian nation, he can't change that.

Frozen Sooner
12/1/2006, 12:04 PM
The reality is, there is much difference in what Catholics and muslims believe.
A strict Catholic has no biblical commandments on subjugation of unbelievers that are so prominent in the koran and hadith.

The reality is that it's very dangerous to categorize people solely on the basis of their faith and think that people of a particular faith are completely monolithic.

The reality is that whether you think there's nothing in the Bible that justifies subjugation of unbelievers, people have twisted passages to mean exactly that.

The reality is that if the guy truly is bent on "subjugation of unbelievers" then him swearing on the Koran, the Constitution, or a baked Alaska isn't going to make a difference.

1stTimeCaller
12/1/2006, 12:05 PM
I think he should swear on a copy of D&D 3.5 Monster Manual. But then again, I'm kind of a nerd.

and Dean's kind of a rancher

Sooner_Bob
12/1/2006, 12:06 PM
Like taking an oath on any book actually means something these days.



:P

TUSooner
12/1/2006, 12:23 PM
***
The reality is that if the guy truly is bent on "subjugation of unbelievers" then him swearing on the Koran, the Constitution, or a baked Alaska isn't going to make a difference.
mmmm..... baked Alaska!

JohnnyMack
12/1/2006, 12:27 PM
and Dean's kind of a rancher

And you can kind of suck it! :rcmad:

1stTimeCaller
12/1/2006, 12:42 PM
:les: JUST THE TIP!

crawfish
12/1/2006, 01:13 PM
I think he should swear on a copy of D&D 3.5 Monster Manual. But then again, I'm kind of a nerd.

I could not possibly take that seriously. The Dungeon Master's Guide, however...

Frozen Sooner
12/1/2006, 01:19 PM
I could not possibly take that seriously. The Dungeon Master's Guide, however...


Pfft. Player's Handbook pwns the DM Guide.

crawfish
12/1/2006, 01:24 PM
Pfft. Player's Handbook pwns the DM Guide.

Your party is going to meet a 2,000HP troll that shoots 10d20 fireballs out of his eyes each turn and enjoys raping paladins. :mad:

Frozen Sooner
12/1/2006, 01:28 PM
Your party is going to meet a 2,000HP troll that shoots 10d20 fireballs out of his eyes each turn and enjoys raping paladins. :mad:

Oh, yeah? Well, my illusionist is going to die ALL OVER your troll.

GrapevineSooner
12/1/2006, 01:32 PM
I'd say Dennis Prager is an idiot for saying the things he did.

But I think everyone else has already echoed those sentiments in this thread.

Mixer!
12/1/2006, 01:36 PM
http://www.elite-sex-sites.com/sites/gay-super-hero/gallery-2/02.jpg

crawfish
12/1/2006, 01:37 PM
Oh, yeah? Well, my illusionist is going to die ALL OVER your troll.

Or is he?......

NormanPride
12/1/2006, 01:41 PM
Actually, considering he's going to be "working" in congress, the monster manual is very fitting...

Ike
12/1/2006, 02:04 PM
Dude should swear upon whatever it is he considers holy and worthy of swearing upon. I'd actually be more afeared of him if he swore on the Bible, because that would mean, in his mind, his oath meant nothing to him.

Ike
12/1/2006, 02:06 PM
Actually, considering he's going to be "working" in congress, the monster manual is very fitting...
I, II or III? Or do you bind them all up with duct tape?

Frozen Sooner
12/1/2006, 02:06 PM
I don't think that's necessarily the case.

I don't consider any book to be holy, but I consider any oath I swear to be binding whether I was holding a book or not.

85Sooner
12/1/2006, 02:12 PM
A congresspersons duty is to uphold the Constitution, not the Bible. I am not argueing what is a more meaningfull document.



Islam is not just a religion, it is a political force. The koran is the total, end all, rule book for muslims, their "Constitution". Muslims cannot be sworn to uphold constitutional laws that are contrary to what is prescribed in the koran. The koran and hadith have specific prescriptions on how to deal with
infidels that go against what is in our Constitution.


