Ellison To Take Ceremonial Oath With Quran

Status
Not open for further replies.
With out making this a religiuos discussion Jesus was killed because it was prophecied. Had he not been killed the entre New Testament would be void. Do I have a point? Not unless you count smart a** remarks.

But to the topic. From the standpoint of the Constitution it wise to vote for any extreme religious nut. Be it Christian Muslim, Jewish or Buddist(sp?). From a Constitutional viewpoint a person should not have loyalties to anything. Except the law which they are elected to make and/or enforce.
 
Be it Christian Muslim, Jewish or Buddist(sp?). From a Constitutional viewpoint a person should not have loyalties to anything. Except the law which they are elected to make and/or enforce.
Click to expand...
I'd take exception to that. What you are implying that no PRACTICING Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddist, or whatever, is suitable for office. I deny that. I assert that the correct criteria is whether the practicing believer is able to leave his/her beliefs at the entrance of the Capitol, separating the secular from the spiritual, respecting the rule of law as opposed to the tenets of faith in the secular realm. What is important is that the official is able to be faith-neutral in matters of government, leaving matters of faith to the Church as opposed to the State. And it is my belief that that was what was in mind when the Founders wrote into the Constitution what they did -- and wisely so.
 
actually I have two cents to add to the thread...

:D

IIRC John Quincy Adams took his oath on a copy of the Constitution
Click to expand...
Even if he didn't that's a damn good idea. Maybe we should require politicians to swear or affirm with their hand on the Constitution.





























then again if I had my way I'd require them to have huge copies of it on their office walls in addition to reading the BoR to the American people before they took office :rolleyes: I would have gone with tattooing the BoR to their chests in mirror image so they'd have to read it every single morning as they get ready for work but I understand that ink goes against the beliefs of some folks so it wouldn't be fair :o
 
What is important is that the official is able to be faith-neutral in matters of government, leaving matters of faith to the Church as opposed to the State. And it is my belief that that was what was in mind when the Founders wrote into the Constitution what they did -- and wisely so.
Click to expand...

I quess I could aggree with that, However I chose my wording carefully. When I said extreme religious nut. I was not reffering to everyone who follows a religion. Only those that try to use the US Govt. to enforce their take on religion. I personaly am a practising Christian. But that does not mean I am opposed to..... Say pornography for lack of a better or more appropriate subject. Personaly I believe it is immoral. Now a extremist would try to ban it. I on the other hand simply choose not to look at it. But I do not try to ban it as it would be a clear volation of the Bill of Rights. However immoral it may be the law is still the law. I quess that's the best way to describe the difference between a believer and a extremist.
 
Say pornography for lack of a better or more appropriate subject.
Click to expand...

To be truly appropriate. Democrats should swear their oath on a copy of Penthouse.

Republicans, on a copy of Blue Boy.

:D
 
Is he omitting the Satanic Verses?

If you don't know what these verses are... go find out before you "end the thread" with your BS!
 
Personally I think most politicians should be sworn in on a roll of toilet paper. They can then keep it in case of bull manure occurences.
 
Oh, enough already.

Why is this still being debated? This is America, where we have freedom of religion, and our Congresscritters can swear their oath of office on any collection of holy texts they want. End of discussion...there's simply no issue here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top