quote:Originally posted by General Sax: It is so that there were more women for me, a clear evolutionary advantage.
Does this have to do with your Operant Conditioning theory of relationships? Women pull a lever and get you as their reward?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally Posted by General Sax: Children should be "kept separate from" their parents sexual activity...
Hasn't this been standard practice for like the last thousand years? Since when are parents engaging in "sexual activity" in front of their kids at will?
Just seems silly to single out bi-sexual or gay parents and MAKE SURE that they hide their sexual activities, as if they're more likely to seriously open the door on their activities to their kids.
While we're at it, maybe we should segretate kids from each other entirely, and from culture, ESPECIALLY culture, that's where they get all that bad stuff from. Just put them in little cages with as little human interaction as possible, then open the door when they are 18, and whatever happens happens. Otherwise any talk of "segregating" them from any number of things is pointless, kids are curious, and they'll find a way. You can either lie to them, or tell them the truth, but you can't protect them, and lies do no one any good.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Dagonee: [qb] Swearing an oath on the Silmarillion would be like sponsoring a vegan convention with Soylent Green.
Um, why?
Because of the severity of oaths in it, and the concequences of holding to an oath even if it made you do horrible things.
What is that book named after, and what happened to the Elves because of those items, and Feanor's oath?
quote:Originally Posted by General Sax: Children should be "kept separate from" their parents sexual activity...
Hasn't this been standard practice for like the last thousand years? Since when are parents engaging in "sexual activity" in front of their kids at will?
Since everybody lived in one room, and probably slept in one bed at that. Now, if you'd said "the last hundred years" you might have had something.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Swearing an oath on the Silmarillion would be like sponsoring a vegan convention with Soylent Green.
Um, why?
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Did Joe Lieberman place his right hand on the Bible (complete with New Testament)?
He did. Why, you'd have to ask him.
Probably for the same reason he eats publically in restaurants on Tisha B'Av. He's not really an Orthodox Jew; he just belongs to an Orthodox synagogue, and he's somewhat observant.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally Posted by General Sax: Children should be "kept separate from" their parents sexual activity...
Hasn't this been standard practice for like the last thousand years? Since when are parents engaging in "sexual activity" in front of their kids at will?
Since everybody lived in one room, and probably slept in one bed at that. Now, if you'd said "the last hundred years" you might have had something.
That's not even close to being near a universal truth, you're vastly overgeneralizing. Makes a nice sound byte though. I don't blame you for being wrong though, your only point was to be contrary for the sake of being contrary, otherwise you'd have said something about the last hundred years.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
how lucky for me that i was raised in a generation and region where stereotypes were mocked, more than people were mocked with stereotypes.
i have to admit that i am utterly appalled at reading so much bigoted b.s. here on hatrack. several of my good friends, including one of my absolute best friends, are muslim. they are nothing like the target practice cardboard cut-outs that have been described here by a few individuals. your ignorance, narrow-mindedness, and devotion to hatred disgusts me. way to negate a human being, guys.
I don't even know what to say. I am always blown away when my happy little bubble of respect and justice is burst. i suppose living with open minded and loving human beings has kept me rather innocent concerning the stubborn prejudices of some.
i didn't think real live people still hated whole other groups of other people. at least i wished we'd finally got over that.
some muslims blow up other human beings, and some christians rape children. and yet there are still so many good people in the world. who knew.
Posts: 3936 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Does this have to do with your Operant Conditioning theory of relationships? Women pull a lever and get you as their reward?
It can only be described as a 'lever' part of the time, however its more a matter of them having to settle for a crude old red-neck instead of a well dressed compulsively neat man that really understands them...
[ December 03, 2006, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: General Sax ]
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Once again, what do you really know about the Masons?
In the context of the statement the pertinent information about the Freemason's is that people join them and belong of their free will. That is all I have to know to use them in this example. The implication was that these far flung groups all have voluntary membership in common and that the members are responsible for that affiliation. In no way was I implying that the Masons and the Nazis are equivalent or proximate. I used them as one good one bad sort of thing.
(Of course there is a trap here that the unwary leftist may fall into, pointing out that Muslims are not given a choice so they are not responsible, let us watch and see if anyone falls into it...)
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't even know what to say. I am always blown away when my happy little bubble of respect and justice is burst. i suppose living with open minded and loving human beings has kept me rather innocent concerning the stubborn prejudices of some
You are welcome for the happy bubble you get to stay in most of the time. Enjoy it, that is what it is for. If you are happy it is worth it for those who are tasked to keep you from meeting the 'bad Muslims'.
