Religious Freedom? Not if you're a Muslim in Congress

[motivez]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

He could swear on a copy of Hustler magazine with that logic. How would that be a negative?

Uh, are you comparing an actual legitimate religious text with a pornographic magazine? What a ridiculous argument

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

How about having some respect for our national institutions? That is all I ask.

I guess the whole 'freedom of religion' thing doesn't matter much unless it's a religion you're comfortable with?

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

I don't want to convert the man to christianity or make him swear on a bible, but there is no right to force his own religious culture into the picture.

Er, and what right do you or anyone else have to force your own religious culture into the picture? He's not asking you to convert to Islam or swear on the Koran.

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Your argument is meant to negate any cultural history in this country under the banner of non judgemental tollerance. Lets just have a big "free for all" on everything.

There's a huge difference between a "big free for all on everything" and respecting the religious beliefs of our citizens and our elected representitives.

In fact, the cultural history of this country is all about freedom, tolerance, etc.. Religious freedom played a rather large role in the creation of this nation, I see no reason why we should seek to do away with it now just because you are uncomfortable.

[motivez]

I don't like the idea of swearing on religious texts in general, and I agree with other posters in the thread that the Constitution would be much more suitable for the job they're going to be performing.

However, as long as we're going to be swearing people in on religious texts, we should allow each individual to swear on their own legitimate religious text. The fact that it's not the Bible shouldn't mean anything because we're not a single religion country here.

We're supposed to welcome religious beliefs of all stripes, and the fact that we have religious diversity in Congress, finally, is IMO a good thing. Now all we need is an Atheist!

I'd think Christian's would be more offended by a Jewish person being sworn in on the Torah. I mean, they killed Jesus and don't believe he's the savior.. at least Muslim's revere him as a prophet and think he's going to come back with Mohammad.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Publius

As I posted on YoungCitizen.com, Representative Ellison is an American citizen and has every right to take his oath on whatever religious book he wants. This sort of bigoted hatred is going too far.

I think people in this country, and in government, should adhere to the American culture. If that includes swearing on the Bible (as has been done for how long now?) then so be it.

Not that people take it seriously anyway...but...

[motivez]

Adhering to "American culture" would require respecting freedom of religion.

Why would you even want someone who doesn't believe in the Bible to swear on it? It only has meaning for people who think it's divinely inspired or some such.

The act of someone swearing on the religious text is to reinforce the importance of the oath they're about to give. If someone gives me a box of Macaroni and Cheese and asks me to swear on oath to something, chances are I'm not going to take it very seriously..

Though, I do love Mac 'n Cheese.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

Adhering to "American culture" would require respecting freedom of religion.

And we do respect his freedom of religion. But our country has used the Bible, not the Koran, when sworn into office. That has everything to do with tradition. Should we go and change our culture because one man disagrees with it? What is culture if it changes everytime someones wants it to?

Why would you even want someone who doesn't believe in the Bible to swear on it? It only has meaning for people who think it's divinely inspired or some such.

I have no doubt they do that already. It probably has more to do with symbolism and culture than true beliefs.

[motivez]

Obviously there's not enough respect for it to allow him to be sworn in on his "Bible.".

Our country has used the Bible because of the prominence of Christians holding office.

And why are there so many Christian elected officials? Because most people in this country claim to be Christian, and thus elected officials generally have to profess belief in God, Jesus, etc.. if they want to be elected.

We can welcome him to the United States Senate and require him to take an oath on a religious text of personal significance without changing anything that's going to drastically change our culture.. that's a straw man argument.

Culture changes every time society dictates that it should, it moves forward and modifies the old ways to work in a better, more progressive, more inclusive manner.. I see no reason this shouldn't be one of those times.

As far as tradition goes, anyone can easily point out some traditions we're not so proud of.. like owning slaves, lynching, denying women the ability to vote, etc..

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

Obviously there's not enough respect for it to allow him to be sworn in on his "Bible.".

On there other hand, obviously he doesn't give enough respect to America, it's founding fathers, and the American culture. Surely we want someone in office who has assimilated to our culture, who wants to be a part of America, and not someone who wants to divide the country with petty issues better reserved for fanatics?

[motivez]

So, let me get this straight.

1. Because he's not a Christian, he doesn't respect America, the founding fathers (who were not all Christians..)?
2. Because he's a Muslim, rather than a Christian, he hasn't been assimilated into our culture (because America = 100% Christians..)?
3. Because he's a Muslim, he doesn't want to be a part of America (Even though he was born here...)?
4. Because he's not Christian, he wants to divide the country (Because he hates America enough to run for public office..)?

