Don't run and be elected if you aren't Christian

[ericschand]

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/D...&comments=true

At a loss for words on this one.

ers

[Burninator]

They might as well take their oath on 1984.
But I doubt they would see the irony.

[octothorp]

What would be the point of making somebody swear on something they don't believe in? If he swears on the Koran, he's going to be less likely to intentionally undermine and subvert america, as critics such as Glenn Beck have suggested he wants to do. If a Muslim swearing on the bible is a legitimate pledge, it pretty much undermines that entire act as being meaningless.

[Agamemnon]

I don't get why they make government officials swear on any religious book. That doesn't really enforce the idea that church and state are separate...

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I don't get why they make government officials swear on any religious book. That doesn't really enforce the idea that church and state are separate...

I know in Canada you don't have to swear on the bible.
I think the law basically states that you can swear on anything so long as you believe it to be a morally binding oath (it doesn't even have to be a religous book). Courts usually have the Torah, Koran, book of mormon etc, but most people just swear on the bible because other religions (Jewish and Moslem) leaders have said, that since it is a book of faith it doesn't really matter if it's your specific one or not, as it is a matter of personal morals and ethics anyway.

So I'd have to 100% disagree with this guy. Certainly most people will just swear on the bible, and consider it just as binding (regardless of religous affiliation), but those who do not feel it is binding should be allowed, or even reqired to take it on something else.

I'd take swearing on the Koran, or Torah just as seriously out of respect for the books, but more importantly because of the seriousness of the situation and my own morals/ethcis, and I'd imagine most people would feel the same way, but if they'd rather swear an oath on their book of choosing, that's fine by me, whatever makes you feel that it is a binding oath will do.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I'd take swearing on the Koran, or Torah just as seriously out of respect for the books, but more importantly because of the seriousness of the situation and my own morals/ethcis, and I'd imagine most people would feel the same way, but if they'd rather swear an oath on their book of choosing, that's fine by me, whatever makes you feel that it is a binding oath will do.

Right... and he feels that swearing on the Koran is a binding oath, he doesn't feel the same way about the bible. I think its a pretty archaic form of 'oath-swearing' anyway, in a secular state you should just raise your hand and say "I do" in response to a prepared statement by the judge. This putting a hand on a book business, regardless of its religious nature or connotations, seems absurd to me. If the judicial system is a secular non-religious institution I don't see why swearing on the bible/koran/any religious material is required. And if it is, you should be able to swear on whichever one you want, not whichever one other people think you should. Its a distortion of the separation of government and church, in my opinion.

[RougeUnderoos]

see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America.

Wow these people are arrogant. Oh I mean wow these people are stupid. Or maybe both.

Maybe some of our Yank friends can tell us how many people are truly concerned that their country will be "Islamicized" in actual reality. I imagine the number is pretty low but it comes up so often in the media that it makes me think that this ridiculous idea is catching on.

[Flashpoint]

Nothing like a little religious intolerance to start thte day off right. Hey moron, guess what? The founding fathers loved slavery too. Maybe they aren't the best example to follow blindly...

[looooob]

more on Dennis Prager from our friends at wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Prager

I enjoy the trivia section, especially his stance on breastfeeding?

[Crazy Flamer]

Wow. What a complete tool.

I find this whole article compltely hyprcitical. He shouldn't swear on the Koran beause its not America's book? He shouldn't get to choose? Isn't America supposed to be the land of the free???

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Nothing like a little religious intolerance to start thte day off right. Hey moron, guess what? The founding fathers loved slavery too. Maybe they aren't the best example to follow blindly...

Well, not to mention the fact that most of the "founding fathers" actually weren't Christians. Jefferson and Adams were deists. Franklin was an atheist.

This idea that America was founded on "Christian" values isn't just intolerant and damaging. It's historically wrong. America was founded on secular enlightenment values. It isn't perfect, but that's the historical truth of the matter. To pretend that American culture=Christian culture is just a way of justifying intolerance.

[Cowperson]

An intelligent, reasoned rebuttal:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n2217618.shtml

Cowperson

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I don't get why they make government officials swear on any religious book. That doesn't really enforce the idea that church and state are separate...

It's something that wasn't an issue in the Nation's infancy when everyone was Christian in one form or another...and now it is traditional.

I suggest they change it though. Everyone should swear on the constitution of the United States and be bound to uphold it or be put to death.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well, not to mention the fact that most of the "founding fathers" actually weren't Christians. Jefferson and Adams were deists. Franklin was an atheist.

This idea that America was founded on "Christian" values isn't just intolerant and damaging. It's historically wrong. America was founded on secular enlightenment values. It isn't perfect, but that's the historical truth of the matter. To pretend that American culture=Christian culture is just a way of justifying intolerance.

True, but an atheist or a deist wouldn't necessarily see swearing on the bible as a conflict, especially 200 years ago. Certainly a muslim would. That's why it hasn't been an issue until now.

As I mentioned, I truly believe they should be made to swear on the constitution itself.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America.

Wow these people are arrogant. Oh I mean wow these people are stupid. Or maybe both.

Maybe some of our Yank friends can tell us how many people are truly concerned that their country will be "Islamicized" in actual reality. I imagine the number is pretty low but it comes up so often in the media that it makes me think that this ridiculous idea is catching on.

Well, I don't know how it can be 'Islamicized' when the Mexicans are taking over.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Well, I don't know how it can be 'Islamicized' when the Mexicans are taking over.

The muslims will aim at Islamicizing Mexico first, then the spread to the US will be unstoppable!

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

The muslims will aim at Islamicizing Mexico first, then the spread to the US will be unstoppable!

So THAT's why we have to 'secure the border' with that fence thingy. It is about terrorism after all!

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

An intelligent, reasoned rebuttal:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n2217618.shtml

Cowperson

Thanks for posting that.

The writer does a great job of pointing out that Prager wants to violate the constitution while someone is swearing to uphold it.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

True, but an atheist or a deist wouldn't necessarily see swearing on the bible as a conflict, especially 200 years ago.

That's very true.

But what I was basically criticizing is the viewpoint that somehow America was "founded on Christian values." Anyone with even a basic understanding of U.S. history knows that it wasn't. But there are elements of the Christian right that in my opinion wish to re-create America in the image of their own theocratic fantasies. As Bush would say, "it's revisionist history!"

Swearing on the constitution is an interesting idea. After all, that is the binding document in question, isn't it? Maybe it is time to realize that having everyone swear on the same holy book isn't the wisest course.

Though I should also say that even though I'm not religious, I would consider an oath sworn on the Bible to be every bit as morally binding. But that's because of my own ethical values, not external religious ones that belong to somebody else.

[Calgaryborn]

Well as a baptist I wouldn't swear on the Bible:

Matt 5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne:
35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.