Freeper Mental Meltdown over Ellison's choice to take oath on a book

[ET Awful]

he believes in instead of one he doesn't:

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DennisPrager/2006/11/28/america,_not_keith_ellison,_decides_what_book_a_congressman_takes_his_oath_on?page=full&comments=true

:rofl:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. Some of these comments look vastly familiar...

to... I don't know... maybe early 1930's Germany. Substitute "Judaism" for "Islam" and I couldn't tell the difference.

[Connie_Corleone]

2. This guy is insane! OMG!

There's no law saying people MUST put their hand on the bible.

There used to be a time when politicians did NOT use the bible to take the oath of office.

[Cocoa]

3. when did America "decide" to take the oath on the Bible?

is it in the Constitution? Did anyone vote on it?

But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

[Connie_Corleone]

9. And here I thought Ellison was an American. Silly me!

America never made the decision to use some book to take the oath on. It was some president (forgot which one) who decided to use the bible to take his oath of office.

[Norquist Nemesis]

17. Washington set the precedent of kissing it

At least that's what http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pinotable.html says. :shrug:


It looks like Teddy Roosevelt was the first (and only) not to use the bible.
"September 14, 1901 -- Theodore Roosevelt
1.The only President not sworn in on a Bible. Mr. Ansley Wilcox, at whose home Roosevelt took the oath of office, wrote in 1903, "According to my best recollection no Bible was used, but President Roosevelt was sworn in with uplifted hand." (The Presidents and Their Wives, p. 3)"

[MikeNearMcChord]

23. And I do believe that Calvin Coolidge, is the only president

not to use the word "Swear" but used the word "Affirm" when he took the office of the President.

[NYC Liberal]

47. Franklin Pierce affirmed, because he didn't want to swear on a Bible

[tanyev]

4. Were Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Tom DeLay and Mark Foley

sworn in using Bibles? Didn't seem to help.

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. So true!

[zbdent]

19. I get the feeling that Repukes surreptitiously substitute "Moby Dick"

for the Bible when they swear anything ... see "Fried Green Tomatos" ... where the minister testified in court that Idgie Threadgood attended the revival 100 percent ...

[ComerPerro]

42. yeah, didn't seem to make much impact on their behavior

probably because they swore in on a book they didn't believe in.

[hippiechick]

6. ... A Bible's a Bible ... does it matter what language its in?

Dude's taking his oath on a holy book, promising to (his) God that he's going to uphold the office he was elected to, etc etc.

That should be enough.

[tabasco]

32. Promises and oaths are meaningless anyway.

Actions speak louder than words.

[nebenaube]

34. not so...

Promises are meaningless, but some Oaths are back up with a death penalty.

[tabasco]

35. If you are talking about a military oath, I took one of those.

Anyone convicted of desertion or treason while in the military is prosecuted for the crime, not a violation of the oath. The contracts you sign with the military with all the fine print are the legally binding documents. Taking the oath is just a ceremony. So please explain what you are talking about. :shrug: Are you part of some secret society with a death penalty for "violating the oath?"

on edit: GWB violated his military oath by failing to report for duty in Alabama. If he was properly punished, like I would have been, he would have been prosecuted for being AWOL or desertion, not violating his military oath.

[zreosumgame]

59. unless you,re a Bushie

then you can go AWOL and desert and still party hard

[kskiska]

7. When JFK ran for president

I remember my ex-husband telling me he could never be president because he would have had to swear his oath of office on a Protestant Bible. At the time, I wondered whether anyone bothered to tell this to JFK. Of course he provided his own Bible - a Catholic one.

Also, in a courtroom, one is allowed to swear or "affirm." No Bible is necessary. Seems reasonable to assume the same holds for a Conressman.

[crispini]

37. Heh, and LBJ was subsequently sworn in on JFK's bible.

So much for your ex's idea. :D

[Robbien]

8. Doesn't non-christians swearing an oath on a bible mean

they are not pledging anything at all since their beliefs do not include christianity?

[ComerPerro]

43. Reminds me of a Kids in the Hall sketch, where Dave Foley is taking the stand in court

and is asked to swear on a Bible. he is asked the usual, "swear to tell the truth" line, and he answers (quite sarcasticly) "Oh, of course, Your Honor. I wouldn't lie. Not to God"

[annabanana]

57. makes sense to me...

Are there any atheists in congress? What would they take an oath on?

[poverlay]

10. What a whackjob. That nut really has it backwards doesn't he? Thanks for

wading through the swamps.

I may take my oath of office on my first season dvd of "Battlestar Galactica". Let's see how they react to that one!

[Norquist Nemesis]

11. It's time they threw out the Bible and put the Constitution under

the palms of elected federal officials when they are sworn in. That's what they swear to uphold.

UGH! Wish I had the 10 mins back from that hate and myopia.