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do people persist in feeding the trolls? Don't they see the signs posted? *points to signs*
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by porcelain girl: how lucky for me that i was raised in a generation and region where stereotypes were mocked, more than people were mocked with stereotypes.
i have to admit that i am utterly appalled at reading so much bigoted b.s. here on hatrack. several of my good friends, including one of my absolute best friends, are muslim. they are nothing like the target practice cardboard cut-outs that have been described here by a few individuals. your ignorance, narrow-mindedness, and devotion to hatred disgusts me. way to negate a human being, guys.
I don't even know what to say. I am always blown away when my happy little bubble of respect and justice is burst. i suppose living with open minded and loving human beings has kept me rather innocent concerning the stubborn prejudices of some.
i didn't think real live people still hated whole other groups of other people. at least i wished we'd finally got over that.
some muslims blow up other human beings, and some christians rape children. and yet there are still so many good people in the world. who knew.
You took the words right out of my mouth. I have never been so thoroughly disappointed by a discussion at hatrack as by this one. The unabashed bigotry being expressed by a few people in this thread is shameful to say the least.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I whole-heartedly agree. It's not just the open bigotry and mindless generalizing that gets me, it's the total lack of respect for the people who are devoting their time to giving well-reasoned responses to the bigotry and mindless generalizing.
Posts: 910 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are welcome for the happy bubble you get to stay in most of the time. Enjoy it, that is what it is for. If you are happy it is worth it for those who are tasked to keep you from meeting the 'bad Muslims'.
on the contrary, i am enjoying happiness maintained by those that are fairminded and loving enough to keep me from meeting bigots and hatemongers. you know, "bad people." their most efficient method for avoiding these kinds of people is by not BEING these kinds of people.
i'm quite aware of the evil in the world. i just try my best not to perpetuate it.
Posts: 3936 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I have never been so thoroughly disappointed by a discussion at hatrack as by this one. The unabashed bigotry being expressed by a few people in this thread is shameful to say the least.
"A few"? I'm just seeing the one unabashed bigot . . .
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem isn't making negative comments about Muslims (or Christians for that matter), the problem is failing to made a clear distinction between common everyday ordinary Muslims (or Christians) and irrational, fanatical, radical, fundamentalist Mulsims with a power-mad agenda.
Feel free to substitute the word 'Christian' for Muslim in the above sentence because there are and have been plenty of them too.
I will also say that Religion isn't the reason they (Christian and Muslim) do what they do, it's the excuse. It's a source of justification for whatever atrocity they decide to commit. It is a way to keep the masses in-line and off there back. It is a way to yell 'INFIDEL' and 'SINNER' at anyone who disagrees with you. If God is on your side (allegedly) then you can claim that anyone who opposes you is against God. How very convenient.
The negative comments made by people here are justified, real, and true; they are just directed at too broad a group.
quote:"A few"? I'm just seeing the one unabashed bigot . . .
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I have serious reservations about a Muslim respecting Democracy. At best they are suspect. It is the ONLY religion that I have felt needs to be banned from the United States of America.
There are some offensive posters who have been here for a while, and I literally don't see their posts anymore. Unfortunately, this internal filter doesn't seem to kick in until several months of exposure. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally Posted by: BlueWizard I will also say that Religion isn't the reason they (Christian and Muslim) do what they do, it's the excuse. It's a source of justification for whatever atrocity they decide to commit. It is a way to keep the masses in-line and off there back. It is a way to yell 'INFIDEL' and 'SINNER' at anyone who disagrees with you. If God is on your side (allegedly) then you can claim that anyone who opposes you is against God. How very convenient.
Not sure if I agree or disagree with that statement. On one hand, there are plenty of wars and fights that I could point to that are perfectly secular in nature, and plenty that are entirely of religious origin, enough to say that neither is necessarily "better" when it comes to peace or war (for causation anyway).
On the other hand, one wonders what a Middle East without religion would be like. Would they simply find a secular reason to maim each other? Most of the Christian minorities in places like Iraq are bystanders in the fight, and Kurds, not wholly but by a majority, have set aside religious differences for political ones in mostly staying out of the violence overtaking the country's center.
