Congressman wants to use the Qur'an when sworn in

[Walsingham]

I see you have retracted the statement, and I my rebuttal. Which should confuse people. "

 

I am no bible scholar, and somebody appears to have nicked my copy from my desk. But I think you'll find Christianity has plenty of passages not to mention to mention incidents sanctioning killing unbelievers. It's kind of a feature of all premier division religions. It is abhorrent, but it's there. I think the clearest would be in Leviticus (I think) that orders the faithful, on finding a heathen within the walls of a city, to chase them beyond the gates and stone them to death.

 

As for my last point, could you be more specific in your response? I won't learn if you don't tell me what and how I got it wrong.

[Guard Dog]

I've always thought that Christianity was rooted in the New Testament more than the old. Considering that 90% of the New Testament writings contradicts 95% of the Old Testament. That however is my own opinion and it may be uninformed. The only thing I wanted to point out before was that although three of the major names among the founders were Christian in name only, most were, true believers. Or at least claimed to be.

 

We've wandered off track a little. As I stated before. If Mr Ellison wishes to swear on the quran he is free and welcome to do so. Ir's right there in the 1st amendment.

[Hurlshort]

There is nothing in the basic tenants of Christianity or Islam that promotes violence in any way. You can't find a passage in the Qu'ran that says it's alright to kill non-believers. The Bible is the same way. They are good books, and they are about living a good life. The lessons within the pages are about charity, prayer, and faith.

 

The problem with religions in general has to do with leadership. Both Christianity and Islam have had leaders that call for violence in the name of their religion. When you actually compare the religions side by side, it's amazing how similiar they are and how similiar their struggles have been. Everyone acts like Christianity is so peaceful, but in actuality it's just had more time to work out its differences. Islam is a younger gospel, but the violence between Shi'ites and Sunni's is very reminiscent of violence between Protestants and Catholics. It lasted for hundreds of years in Europe.

[~Di]

I've always been annoyed that any religious text is used when swearing to uphold the constitution of the United States.  If our congress-critters need to touch anything while taking their oath of office, it should be a copy of the constitution itself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm a big fan of separation of church and state, but I'm also very respectful of the symbolic nature that any holy book, whether it's the bible, torah, or Qur'an, has in our society. I expect my elected officials to respect the nature of those books whether they believe in God or not. Those books aren't just about religion, they are a foundation for living a humble and charitable life.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If by respectful you mean that a non-Christian (or atheist) elected official should place hand on Bible and swear to a god he/she doesn't believe in, then I must disagree. The separation of church and state offers everyone freedom to worship as they wish; it also offers everyone freedom not to worship, and not to be forced to "worship" as a condition of public service.

 

A religious text should not be used as a basis for governmental oaths, vowing to uphold a constitution which specifically states that religious is not a condition for public service. Nor should congressional sessions be opened with Christian prayers, in my opinion.

 

And I certainly disagree that religious texts are the foundation of a humble, charitable life. There were charitable, humble people long before the old testament hit the shelves. Some of the most humble and charitable people I know have never set foot in a church or peeked inside a religious text of any kind. Some of the greediest, most two-faced people I've ever known are in church every Sabbath doing their weekly "I am so godfearing and pious" masquarade to make up for the past six days of moral squalor.

 

So I certainly disagree with your theory that religion is the foundation for living a humble and charitable life. That gives credit for all good in the word to a diety that some folks don't even believe in, and places blame for all bad in the world on a lack of belief in said diety. With all due respect, I strongly disagree.

[~Di]

...Di, if you actually knew how little the congress critters knew about the constitution I don't know if you would laugh or cry. ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I would do neither; I would shrug. I have little use for politicians, given the ridiculous manner in which they are bought and paid for. Until we change campaign finance laws to the point where holding office no longer garners power and money for the politician themselves, we have little chance of being governed by those who are actually interested and enthusiastic about upholding the constitution and keeping the country strong.

 

And I still think it's unconstitutional to drag religion into every aspect of our political process.