[I_Will]

18. I *LIKE* that idea! Tremendously symbolic!

[NoSheep]

38. That is an excellent idea!

[NYC Liberal]

44. Teddy Roosevelt used the Constitution and not the Bible

Now there's a Republican I COULD have voted for.

[Felix Mala]

12. Perhaps such a "written-in-stone" Constitutional purist would agree

to defer to the Constitution's requirements... Oops, uh-oh, no mention of a bible there... Dang, we must have an amendment requiring all federal oaths be taken on the Protestant bible and uh... uh... oh, shoot I forgot we lost our Pander Power...

[KharmaTrain]

13. Why Not Use The Koran?

Someone should troll that question over there and watch the heads really explode. :rofl: :rofl:

[wicket]

14. It only took him a few paragraphs to invoke Godwin's Law

Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath?

Pathetic. :eyes:

[Hepburn]

15. Unreal.

Let's say a Catholic was elected, or a Baptist, or a Mormon and he/she wished to use the version of the Bible favored by his/her church ~~ IMO, no one would say a word. But...here is a Muslim who wishes to use his own sacred book to swear on and people complain? I see it another way ~~ Mr. Ellison is using what is most sacred to him when he takes the oath of office and this means to me that he puts a great deal of importance on that oath and it is not just something like agreeing to the TOS on a message board. That book is of utmost importance to him and he desires to have it as a part of the official ceremony which makes him a member of Congress! I rather admire this.

[Cocoa]

16. my email to Prager

Dennis,

You're doing a bad thing by making an issue of Ellison's taking his oath on the Koran.

First, you're misleading people. America never "decided" to use the Bible. It's not in the Constitution. It's a convention.

Second, this phony controversy is unnecessary and destructive, just like all the other phony culture war crap.

How much damage are you willing to inflict on the country to help out your bosses? Can't you get by on a salary from an honest job?

I should say "attempt" to inflict. My own perception, supported somewhat by exit polls from the last election, tell me that people are beginning to see through this culture war garbage.

[dogday]

20. Why take an oath on a book that means nothing to you,

at least taking the oath on the Koran, he will be true to his oath, that is his religion after all....

[wtmusic]

21. Jesus was the 1st American

"God Bless America, the greatest nation on God's (the God w/ Jesus attached!) green flat-universe centering earth."

:rofl:

[originalpckelly]

22. Why doesn't he affirm?

:shrug:

That's the option that is designed to protect minorities, because there is no religious test for any office in America. The affirmation allows people who are different to fold into a large group of protection, so that no one knows if you are an atheist, agnostic, Jew, Muslim, Wiccan, etc.

I am quite curious as to why he won't affirm?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

28. Maybe he is as proud of his religion as Christians are of theirs. Wow, imagine that. -nt

[Susang]

55. Outrageous!

Burn the witch!!

(oops, wrong religion. :blush: )

[dubykc]

30. Not only might he be proud of his religion, he probably feels it...

would be hypocritical to swear on a religious text in which he does not believe.

Another interesting concept, no?

[annabanana]

58. I think that's what an ethical, honorable man would think...

That he's willing to take an oath on a text that he considers sacred is good enough for me.

[Solon]

56. Because its his choice...

He COULD have affirmed, if he wanted too, but he CHOSE not to, as is his right. This is more along the lines of personal choice than anything else, as it should be. Just because you can affirm to protect religious identity, or because your religion forbids you from swearing oaths to anyone but a Divinity doesn't limit the choices of religious minorities, but expands them instead. Atheists and Agnostics also can use this as an out, or they could be sworn in on a Carl Sagan's book: The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark(excellent book!), or something. :)

If I were elected to office, in any capacity that requires a swearing in ceremony, I will lug along my Book of Shadows to swear on. No biggie for me, other Wiccans may decide to not do that, and instead affirm, and they can do that, I wouldn't begrudge them for that choice. Other than that, if I were to go to court in any capacity, I would most likely affirm, for practical purposes, because I wouldn't expect the court to provide any Wiccan documents of any sort(a Wiccan Rede would do in a pinch, but unlikely they have it).

I would love for things like this to be a non-issue in this country, but, because of these Christian Dominionists are always to ones who whine the loudest when ANYONE of practically ANY minority religion is given any recognition in this country that equals their own, this isn't going to happen. To be honest, most folks probably couldn't give two shits anymore as to whether someone is Christian or not as a candidate. Some candidates, mostly Repukes, do make religion an issue, but, to be honest, all the folks I voted for(Democrats only, of course), I didn't even know WHAT religion they were to begin with, and it doesn't even matter to me. I pay attention to their policy positions, not their personal lives, and religion is firmly in that camp.

[originalpckelly]

24. What fucking part of "no religious test" doesn't Prager understand?

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

That's not even an amendment, it's in the actual body of the US Constitution. That is exactly what the founders of this country intended you stupid SOB!