+ + +

Get real. America is all about diversity, tolerance, religious freedom. This is a great test for tolerance and I look forward to seeing which public figures pass, and which fail.

Who's really dividing the country here?

It's not the guy who was elected by his fellow United States citizens in a free and fair election that wants to take an oath on a religious text of personal significance.

It's intolerant bigots who refuse to accept that America isn't a "Christian Nation" that has to follow the 10 Commandments and live by the Bible.. but rather it is a religiously free nation that has a Christian majority.

Thank goodness those founding fathers of ours that these people respect so much set up a system of government where there is a purposeful separation of church and state. :whew:

As I said in my last post:

Originally Posted by motivez

We can welcome him to the United States Senate and require him to take an oath on a religious text of personal significance without changing anything that's going to drastically change our culture.. that's a straw man argument.

Seems like these people only get worked up over issues that don't actually have any negative impact on anyone.. but scares them because it's different.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

1. Because he's not a Christian, he doesn't respect America, the founding fathers (who were not all Christians..)?
2. Because he's a Muslim, rather than a Christian, he hasn't been assimilated into our culture (because America = 100% Christians..)?
3. Because he's a Muslim, he doesn't want to be a part of America (Even though he was born here...)?
4. Because he's not Christian, he wants to divide the country (Because he hates America enough to run for public office..)?

Not what I said at all.

[motivez]

Oh?

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

On there other hand, obviously

[1]he doesn't give enough respect to America, it's founding fathers, and the American culture. Surely

[2]we want someone in office who has assimilated to our culture,

[3]who wants to be a part of America, and

[4]not someone who wants to divide the country with petty issues better reserved for fanatics?

If you say so..

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I think people in this country, and in government, should adhere to the American culture. If that includes swearing on the Bible (as has been done for how long now?) then so be it.

Not that people take it seriously anyway...but...

I disagree. I don't think any swearing needs to be done, it should be implicit.

Following culture can be harmful

[avsp]

The notion that there is a single unified monolithic American culture that is in some way entirely exclusive is, IMO, obviously incorrect

[6SpeedTA95]

I agree with 7960 on this one, but just because someone disagrees doesn't make them a hateful biggot

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I agree with 7960 on this one, but just because someone disagrees doesn't make them a hateful biggot

I don't think he's a hateful bigot by any means. I just think he wants to change things.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I think people in this country, and in government, should adhere to the American culture. If that includes swearing on the Bible (as has been done for how long now?) then so be it.

Not that people take it seriously anyway...but...

Actually ballz & Nixon, the Bible is not the standard text for all, regardless of religion. Jews have taken their swearing in on their own texts several times and it has never been an issue:

In our country's history, four presidents have been inaugurated without swearing an oath on the Bible. Franklin Pierce was affirmed, and swore no oath, Rutherford Hayes initially had a private ceremony with no Bible before his public ceremony, Theodore Roosevelt had no Bible at his ceremony, and Lyndon Johnson used a missal during his first term.

Despite Prager's insistence that "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," it is clear that he is wrong. Linda Lingle, Governor of Hawaii, took the oath of office on a Torah in 2001. Madeleine Kunin, a Jewish Immigrant and Governor of Vermont "rested her left hand on a stack of old prayer books that had belonged to her mother, grandparents, and great grandfather" as "a physical expression of the weight of Jewish history."

And in North Carolina, the Notary Public has a written code for swearing in:

"A person taking an oath should place one hand on the Holy Scriptures. This book will vary depending on the person's religious beliefs: Christians should use the New Testament or the Bible; Jews, the Torah or the Old Testament; Moslems, the Koran; Hindus, the Bhagavad-Gita; etc."

The National Jewish Democratic Council Blog offers this info about Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz:

U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) made headlines earlier this month when she could not find a Hebrew Bible for her swearing in; she refused the Christian Bible proffered by House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and eventually borrowed one from Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.).

from Minnesota Monitor

[Ardentfrost]

Damn, they brought a Torah to the courthouse to swear on? Where did they get it? Those things are large and expensive.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Publius

Actually ballz & Nixon, the Bible is not the standard text for all, regardless of religion. Jews have taken their swearing in on their own texts several times and it has never been an issue:



from Minnesota Monitor

To hell with it then, let him use the Koran. I'm obviously late on my disagreeances.

[avsp]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I don't think he's a hateful bigot by any means. I just think he wants to change things.

is it not a valid ambition for an elected offical, to change things?

{deleted comment based upon your avowed political views}

& thanks to Publius for the info

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by avsp

is it not a valid ambition for an elected offical, to change things?

{deleted comment based upon your avowed political views}

Of course it is, but certainly