When you look at who is fighting, they all have different agendas. The insurgents want to set up an Islamic fundamentalist government, but I have to wonder why? If it ISN'T for religious reasons, and they are simply petty thugs who want to gain power and are using religion, and religious zealots as their tools, isn't that pretty stupid? Surely it has been successful thus far, but only successful in creating conflict, not in building ANYTHING. Are they so irrational, for secular reasons, that they can thrive on conflict forever? They are capable, smart fighters, or they wouldn't have lasted this long, so I think it's fair to assume they aren't very stupid, especially given the amount of well educated people we KNOW are in their organizations.
If they just wanted to gain power, they'd do much better to embrace democracy, corrupt the system, and buy their way into power, you know, the American way. Their nations would prosper because of it, their people would be more stable, and as a whole, everyone would be better off, themselves included. I'm forced to believe that this is thus based on a foundation of religion for the cause of the conflict, and not something using religion as a cloak to hide their true intent, just to get support.
If not, what am I missing?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why do people persist in feeding the trolls? Don't they see the signs posted? *points to signs*
Well, ketchupqueen...I keep saying that, but people still feed them. I bet they're overweight right now... people, don't feed the trolls. Think about the children! Posts: 1785 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is not at all fair to label someone giving their honest opinion as a "troll". A troll is someone just looking to make trouble.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
There are some offensive posters who have been here for a while, and I literally don't see their posts anymore. Unfortunately, this internal filter doesn't seem to kick in until several months of exposure.
Rivka thats exactly how I was feeling. People said "all these biggoted people" and I thought, "HUH? I only saw one."
*recalibrates his forum filter*
Tres: I agree with you completely, I remember a time when Pelegius was impossible to communicate with because of his pedantry, I think he has made some marked improvements.
I really do not enjoy hearing a sweeping rebuke of the forums as it typically does not help anyone. It is rare that somebody sees a general rebuke and actually notices the fault being decried within their posts.
If you have issue with what is being said in the forum try quoting people and calling others out in a respectful manner, addressing their words and not the fact they have that opinion.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: It is not at all fair to label someone giving their honest opinion as a "troll". A troll is someone just looking to make trouble.
I agree with you. I really do. Let me rephrase, thus. I think there is A troll here who should not be fed.
Posts: 1785 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a practising Muslim, if I ever got into politics (I never would, though, I hate politics), I would definitely like to swear on the Kor'an (that's how I spell it, so there), but I personally wouldn't mind swearing by Cristian or Jewish scripture. In the spirit of tolerance and all.
Posts: 155 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I read two pages, and it seems to be going (mildly) off topic. I Listen to Dennis Prager from time to time, he is a reasonable and decent fellow.
Here is his point: It isn't about an oath, or anyone's trustworthiness in keeping it. It isn't primarily about Islam. The swearing in question is purely ceremonial, not the mass swearing in of a new congress. So why does it matter? It matters because tradition matters, and symbols/statements matter.
Mr. Ellision, in choosing the Koran rather than the Bible as is tradition even among Jews, Athiests, Mormons, etc., and publicizing this fact, is making the statement: "Muslims do not need to change to be American. Muslims can change America itself if there is a conflict between the values that made America and their own."
Mr Prager has since clarified that he should not have said "allowed", it is a discussion of what Kieth Ellison should do, to unite the country, rather than about any binding laws.
Kieth Ellison has a perfect right to do as he is doing, but people should be aware of what he is saying--"My religion is more important to me than the values of the country I serve." If, as was done by a recent Muslim ambassador, he used both books, it would be a gesture of unity.
--- Unrelated to this specific point is the reliabiltiy of Muslim congressmen/women. I don't think it is going too far out on a limb to say that this particular muslim, associated with the racist Nation of Islam and the terror apoligizing CAIR, is at least due considerable scrutiny.
Posts: 105 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Once again, what do you really know about the Masons?
In the context of the statement the pertinent information about the Freemason's is that people join them and belong of their free will. That is all I have to know to use them in this example. The implication was that these far flung groups all have voluntary membership in common and that the members are responsible for that affiliation. In no way was I implying that the Masons and the Nazis are equivalent or proximate. I used them as one good one bad sort of thing.
(Of course there is a trap here that the unwary leftist may fall into, pointing out that Muslims are not given a choice so they are not responsible, let us watch and see if anyone falls into it...)
Ok, just making sure. I wasn't positive about the point you were trying to make. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lots of people refuse to swear on the Bible. I know a few Christians who refuse to as well. They said something about not swearing on it being actually IN the Bible, although I don't remember where.