[foerschie]

25. I read several comments left by the freepers

and what I thought was the most funny and telling of their stupidity was the guys swearing that we are not a democracy we are a Representative Republic because if we were truly a democracy only California and New York would matter. That's why we have the Electoral College and blah, blah, blah and we need to take a Civics 101 class so we can understand. Actually my Civics class taught me that our forefathers felt that we were too stupid and uneducated to actually vote for president. I have had this discussion with many repubs, and often they seem to be lacking a very basic education in how our government was formed and how it actually works.

[sarge43]

26. Here we go again.

Article VI, Section 3, USC: The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several State legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

So, no, he doesn't have to swear on a bible. In fact, a good argument could be made that using any religious text is a violation of the above.

[kskiska]

27. Article VI:

Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

29. ...And that's why the Dems won back both houses.

Because of idiots like "Dennis Prager" becoming the mainstream of republican thought.

[cool user name]

31. This is the picture they put up next to the article:

Subliminal?

[shadowknows69]

33. If one of these American Taliban idiots

ever has the misfortune to say to my face that America is a Christian nation I'll show them just how unchristian this angry pagan can be. Really sick of these fucks.

[NYC Liberal]

36. That whole article is bullshit: Teddy Roosevelt DID NOT USE A BIBLE for HIS oath

He used a copy of the Constitution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States_oath_of_office

Theodore Roosevelt did not use a Bible when taking the oath in 1901.

Nor did Calvin Coolidge: http://www.historicvermont.org/coolidge/oathrm.html

The Bible which had belonged to my mother lay on the table at my hand. It was not officially used, as it is not the practice in Vermont or Massachusetts

Nor did, I believe, John Quincy Adams: http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/40871.htm

There's an interesting thing about John Adams and John Quincy Adams -- they were both very religious men, and John Quincy Adams were so religious that he is one of probably only one or two American presidents who did not take the Oath of Allegiance on a Bible. Now, it's kind of ironic that John Quincy Adams, being such a religious man, would not have used the Bible, but he said that he thought the Bible should be reserved for strictly religious purposes. So he took the Oath of Office on a book of laws, the Constitution and American laws. That's really what he was swearing allegiance to was the Constitution, so he didn't use the Bible.

Also, in the OFFICIAL (private, prior to the public one) swearing-ins of Rutherford B. Hayes and Chester A. Arthur NO BIBLE was used. (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pibible.html)

So his entire premise is bullshit.

[sinkingfeeling]

39. Disgusting dirtbag.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

46. HEY! I take offense to that!

[sinkingfeeling]

52. No, no...you're a Commie Pinko Dirtbag, not a Disgusting Dirtbag!

And we belong to the great and wondrous FSM.

[ProfessorGAC]

53. Why Are You Offended?

Everyone knows you are a NON-Disgusting dirtbag! :evilgrin:
The Professor

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

54. Tell that to my wife 24 hours after I eat...

...this traditional Brazilian meal.

[KingFlorez]

40. We have a constitution that guarantees religious freedom

You don't like Ellison taking the oath of office on the Quran? Boooo-hoooo! Who gives damn what you think? This is not a Christian theocracy, so get over it.

[Bassic]

41. The relevant Freeptard thread

Did you notice how one moran seems to confuse the Constitution and the Bible as the same document? Generally speaking, being that dumb has got to be painful.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1745104/posts

[Ian David]

45. Oh, KEITH Ellison... I thought it was HARLAN Ellison

I imagined him wanting to pledge on a copy of "Web of the City."

[immoderate]

48. To call Prager an idiot, is well...being kind.

I love this part:

He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

--IMM

[NYC Liberal]

49. Kinda like TEH GAYS ARE GETTING MARRIED!!1

undermines civilzation eh? :rofl:

[immoderate]

51. It's TEOTWAWKI*

*The end of the world as we know it.

Fear and panic is the only appropriate response. Chaos and anarchy are sure to ensue.

--IMM

[Blackhatjack]

50. Been Down This Road Many Times.... Some of My Experiences...

I have had religious clients who refused to swear anything on a Bible, and are allowed to testify based on their 'affirmation' that they will tell the truth.

I have had clients 'sworn' on a Bible, who do not feel it compels them to do anything they would not ordinarily do (essentially no effect).

I have had clients that take the 'swearing' on a Bible very seriously, believing there will be 'providential consequences' if they testify inaccurately to anything, no matter how small.

The idea of having people 'sworn' on a Bible or 'affirm' to tell the truth is exactly the same. The person is acknowledging the testimony they are about to give is important and there are consequences for 'wilfully' testifying untruthfully. They understand that criminal and civil penalties may be applied to them if they commit 'perjury' by intentionally testifying falsely under oath.

As long as a President is either 'sworn in' on a Bible, a copy of the Koran etc., or 'affirms' that he will testify truthfully in accepting the oath, either is acceptable. However, the choice made is not an accurate indicator of the religious faith of the person taking the oath.