Lounge of Tomorrow - The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

I actually had read that he would not be- nor do they swear in on the Bible. New House members are sworn in enmasse and pictures are taken after the fact with the Bible or other book as it were.

Some members are sworn in this way, others are sworn in during private sessions where they do swear on the bible. It's their choice.

Prager's a f*cking idiot.

Nephythys

12-07-2006 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight (Post 108767)

Some members are sworn in this way, others are sworn in during private sessions where they do swear on the bible. It's their choice.

Prager's a f*cking idiot.

ah-

I still had heard that he had chosen to not swear in using the Koran (sp?)- had that changed?

I doubt it makes much difference.

Ghoulish Delight

12-07-2006 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nephythys (Post 108769)

ah-

I still had heard that he had chosen to not swear in using the Koran (sp?)- had that changed?

Do you have a source? According to Wikipedia :

"In a phone interview with the Minnesota Monitor, Ellison said "that he’s not changing his mind about the sacred text he’s swearing on. 'The Constitution guarantees for everyone to take the oath of office on whichever book they prefer. And that’s what the freedom of religion is all about.'" Ellison was also quoted in another source saying "Using the Quran, really to me, is an affirmation of the religious freedom and diversity that the constitution stands for."

SacTown Chronic

12-07-2006 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nephythys (Post 108764)

I actually had read that he would not be- nor do they swear in on the Bible. New House members are sworn in enmasse and pictures are taken after the fact with the Bible or other book as it were.

It's my understanding that there is a public swearing in ceremony with all members and no bibles and then private individual ceremonies that involve an oath and the bible.

Quote:

So if you were expecting some kind of outrage from me- you thought wrong.

I didn't know what your opinion would be...that's why I asked.

Motorboat Cruiser

12-07-2006 10:35 AM

This is Prager's response to all the flack, for anyone interested in reading it. The link was emailed to me after I wrote to him, voicing my displeasure with his earlier comments.

A selected quote from the rather long response:

Quote:

You don't have to be Christian to acknowledge that the Bible is the source of America's values. Virtually every founder of this country knew that and acknowledged it. The argument that founders such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were deists, even if accurate (it is greatly exaggerated), makes my point, not my opponents'. The founders who were not believing Christians venerated the Bible as the source of America's values just as much as practicing Christians did.

Ghoulish Delight

12-07-2006 10:51 AM

He claims he isn't racist...but then he makes these wonderfully contradictory statements:

Quote:

A tiny number of Jews have used only the Old Testament. As a religious Jew, I of course understand their decision, but I disagree with it.

Quote:

Keith Ellison is ending that powerful tradition, and it is he who has called the public's attention to his doing so.

So, Jews have brought the Tanakh (old testament) in the past, but it's Ellison who is ending the tradition and destroying the fabric of our society? That says it all, to me, Mr. Prager. This isn't about the new testament being the foundation of our country, it's about Ellison being a dirty Muslim. You give those Jews who have done essentially the exact same thing a pass, then put the blame for your perceived horrific injustice squarely on this one Muslim. Ugly, ugly stuff.

Strangler Lewis

12-07-2006 10:53 AM

I think this makes my earlier point. From the protest that you're only upholding tradition (in the public square) it's a small descent to try to make that traditional expression a law.

Gemini Cricket

12-07-2006 10:56 AM