I know people who refused to swear on a bible in court, because it doesn't represent their views or beliefs. Are THEY unAmerican as well?
Bullshit.
I hold the complete opposite view....that allowing people to refrain from swearing on MY religious symbol if their beliefs object to doing so is what MAKES us true Americans.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Niki, did you read the other posts on this thread before posting?
I think I missed this post on page 3:
quote:The swearing in Representatives do on Bibles is not the official swearing in, as best I can tell from House rules and accounts of the ceremony. It is done en masse during the first session, except for the Speaker. Many have private ceremonies using a family Bible (or a constituent's Bible in at least one case I've heard of). I can't find any single article that puts all this together, so consider it surmise based on multiple sources giving part of the information
But otherwise I thought I had some novel and clearly stated points.
By the way, I'm surprised no one has used this yet: <--Hes swearing in
Posts: 105 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
"In America we have Freedom of Religion. You are free to be of Any Religion you want, as long as its Christian. If you are any other religion, well, on important matters, you had better fake your Christianity or it shows you are Unamerican."
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Lots of people refuse to swear on the Bible. I know a few Christians who refuse to as well. They said something about not swearing on it being actually IN the Bible, although I don't remember where
Matthew 5:37 (Whole Chapter) Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
James 5:12 (Whole Chapter) Above all, my brothers, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your "Yes" be yes, and your "No," no, or you will be condemned.
quote: I know people who refused to swear on a bible in court, because it doesn't represent their views or beliefs. Are THEY unAmerican as well?
Bullshit.
Well, I guess that depends on why, ditto Kieth Ellison. Most of the time, certainly not. But they could be. And I don't claim to be a mind reader. But the fact that he let it be known that he would not swear in on a bible makes it seem like he is making a public statement, along the lines of "I reject the values that those who founded this country held."
He could clear that up and put to rest the contraversy (sp?) by saying, "I believe my intentions are misconstrued; I respect the beliefs and values of the majority of Americans, but want this event to have more personal meaning to me."
quote: So Niki, what Mr. Ellison is saying is:
"In America we have Freedom of Religion. You are free to be of Any Religion you want, as long as its Christian. If you are any other religion, well, on important matters, you had better fake your Christianity or it shows you are Unamerican."
(I believe you mean Prager, the Pundit, not Ellison, the congressman.)
Sort of, more like, "In America we have people of every religion imaginable who get along with each other better than any other country on earth or time in history. This is due to the work of men and women who held the Bible to be sacred, and due to the values that they derived from it. It is fitting, therefore, to honor this book, even if it's theology is alien to you."
You may perhaps disagree with that, but that is what he is trying to say. A reasonable conclusion if the premise is true, and it is certainly an argueably true premise.
posted
Or he could say " None of your damn business!" and be completely within his rights.
He doesn't ask if you mean you are Born Again when you DO swear on it, I bet. He doesn't take it to mean you think that the Crusades were a great idea, either.
American =! Christian, no matter how you rephrase it. You don't have to accept one to be the other.
If he wants to use that as his logic to use a bible, he is free to do so. Others might feel an oath THEY swear should be on THEIR holy object....and expect Americans, who are so proud of their freedom of religion, to accept their personal beliefs, and be impressed with their own expression of religion.
My point is that he is saying " This means THAT." when in reality he has no idea what was really meant, or what the point of it really was.
quote:Or he could say " None of your damn business!" and be completely within his rights.
Exactly. It isn't about rights. He is within his rights. It is about respecting tradition and values.
quote: He doesn't ask if you mean you are Born Again when you DO swear on it, I bet. He doesn't take it to mean you think that the Crusades were a great idea, either.
If he asked that, then it would be showing that he doesn't understand the point. That's fine, lots of people don't. The point is to show honor to the country by respecting the values that allowed it to flourish.
quote: My point is that he is saying " This means THAT." when in reality he has no idea what was really meant, or what the point of it really was.
I think you're getting a bit loose with your pronouns. you are saying Prager (and probably myself) is putting words into Rep Ellison's mouth, that his swearing in is not a statement, right? Do you think public officials symbolic actions come with meaning attached? This is a symbolic act, if it wasn't, there would be no book. Announcing that he will be particular about which he'll use is a statement, is it not? What do you think that this statement means?
