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

[Galactic Gigolo]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Of course it is, but certainly things that would benefit the country, not split it, divide it, or make it worse? Shouldn't politicians want to change things that the country as a whole wants, not something that just a few people want?

No. What's best for the country / what promotes civil liberties (and I'm not necessarily saying that this incident does either all that much) is not usually what the country as a whole wants.

Look at some of the retarded poll results that come out weekly to see why going by the opinion of the country will only lead to horrific outcomes.

[7960]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Of course it is, but certainly things that would benefit the country, not split it, divide it, or make it worse? Shouldn't politicians want to change things that the country as a whole wants, not something that just a few people want?

are you arguing that he should use a bible "just like eveyrone else" just so he doesn't "make waves" ?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by 7960

are you arguing that he should use a bible "just like eveyrone else" just so he doesn't "make waves" ?

I don't really care what he does in this instance. As Publius showed, people have used different things in the past. Had this been the first time someone wanted something different, I would have argued against it for the sake of our culture.

What I'm now discussing is that people with radical agendas DO get elected into office, and we must not alway welcome their ideas of 'change' as good for the country.

[7960]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

...Had this been the first time someone wanted something different, I would have argued against it for the sake of our culture.

But someone was first............... should that person *not* have done it?

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

What I'm now discussing is that people with radical agendas DO get elected into office, and we must not alway welcome their ideas of 'change' as good for the country.

You're right, not automatically. We should question it first. My question is "how would him swearing on the quran be harmful?"

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by 7960

But someone was first............... should that person *not* have done it?

I would have disagreed with it at first, for the pure sake of the American culture. Going through the rituals, swearing, or whatever is pure culture, and doesn't harm our country one bit.

You're right, not automatically. We should question it first. My question is "how would him swearing on the quran be harmful?"

I have a strong belief that our country stands for everything, and at the same time stands for nothing. The American culture is degrading quickly, and it saddens me.

I know I know, you're gonna say 'that freedom is the exact thing we stand for' but it's a little extreme.

[Publius]

if (hopefully when) i get elected to office ... I'm swearing on a copy of the U.S. Constitution and (assuming it is a state office) a copy of the Texas Constitution.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I know I know, you're gonna say 'that freedom is the exact thing we stand for' but it's a little extreme.

How is it a little extreme to allow a Muslim man to swear an oath on his holy scripture rather than the Christian holy scripture, which means nothing to him?

Isn't the point of swearing an oath over a religious text to add gravity to it because you're swearing it on your beliefs in God? Thus wouldn't it be odd to have someone swear an oath over a religious text they don't believe in?

[7960]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I would have disagreed with it at first, for the pure sake of the American culture. Going through the rituals, swearing, or whatever is pure culture, and doesn't harm our country one bit.

Why have someone swear on a bible he doesn't believe in?

I have a strong belief that our country stands for everything, and at the same time stands for nothing. The American culture is degrading quickly, and it saddens me.

You'll have to define "degrading." It's changing, sure, but degrading??

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Publius

How is it a little extreme to allow a Muslim man to swear an oath on his holy scripture rather than the Christian holy scripture, which means nothing to him?

We've left this particular topic and have moved on to a broader generalization of losing our culture due to 'freedom' to allow anyone and everyone to do what they want in this country.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by 7960

Why have someone swear on a bible he doesn't believe in?

Symbolism, not reality. You think every politician up there believes in it?

You'll have to define "degrading." It's changing, sure, but degrading??

Culture is not culture if it continues to change, therefore what culture we have is degrading, wearing away over time.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Symbolism, not reality. You think every politician up there believes in it?


Culture is not culture if it continues to change, therefore what culture we have is degrading, wearing away over time.

Using the word degradation implies it is getting "worse" in some real terms... While I agree from a certain standpoint, I disagree in the cause and I disagree that it is by nature a degradation BECAUSE we are incorporating new ideas and changing.

Change is not by nature degradation.

[7960]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Symbolism, not reality. You think every politician up there believes in it?

And (to me) it's more symbolic if he's taking an oath on a book that has meaning to him. I'd rather have him swear on a quran than on a bible that means nothing to him.

Culture is not culture if it continues to change, therefore what culture we have is degrading, wearing away over time.

Every culture is always changing all the time. From your posts in this thread I gather you're not happy with the way it's changing, but it always was and always will be changing.