Next thing you konw they willhave to adjorn congress 5 times a day so he can go pray. I don't know the answer, heck alot of them swear on the bible and then do everything contrary to what the bible states. Go figure.

85Sooner
12/1/2006, 02:14 PM
I'd say Dennis Prager is an idiot for saying the things he did.

But I think everyone else has already echoed those sentiments in this thread.


I don't think he is an idiot . It is a complex question. Pragers column is intended to spurn thought and discussion which is what it has done.

OKLA21FAN
12/1/2006, 02:16 PM
just a FYI,
a bible (or any other book) is not required for taking any oath of office. (as adding the words 'so help me God' is not required

this is proabably a good thing, as the many different types of Christain religions have trouble agreeing on an over all Christrain doctrine in the first place.

olevetonahill
12/1/2006, 03:24 PM
If I ever get elected Im gonna swear in using a "Hustler Magazine " :D

Frozen Sooner
12/1/2006, 03:25 PM
Well you've got MY vote.

Scott D
12/1/2006, 04:47 PM
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/911/images/01810r.jpg

I'll counter that with a
http://www.rosssheriff.com/ElamChurchFire.jpg

You can stop your crusade of broad stroke finger painting anytime.

PhilTLL
12/1/2006, 05:12 PM
I don't think he is an idiot . It is a complex question. Pragers column is intended to spurn thought and discussion which is what it has done.

No, it's a question that shouldn't even give people pause save for "Why do we swear to uphold the Constitution on any paper other than the Constitution?", except that the particular book and religion in question happen to be the target of a subconscious national smear campaign - deserved or not, which in some ways it is, but in this is a frenzied, reactionary response.

Prager's response starts out xenophobic and hyperbolic - "He should not be allowed to do so not because of any American hostility to the Koran (a lie by justification), but because the act undermines American civilization" - which seems to me as ridiculous as people whose religious faith is so fragile it can be broken by not hearing "Merry Christmas" at Target, or seeing the Ten Commandments on the front lawn of the county courthouse;

goes all faulty-analogy and reductio-ad-Hitlerum: "Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath?" - not to mention the fact that many a racist, passive or otherwise, have been in Congress;

and roars by factually-incorrect and demagoguery on the way to the finish line, with a nice dash of bad-joke-talking-points mixed in. ("Liberals worship the NYT editorial page!!!")

If he's really serious about maintaining the fabric of our civilization, he should request that no one swear to uphold the Constitution on anything but itself, or that we start electing officials we know better than by their right hand and scripted words.

Keith Ellison, who was elected from that dangerous radical hotbed of Minnesota, has an uphill battle to fight, the nature of which was made clear by Glenn Beck just a week after the election with his idiotic "Sir, prove to me that you're not working with our enemies" bit.

Vaevictis
12/1/2006, 05:23 PM
Congresspeople should swear their alligence to the Constitution. Eliminate the Bible and the Koran in these ceremonies.

They do swear their allegiance to the Constitution.

"I, Loyal Citizen of the Republic, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

They just often do it such that the Bible (presumably something important to the oath-taker) bears witness.

The idiot who wrote the article fails to take one thing into account: Presuming that the man is a true and devout Muslim, you WANT him to take the vow on the Koran. No true and devout Muslim would take an oath on the Koran if he had shenanigans in mind, any more than a true and devout Christian would take an oath on the Bible with shenangians in mind.

My attitude is swear it on or by anything you wish, but if you do swear it on or by something, make sure it's something you would go to great lengths to avoid betraying.

Fugue
12/1/2006, 05:26 PM
They do swear their allegiance to the Constitution.

"I, Loyal Citizen of the Republic, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

They just often do it such that the Bible (presumably something important to the oath-taker) bears witness.

The idiot who wrote the article fails to take one thing into account: Presuming that the man is a true and devout Muslim, you WANT him to take the vow on the Koran. No true and devout Muslim would take an oath on the Koran if he had shenanigans in mind, any more than a true and devout Christian would take an oath on the Bible with shenangians in mind.