Posts: 105 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But there are many Americans who do not think the United States was based solely and specifically on Christian values, and that the efforts the founding fathers went to towards not making Christianity the official religion popint towards that conclusion. Rather, they believe that the values of the founding fathers were similar in many religions and they went to some pains not to favor any over the others.
I'd like to point out here that the religious slogans on our money, our Seal, and in the Pledge of Allegiance were all comparatively recent additions and not the original versions.
I think his statement, if indeed he is making one, is that America is an inclusive land with freedom of religion and respect for others and he is proud to uphold its ideals. If, of course, I presumed to guess what he's thinking.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I am not in any way defending General Sax's statements, I am curious about something.
Has there been a concentrated effort by non-extremist Muslims to repudiate and fight against the extremists? Where is the moderate Muslim movement? I'm sure they exist -- they are plenty of moderate Muslims, after all -- but the only ones we ever hear about are the various women's movements. Here and there a single Muslim scholar will speak out against his coreligionists, but I haven't heard of any sort of organized group that is working against the expansionist and bigoted goals of the Islamofacists.
It would be a lot tougher for people to mix all Muslims together if there was an easy-to-see alternative. But the suicide bombers get all the press...
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nikisknight: I don't think it is going too far out on a limb to say that this particular muslim, associated with the racist Nation of Islam and the terror apoligizing CAIR, is at least due considerable scrutiny.
He did undergo considerable scrutiny, in Minneapolis, before the election.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rather, they believe that the values of the founding fathers were similar in many religions and they went to some pains not to favor any over the others.
If the values of the founding fathers were so similar to those of people in China, Arabia, the Aztecs, Africa, or even Europe, why are the resulting countries so different? Why in no Islamic country do they have an analog to our first amendment? Try to BUY let alone swear on a bible in Saudi Arabia, or the works of Confucious for that matter.
The values of all religions are not always similar. It is a polite fiction that they are. Perhaps other relgions can evolve in the direction that christianity did, and produce societies like those in the west that provide freedom. If so, I'll be thrilled. But that doesn't mean that the freedoms we have are not the result of people who took the Bible, specifically, very serious when constructing their novel government.
In God We Trust is a recent addition to coins, perhaps, but it is merely a restating of the Declaration of Independence: "Man is endowed by his creator with certain inalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Part of this liberty is the freedom to disbelieve in the creator that Jefferson says gives us our rights. Very well. But if enoguh people believe that it is the government that gives us our rights, not a source higher than them or the brilliant constitution, then the government will have the power to take those rights away. That is why the belief in God, though not in any official church, which could ONLY be coercive, is VITAL to our continued liberty.
Back to the Koran: It may be a wonderful book. It may mean a lot to Rep Ellison and his co-religionists. But that doesn't change the fact that it was the God of Genesis whom the founders took their inspiration for religious freedom from. That is why it is due, but NOT required, honor in our country.
I suppose I should say imo, but it has been a civil disscussion. P.S. It's about my bedtime, and I might not get back to this thread for awhile. Don't take it as a snub.
quote: He did undergo considerable scrutiny, in Minneapolis, before the election.
Well, good. I won't claim to be entirely up to date on his or most politicians' past or even ideas. I'd heard about the connections I mentioned, but not much and it might be rumors.
Posts: 105 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or he could say " None of your damn business!" and be completely within his rights.
Exactly. It isn't about rights. He is within his rights. It is about respecting tradition and values.
quote: He doesn't ask if you mean you are Born Again when you DO swear on it, I bet. He doesn't take it to mean you think that the Crusades were a great idea, either.
If he asked that, then it would be showing that he doesn't understand the point. That's fine, lots of people don't. The point is to show honor to the country by respecting the values that allowed it to flourish.
quote: My point is that he is saying " This means THAT." when in reality he has no idea what was really meant, or what the point of it really was.
I think you're getting a bit loose with your pronouns. you are saying Prager (and probably myself) is putting words into Rep Ellison's mouth, that his swearing in is not a statement, right? Do you think public officials symbolic actions come with meaning attached? This is a symbolic act, if it wasn't, there would be no book. Announcing that he will be particular about which he'll use is a statement, is it not? What do you think that this statement means?
I think no one can say what he meant other than himself. Despite what pundits claim.
I think that this country is based on freedom of religion, and that is every bit as important as respecting traditions, if not more so.
I think you, and others, are grasping at straws, ready to take offense for many reasons.
