The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

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."

Let me look- it was an article shortly after the election.

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

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.

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]

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:

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.

[Strangler Lewis]

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.

[Ghoulish Delight]

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

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.

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.

[Gemini Cricket]

[mousepod]

If I had to be sworn in for public office (not that I'm running), I'd want to swear on the Constitution. Has anyone requested this?

[Alex]

Originally Posted by mousepod

If I had to be sworn in for public office (not that I'm running), I'd want to swear on the Constitution. Has anyone requested this?

I believe the idea has come up before. Though I find it equally ridiculous. If it is necessary that they make additional commitments then write them down and have the person sign them and then make violation of that contract a specific criminal offense. Oaths of office are already vague to the point of uselessness and hold no real value.

[Nephythys]

Apologies- the article was a day or two after the election and I can no longer find it. I know I saw it- but it was either incorrect or something changed.

I have one more place to look.

[Nephythys]

Sorry- no go. I have only my memory of the article.

Though after running a Google search I see alot of anger over this koran thing.