My attitude is swear it on or by anything you wish, but if you do swear it on or by something, make sure it's something you would go to great lengths to avoid betraying.

bewbs?

Ike
12/1/2006, 05:39 PM
bewbs?
you'd get my vote.


I wonder if they would have to be clothed?

Jerk
12/1/2006, 05:39 PM
No, it's a question that shouldn't even give people pause save for "Why do we swear to uphold the Constitution on any paper other than the Constitution?", except that the particular book and religion in question happen to be the target of a subconscious national smear campaign - deserved or not, which in some ways it is, but in this is a frenzied, reactionary response.

Prager's response starts out xenophobic and hyperbolic - "He should not be allowed to do so not because of any American hostility to the Koran (a lie by justification), but because the act undermines American civilization" - which seems to me as ridiculous as people whose religious faith is so fragile it can be broken by not hearing "Merry Christmas" at Target, or seeing the Ten Commandments on the front lawn of the county courthouse;

goes all faulty-analogy and reductio-ad-Hitlerum: "Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath?" - not to mention the fact that many a racist, passive or otherwise, have been in Congress;

and roars by factually-incorrect and demagoguery on the way to the finish line, with a nice dash of bad-joke-talking-points mixed in. ("Liberals worship the NYT editorial page!!!")

If he's really serious about maintaining the fabric of our civilization, he should request that no one swear to uphold the Constitution on anything but itself, or that we start electing officials we know better than by their right hand and scripted words.

Keith Ellison, who was elected from that dangerous radical hotbed of Minnesota, has an uphill battle to fight, the nature of which was made clear by Glenn Beck just a week after the election with his idiotic "Sir, prove to me that you're not working with our enemies" bit.

That's all nice and dandy but -

First of all, I'm with the crowd here who says "who cares?" It's one congressman out of 400 and something. But let's at least find a federal judge who happens to be Jewish to swear the guy in and see how his tolerance and compassion for others is.

I think Glenn Beck says stuff like that because there is a noticable silence from the Muslim world when it comes to criticizing the Islamic terrorists. Does this guy speak out against his fellow muslims who blow people up in cafes' and fly airplanes into buildings?

I guess I'm your olde old fashion basterd, but I can't help but be suspicious of any Muslim to some degree - whether slight or very - and whether right or wrong - simply because I see the world at war between the West and Islam; a war that will last for decades much like the Cold War. Don't kid yourselves; they want us all dead. I'm in self-preservation mode.

I believe any moderate Muslim who wishes to live among us in peace and hold elected office should be rather out-spoken against the large nefarious wing of their religion. If this congressman is that way....then good! If he's silent, then I can't help but wonder where he stands.

SicEmBaylor
12/1/2006, 05:50 PM
He has the right to swear upon whatever he wants or nothing at all.
The way to solve this problem would have been not to election the guy in the first place.

85Sooner
12/1/2006, 06:00 PM
No, it's a question that shouldn't even give people pause save for "Why do we swear to uphold the Constitution on any paper other than the Constitution?", except that the particular book and religion in question happen to be the target of a subconscious national smear campaign - deserved or not, which in some ways it is, but in this is a frenzied, reactionary response.

Prager's response starts out xenophobic and hyperbolic - "He should not be allowed to do so not because of any American hostility to the Koran (a lie by justification), but because the act undermines American civilization" - which seems to me as ridiculous as people whose religious faith is so fragile it can be broken by not hearing "Merry Christmas" at Target, or seeing the Ten Commandments on the front lawn of the county courthouse;

goes all faulty-analogy and reductio-ad-Hitlerum: "Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath?" - not to mention the fact that many a racist, passive or otherwise, have been in Congress;

and roars by factually-incorrect and demagoguery on the way to the finish line, with a nice dash of bad-joke-talking-points mixed in. ("Liberals worship the NYT editorial page!!!")