[Guard Dog]

There is nothing in the basic tenants of Christianity or Islam that promotes violence in any way.  You can't find a passage in the Qu'ran that says it's alright to kill non-believers.  The Bible is the same way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I will let the quran speak for itself:

 

Anotated Qu'ran

[Guard Dog]

Until we change campaign finance laws to the point where holding office no longer garners power and money for the politician themselves, we have little chance of being governed by those who are actually interested and enthusiastic about upholding the constitution and keeping the country strong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Two words: Term Limits! Until we get that, the legislature will remain for sale.

[Hell Kitty]

I've always thought that Christianity was rooted in the New Testament more than the old. Considering that 90% of the New Testament writings contradicts 95% of the Old Testament.

 

The new may contradict the old, but it's still part of the Christian bible.

 

If Christians were truly concerned with the teachings of Christ then the new testament would be the only part that matters, but that isn't the case. Ensuring that homosexuals don't share the same rights as everyone else, for instance, goes against the whole don't judge others thing the new testament has going on. If Christians were truly concerned with the teachings of Christ then I'd probably still be one of them.

 

Oh, and the site you linked to shows that both the quran and bible are full of some sick ****: Anotated Bible

[Walsingham]

I'd disagree about the legislature needing a term limit. All that does is pass on power to the next most permanent office. Viz teh Civil Service in the UK, and the Presidential Advisors in the US.

 

But anyway... We've had a lot of serious discussions already about religion in general. On the specific issue of swearing in, have I understood correctly that the consensus here is that the individual should swear by what they respect.?

[Surreptishus]

What would/does an atheist swear on?

[alanschu]

And I certainly disagree that religious texts are the foundation of a humble, charitable life. There were charitable, humble people long before the old testament hit the shelves. Some of the most humble and charitable people I know have never set foot in a church or peeked inside a religious text of any kind. Some of the greediest, most two-faced people I've ever known are in church every Sabbath doing their weekly "I am so godfearing and pious" masquarade to make up for the past six days of moral squalor.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if much of the mores, norms, conventions, and whatnot that even the secular take part in have influences from religion.

 

So I certainly disagree with your theory that religion is the foundation for living a humble and charitable life. That gives credit for all good in the word to a diety that some folks don't even believe in, and places blame for all bad in the world on a lack of belief in said diety. With all due respect, I strongly disagree.

 

No it doesn't. It gives credit to an institution, not a diety. And I don't see the implication that all good comes from it, nor do I see the implication that all blame for the bad goes is because of a lack of belief in the deity. Especially in the context that Hurlshot used it. Whether or not there actually is a diety that is being worshipped (and not just an idea of one) is irrelevant.

[alanschu]

Might as well toss in the Annotated Book of Mormon as well.

[Guard Dog]

I'd disagree about the legislature needing a term limit. All that does is pass on power to the next most permanent office. Viz teh Civil Service in the UK, and the Presidential Advisors in the US.

 

But anyway... We've had a lot of serious discussions already about religion  in general. On the specific issue of swearing in, have I understood correctly that the consensus here is that the individual should swear by what they respect.?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

On that we all agree! As I pointed out, this whole mess was artificially created to raise a stir during what should have been a political quiet period. It achieved it's end.

[Hell Kitty]

No it doesn't.  It gives credit to an institution, not a diety.  And I don't see the implication that all good comes from it, nor do I see the implication that all blame for the bad goes is because of a lack of belief in the deity.  Especially in the context that Hurlshot used it.  Whether or not there actually is a diety that is being worshipped (and not just an idea of one) is irrelevant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I was taught in Catholic religious classes that whenever we do good, it was God working through us, that we are able to do good because God exists. We do bad things because we give in to our apple eating human animal selves. Whether or not you believed in the deity was unimportant.

[Hurlshort]

I will let the quran speak for itself:

 

Anotated Qu'ran

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not doubting your source, but when I compare their translations with the ones I have in my handy dandy English translation of the Qu'ran, I'm getting a vastly different story. Maybe I'm not reading it right, I'm no religious scholar.

[Tale]

What would/does an atheist swear on?