You don't get to decide what traditions are important to him. At no point did he actually say anything that you claim his actions meant, or imply it in any way.
BTW, the tradition isn't nearly as widespread as you claim it is. A ton of people, from all walks of life, have used a multitude of other religious books (or no books at all) to be sworn in on, or to take oaths on.
That is why it is allowed.
Call any religion a tradition if you want....you still have no right to force (or attempt to coerce) YOUR religion on anyone else.
I am disgusted by the attempt, to be honest. I also think that the "respect this tradition" is hogwash, and is merely leads to a lock-step march devoid of individualism.
BTW, I have sworn on a Bible. It didn't make me any more American than I was before I did it. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christians and Muslims both follow the same God, Nikisknight. So do Jews, and members of many smaller religions.
Chris, that's exactly the point. Even if a hundred million Muslims spoke out against radicalism, fanatics will always get more press.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:BTW, the tradition isn't nearly as widespread as you claim it is. A ton of people, from all walks of life, have used a multitude of other religious books (or no books at all) to be sworn in on, or to take oaths on.
Could you quote the claim? Thanks, I don't recall bringing up how often people do swear in.[/quote]
Call any religion a tradition if you want....you still have no right to force (or attempt to coerce) YOUR religion on anyone else.
I am disgusted by the attempt, to be honest. [/quote] Well, I am sorry that you mistook a conversation as some forcible attempt at relgion, further for your disgust.
Hate to break it to you, but my religion is a good deal more complex than placing a hand on a book once in my life. So, I don't really think advising a public offical to do so once to make a statement about... (well, I said that bit already) is anywhere akin to a religion being forced upon his. As Mr. Prager did in his column.
Meanwhile, I made no attempt as such force either for explaining why I found his point reasonable.
Posts: 105 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: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."
posted
Sorry...the YOU I was speaking to was a combinations of points from several people rather than just you. My apologies.
I was disgusted by people attempting to smear someone because he held true to his chosen religion, not by you at all. I se your points, and understand the logic behind them....I just don't agree with them.
Still, I see Mr. Prager's points as non-existent. I don't find them compelling at all, myself. I respect the politicians choice because it reflects his true beliefs, despite considerable pressures to do the more "political" solution and swear on a Bible. I don't see you reasonings a force at all....but Mr. Prager did try to force the issue by publishing what basically amounts to a mild hack job of someones character.
It smacks too much of religious intolerance, to me at least.
And I am a Christian.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Christians and Muslims both follow the same God, Nikisknight.
I have thought much about this. It is said very often. And as much as it is time to go to sleep, I must respond.
First history--Yes, I know that Muhammod heard of the ideas of monotheism from Jewish or Christian traders, and found from them, or had revealed to him, that a single God was preferable to the tribal paganism of his people. So, in the broadest historical sense, as one who cares little for the religions and sees them strictly reductive to who had what ideas when, Sure, all three faiths share the same god.
However, try going into a mosque and asking them if they worship the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Ask to be shown an old testament. Ask them what reward Allah has for the Jews and Christians, since they simply worship him by a different name.
If they do not take offense, if they agree with you that it is the same God, I'll be wonderfully surprised. But this isn't the picture I see in the world.
Now, like my prior posts alluded to, I care more for the values of a people or faith than the particular theology. And the Islamic God, as I see him interpreted by Muslim leaders around the world, is nothing like the God I worship, leaving aside theological aspects of Jesus and such. For example: My God wishes to be freely chosen by people. The Islamic God wishes apostates killed by his followers. My God judges each person on their merits. The Islamic God sanctions honor killings. These are not the same Gods.
By analogy, I do not believe in the same George W Bush as the 9-11 conspiracy theorists do. The GWB I believe makes lots of mistakes, but has the best interests of the country at heart. Conspiracy theorists (some of them) believe in a GWB who would kill or let die 3000 of his fellow citizens to make money on oil. Yes, we both acknowledge that there is one president named GWB, but we do not belive in the same person. (which is right I don't care to debate here, the analogy stands)
However, I acknowledge that SOME Muslims believe in my God, of love and liberty and justice. (Just as there are some Christians who believe in a petty vindictive God that differs from mine just as much.) But this is not the God that is preached or promoted by Islamic spokesmen worldwide. I would love to some day be able to say, I see many Muslims who believe in my God. But I cannot now. Can you show them to me?
Posts: 105 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
<--Hes swearing in