If he's really serious about maintaining the fabric of our civilization, he should request that no one swear to uphold the Constitution on anything but itself, or that we start electing officials we know better than by their right hand and scripted words.

Keith Ellison, who was elected from that dangerous radical hotbed of Minnesota, has an uphill battle to fight, the nature of which was made clear by Glenn Beck just a week after the election with his idiotic "Sir, prove to me that you're not working with our enemies" bit.

Didn't even have to look at your age to guess how old you were and I was right. I love al the idealistic philisophical reasoning that comes from the young collegians in our country.


The facts remain that the bible has always been used because swearing upon the bible was thought to be incentive not to bare false witness. To do so would be a sin.

I have not read the Koran, but his point can be taken. Part of the foundation of this country was to have freedom of religion. In other words, they wrote this to prevent the state from imposing and enforcing laws based on relidious belief.

The more and more people have questioned this and the clear propogation of political correctness has rephrased the argument.

Everyone has the right to practice the religion that they so choose within the bounds of their life.
Prager was adhereing to the tradition of past officials back to the declaration of independence. Where do those separate. If they do not separate how would you feel if for some reason alot of (pick a radical group) started being elected and started passsing laws based on those beliefs. What would you do? What would we do? Happened in Germany. What did they do.

The constitution is not a document to be sworn upon. What meaning would that have. The fact is that alot of people in this country (by alot I certainly don't mean the majority) have become separated from spirituality/religion.

This separation has been met with a political correctness live and let live attitude.

This country used to be full of communities where neighbors knew neighbors and life was fairly simple. Now it has become the so called "melting pot" except for two problems, there is not any melting. People come to this country expecting us to accept their culture. Immigration to the US was never about this. Additionally, there have been so many in this country who behaved against the social norms of society and have fought tooth and nail for their ways of life to be accepted. You will have to answer for yourself whether its better or not. We have become a country too concerned about the hedonistic needs of the individual rather than the overall needs of society.

I still think its interesting how much people gravitate from liberal belief systems to conservative belief systems as they get older. Its almost linear.

GrapevineSooner
12/1/2006, 06:02 PM
I don't think he is an idiot . It is a complex question. Pragers column is intended to spurn thought and discussion which is what it has done.

I don't think he's an idiot in general.

His stance on this issue is idiotic, however.

handcrafted
12/1/2006, 06:56 PM
Woo, 85 has got some good points. I expect that most of you wondered when I was going to chime in, and most of you hoped that I would not. :)

The reason that the Bible has been historically sworn upon is that our system of government is based on Christianity and men would understand the solemnity of their vows in crystal clarity if there was a Bible present.

The Constitution, however, does not require any book. It prescribes the oath for President in certain terms, but just mentions that other Federal officers must take "an oath to support the Constitution" but doesn't set forth the wording. The term "oath" presupposes Christianity and the Bible, but no mention is made of placing one's hand on the Bible or any other book. The use of the Bible is a tradition (IMO a good one) but not a requirement. If we the people trust an oath taken by someone not upon the Scriptures but upon some lesser book or no thing, then that is our business.

We will reap the results of that oath, whatever they may be.

JohnnyMack
12/1/2006, 07:31 PM
I'm about to cast Magic Missles on this whole thread.

Mixer!
12/1/2006, 07:34 PM
Swayzebomb?

Frozen Sooner
12/1/2006, 07:44 PM
Can't Swayzebomb in this forum. HTML is turned off here.

More's the pity.

Jerk
12/1/2006, 07:48 PM
http://frenchnavy.free.fr/aircraft/crusader/images/crusader-012.JPG

OKLA21FAN
12/1/2006, 08:15 PM
The facts remain that the bible has always been used because swearing upon the bible was thought to be incentive not to bare false witness. To do so would be a sin.

there were many 'founding fathers' who would disagree with you, and for that reason taking an 'oath' has always been a choice. the other way is an 'affermation'. the Quakers for instance did not believe in taken any type of oaths.