We either swear on the bible to not make a fuss or just pass up on religious texts altogether.

[alanschu]

I was taught in Catholic religious classes that whenever we do good, it was God working through us, that we are able to do good because God exists. We do bad things because we give in to our apple eating human animal selves. Whether or not you believed in the deity was unimportant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I won't dispute that. Hurlshot was talking about some of the foundations of religion, and those foundations do transcend mere diety worship. I'd be surprised if some of the guidelines non-religious people strive to achieve haven't been promoted and engrained into society through religion. You could probably also argue the other way as well.

[tarna]

I'd swear on an elephant. Just to be awkward.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And then there's the Chicken Oath"...The broader competency of non-Christians established by Omichund was settled doctrine in England by the last half of the eighteenth century.53 Indeed, the policy of swearing a witness by the peculiar method most binding on his conscience led to judicial approval of some unusual and even bizarre oaths. For example, the Chinese

[~Di]

... I was taught in Catholic religious classes that whenever we do good, it was God working through us, that we are able to do good because God exists. We do bad things because we give in to our apple eating human animal selves. Whether or not you believed in the deity was unimportant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yep. And I was taught in Southern Baptist Bible Study class that anyone who did not accept Jesus Christ as a personal savior would go to hell. Period. Didn't matter if the person spent a lifetime feeding the poor, doing good deeds, saving the lives of peasants simply for the joy of doing good... if they didn't accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior, God didn't want them and they would burn in hell forever.

 

Yes, religion is the foundation of morality.... not.

[Guard Dog]

You know I have spent most of my 33 years wondering just who or what God is. The only conclusion I have ever come up with is that God is the supreme being and as such God is beyond my comprehension. I do not know who gets into heaven, or who goes to hell. How am I qualified to judge that? I'm not. No one is. The most absurd thing I've ever heard was a human telling another human "you are going to hell." It is beyond my ability to look into another persons mind or soul and judge it's worth. And by what calculus is it to be judged? I think it is up to the Creator to judge His creation.

 

So that begs the question, what does God want from us? Is it to follow a religion? If so which one? Are the Catholics right? The Jews. The Muslims? All of their primary religious texts are written by men and if God is beyond the understanding of men maybe none of them are right. But I think inside each of us is an innate understanding of love and compassion and I believe that in that understanding God imparted a piece of himself to us. I think what makes us good people is the extent to which we let that love and compassion influence our daily lives. I'm not as wise or as loving and compassionate as I should be, perhaps none of us are. But I think the first step to wisdom is to recognize a shortcoming and try to rectify it.

 

In the end I do not think it matters what God you believe in or even if you believe in Him at all. If you are a "Good" person as I've defined it here I think God will believe in you. And that is really all that matters.

 

So, Merry Christmas boardies. And for whatever it means to you, God bless you all.

[metadigital]

"One lady told me she thinks I'm doing the right thing on this," he told Fox News. "I wish more people would take a stand and stand up for the principles on which this country was founded."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Irony.

 

What would/does an atheist swear on?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Their word of honour.

[jaguars4ever]

What would/does an atheist swear on?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Their word of honour.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But then what would a Scotsman swear on?

[metadigital]

And I certainly disagree that religious texts are the foundation of a humble, charitable life. There were charitable, humble people long before the old testament hit the shelves. Some of the most humble and charitable people I know have never set foot in a church or peeked inside a religious text of any kind. Some of the greediest, most two-faced people I've ever known are in church every Sabbath doing their weekly "I am so godfearing and pious" masquarade to make up for the past six days of moral squalor.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if much of the mores, norms, conventions, and whatnot that even the secular take part in have influences from religion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's a bit chicken-and-egg, isn't it? :D

 

What would/does an atheist swear on?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Their word of honour.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But then what would a Scotsman swear on?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Anyone not possessing a word of honour would be unable to swear an oath of allegiance. "

[Dark_Raven]

What would/does an atheist swear on?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Their word of honour.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But then what would a Scotsman swear on?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He would swear on the life of his sheep.

[kumquatq3]

He would swear on the life of his sheep.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

ZING!