[avsp]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Of course it is, but certainly things that would benefit the country, not split it, divide it, or make it worse? Shouldn't politicians want to change things that the country as a whole wants, not something that just a few people want?

Leaving aside the question of how you phrased the point to which i responded, ..., coz Paddy said to do so

It depends, on the proposed change & your/my/our views on any given proposed change doesnt it?

Few changes are universally approved.

Many now standard views were once outlandish minority concerns, (the existance of the USA, votes for women etc).

Do you not hold any views yourself for change that are currently minority ones?
Do you in any way evangelise for them?
Or, as in this instance, do you seemingly 'give up' in the face of 'the majority view'?

Are you claiming that the electorial majority doesnt rule?
Are all, (as opposed to just many of the smallest), the less popular electorial minorities to have no voice?



But, now, back to the specific

With regard to exercising his constituionally guaranteed rights i can see no real problem myself

However I can see how many Americans might object to him using the Koran to swear his oath of office on & as such do admit that such division may be 'bad'

OTOH i can also see the debate engendered possibly allowing for a better understanding of what Americas strengths are, (have been?), not least coz in my view the division is promoted by those who question his rights & NOT by his assertion of them.
I'd also see it as providing an opportunity for detante & understanding between Muslims & Christians.
And I'd agrue that this thread was such an example, ..., so congrats to Tim B-L, LL ISP, the mods, the rather nasty troll who cited in the original article, Publius, the Minnesota Monitor & even you, (but most especially Publius) for causing this to occur

So, in that spirit, doesnt the two party system itself promote division? Does it thus automatically make 'things worse'?
And
You said "would benefit the country, not split it, divide it, or make it worse?". Did you mean to imply that the use of the Koran in taking an oath of office would 'automatically', (regardless of any consequent 'division'), be a 'bad thing' in & of itself?

[avsp]

Originally Posted by Publius

Using the word degradation implies it is getting "worse" in some real terms... While I agree from a certain standpoint, I disagree in the cause and I disagree that it is by nature a degradation BECAUSE we are incorporating new ideas and changing.

Change is not by nature degradation.

To you perhaps, but to an avowed 'conservative'?

i need to type faster & more accurately /quote]

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Publius

Change is not by nature degradation.

I feel that often we're too eager and too excited for change by the mere fact that it's 'change', so eager than we often welcome it without really considering what the change is.

We became and are a great country for many reasons, most of them not because we continued to change. We became a great country based on traditional values and a traditional culture. I fear that the more we leave that which made us great, the closer we come to not being great. You of all people should appreciate that which made us great. It's not because we changed everything all the time.

[avsp]

Isnt tech progress 'change'?, Isnt this largely what made the US great?

Along with great labour mobility etc

When compared to opther cultures, its the ability to accomdate 'change' that has been the USA's strength

Its constitution even allows for change

It the question of 'what change' that matters, ..., isnt it?

But your claiming that its the lack of being critical of the change thats the problem

but this thread IMO, counter that to an extent

things are incredibly critically anaylised in the States IMO, ..., mich more than over here

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by avsp

Isnt tech progress 'change'?, Isnt this largely what made the US great?

Things such as tech progress are far too shallow to even relate to what I'm talking about. Hardly the same level.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I feel that often we're too eager and too excited for change by the mere fact that it's 'change', so eager than we often welcome it without really considering what the change is.

We became and are a great country for many reasons, most of them not because we continued to change. We became a great country based on traditional values and a traditional culture. I fear that the more we leave that which made us great, the closer we come to not being great. You of all people should appreciate that which made us great. It's not because we changed everything all the time.

That is way off. It's changes that have made our culture what it is. Everything has been constantly changing.

New ideas, new people coming here, new ways of looking at things, new rights for people who had none before and bring a fresh perspective. All of these things have been going on since this country was founded. It's these things that make this country great. You can't decide to suddenly freeze everything because that's the way you like it. Not everyone may like things that way, it's why it has an ebb and flow.

[garbagemanlb]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

That is way off. It's changes that have made our culture what it is. Everything has been constantly changing.

New ideas, new people coming here, new ways of looking at things, new rights for people who had none before and bring a fresh perspective. All of these things have been going on since this country was founded. It's these things that make this country great. You can't decide to suddenly freeze everything because that's the way you like it. Not everyone may like things that way, it's why it has an ebb and flow.

Agreed.

Women's rights, minority rights, worker's rights, I'd say change has always been an important part of our culture.