There have also been notable recent U.S. Senators who were Jewish who did not use the Christain Bible in their oath as well (the did however use the jewish bible. T. Roosevelt and Coolidge also did not have a bible present at thier swearing in.

lastly, it should be noted that Biblically speaking, taking oaths in God's name is prohibited as stated in Matthew 5:34-37.

just sayin

Scott D
12/1/2006, 08:26 PM
Didn't even have to look at your age to guess how old you were and I was right. I love al the idealistic philisophical reasoning that comes from the young collegians in our country.


The facts remain that the bible has always been used because swearing upon the bible was thought to be incentive not to bare false witness. To do so would be a sin.

I have not read the Koran, but his point can be taken. Part of the foundation of this country was to have freedom of religion. In other words, they wrote this to prevent the state from imposing and enforcing laws based on relidious belief.

The more and more people have questioned this and the clear propogation of political correctness has rephrased the argument.

Everyone has the right to practice the religion that they so choose within the bounds of their life.
Prager was adhereing to the tradition of past officials back to the declaration of independence. Where do those separate. If they do not separate how would you feel if for some reason alot of (pick a radical group) started being elected and started passsing laws based on those beliefs. What would you do? What would we do? Happened in Germany. What did they do.

The constitution is not a document to be sworn upon. What meaning would that have. The fact is that alot of people in this country (by alot I certainly don't mean the majority) have become separated from spirituality/religion.

This separation has been met with a political correctness live and let live attitude.

This country used to be full of communities where neighbors knew neighbors and life was fairly simple. Now it has become the so called "melting pot" except for two problems, there is not any melting. People come to this country expecting us to accept their culture. Immigration to the US was never about this. Additionally, there have been so many in this country who behaved against the social norms of society and have fought tooth and nail for their ways of life to be accepted. You will have to answer for yourself whether its better or not. We have become a country too concerned about the hedonistic needs of the individual rather than the overall needs of society.

I still think its interesting how much people gravitate from liberal belief systems to conservative belief systems as they get older. Its almost linear.

So what if he'd chosen to take his oath on a copy of the Kama Sutra?

As for the country being too concerned about hedonistic needs. It's more that too many individuals have little more to do than to pry into the lives of others around them that have created an environment that is one of people being overly concerned with the activities of their neighbors.

85Sooner
12/1/2006, 09:05 PM
there were many 'founding fathers' who would disagree with you, and for that reason taking an 'oath' has always been a choice. the other way is an 'affermation'. the Quakers for instance did not believe in taken any type of oaths.

There have also been notiable recent U.S. Senetors who were Jewish who did not use the Christain Bible in their oath as well (the did however use the jewish bible. T. Roosevelt and Coolidge also did not have a bible present at thier swearing in.

lastly, it should be noted that Biblically speaking, taking oaths in God's name is prohibited as stated in Matthew 5:34-37.

just sayin

Actually, i agree with you. I was always taught swearing on the bible was wrong period. I actually believe its a choice for the person being sworn in. However, something that does disturb me regarding the muslims and the koran is that the "good based muslims" seem impotent( okay don't go there) and have not taken a public stand against the jihadists that are currently using their "goodBook" to murder innocents in the name Allah.

Gandalf_The_Grey
12/1/2006, 09:10 PM
Look at all of the crooks on Capitol Hill! It looks like they shouldn't be swearing on anything let alone a Bible or Koran

OhU1
12/1/2006, 09:31 PM
Didn't even have to look at your age to guess how old you were and I was right. I love al the idealistic philisophical reasoning that comes from the young collegians in our country.

I still think its interesting how much people gravitate from liberal belief systems to conservative belief systems as they get older. Its almost linear.

PhilTLL you young fool you! When you grow up you will learn not to question tradition, rituals, and super natural based belief systems. In fact you will insist others believe in them too. That is what being "a conservative" is all about. :rolleyes:

85Sooner
12/1/2006, 09:45 PM
PhilTLL you young fool you! When you grow up you will learn from tradition, rituals, and belief systems. That is what being a "human being" is all about. :rolleyes:

Fixed
Actually you start maturing and will understand the meaning of ritual, tradition and belief systems.:rolleyes:

Frozen Sooner
12/1/2006, 10:42 PM
Actually, i agree with you. I was always taught swearing on the bible was wrong period. I actually believe its a choice for the person being sworn in. However, something that does disturb me regarding the muslims and the koran is that the "good based muslims" seem impotent( okay don't go there) and have not taken a public stand against the jihadists that are currently using their "goodBook" to murder innocents in the name Allah.

Imams condemn violence and terrorism all the time. It doesn't get a whole lot of press, but they do.

handcrafted
12/1/2006, 10:57 PM
there were many 'founding fathers' who would disagree with you, and for that reason taking an 'oath' has always been a choice. the other way is an 'affermation'. the Quakers for instance did not believe in taken any type of oaths.

"Many" is a gross mischaracterization. "A few" is more historically accurate.


lastly, it should be noted that Biblically speaking, taking oaths in God's name is prohibited as stated in Matthew 5:34-37.

just sayin

Just sayin', you're wrong. There is nothing within that passage that says taking an oath in God's name is prohibited. Jesus was referring to the common practice of the day to swear on some material thing which was thought to confer greater trust due to the person swearing. Also, commonly, swearing on something insignificant theoretically allowed the person to disregard the oath if convenient. It was this dishonest practice that Jesus condemned, according to the 9th commandment.

Jesus commanded truthfulness, not "ceremonial oaths". In that regard, I would say that it's more a command not to take oaths lightly, as some do in court proceedings.

The Sermon on the Mount is interesting, in that it parallels the 10 Commandments. Jesus gave warnings against murder (and hate), adultery (and lust), perjury (and dishonest oaths), and covetousness (and withholding goods from the poor). Right in order. Simply put, Jesus preached that the condition of the heart is more indicative of a person's spiritual condition than their keeping the letter of the law.

KaiserSooner
12/1/2006, 11:40 PM
i totally disagree, if muslim is his religion, he should be allowed to take the oath on "that bible"

the word in the oath wont change.......just the book under his hand

Agree.

1hy2hyhyhy
12/2/2006, 02:42 AM
America from the Rock of JC to the the Lies of Humanistic Secularism, worse than physical death, Spiritual, Legalized by the Government, taught in the Public Schools......

X Pres. Legalized Murder, Sexual Immorality, Paganism by throwing out the Bible, for the New Law and Order Book.

Surpeme Court has gone from Truth to Lies

Blank Piece of Paper, Reveals The Truth, Exposes all the Liars and Lies

www.geocities.com/choice4you2002/YHWH1_page.html

Explained
http://truthrevealed.name

All other Political and Religious are Vain or Quicksand.

All others Please Demonstrate with a Blank Piece of Paper!

Jerk
12/2/2006, 08:24 AM
America from the Rock of JC to the the Lies of Humanistic Secularism, worse than physical death, Spiritual, Legalized by the Government, taught in the Public Schools......

X Pres. Legalized Murder, Sexual Immorality, Paganism by throwing out the Bible, for the New Law and Order Book.

Surpeme Court has gone from Truth to Lies

Blank Piece of Paper, Reveals The Truth, Exposes all the Liars and Lies

www.geocities.com/choice4you2002/YHWH1_page.html

Explained
http://truthrevealed.name

All other Political and Religious are Vain or Quicksand.

All others Please Demonstrate with a Blank Piece of Paper!

That's pretty nifty...looks like we all have eternal life no matter what we do.

Do you think God will make people eat from the Tree of Life before casting them into Hell and torturing them forever and ever "for His good pleasure"?

Sam Spade
12/2/2006, 02:33 PM
The oath means nothing unless you keep it. Swear on a stack of poker chips, and if you keep your word, pally, you're swell with me.

There are plenty of Congressmen who swore on that same Bible who are now in jail for breaking their oaths, or who just haven't been caught yet.