General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2249175

    A first for America…The Koran replaces the Bible at swearing-in oath

    Locked

    by protiusx ·

    As I am a subscriber to the American Family Association I receive regular emails indicating certain causes that I usually agree with. In this instance I do not. Here is the text of the email I received:

    “Dear ProtiusX (Alias inserted to protect me)

    Please take a moment to read the following TownHall.com column by Dennis Prager, who is a Jew. After reading the column, take the suggest action at the bottom of this email. After you have read it, please forward it to your friends and family.

    America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on
    By Dennis Prager – Tuesday, November 28, 2006

    Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

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

    First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism — my culture trumps America’s culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

    Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison’s favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

    Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler’s “Mein Kampf,” the Nazis’ bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison’s right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?

    Of course, Ellison’s defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either. Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible. Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of “Dianetics” by L. Ron Hubbard.

    So why are we allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done — choose his own most revered book for his oath?

    The answer is obvious — Ellison is a Muslim. And whoever decides these matters, not to mention virtually every editorial page in America, is not going to offend a Muslim. In fact, many of these people argue it will be a good thing because Muslims around the world will see what an open society America is and how much Americans honor Muslims and the Koran.

    This argument appeals to all those who believe that one of the greatest goals of America is to be loved by the world, and especially by Muslims because then fewer Muslims will hate us (and therefore fewer will bomb us).

    But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible. In fact, the opposite is more likely: Ellison’s doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal — the Islamicization of America.

    When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11. It is hard to believe that this is the legacy most Muslim Americans want to bequeath to America. But if it is, it is not only Europe that is in trouble. (End Commentary)”

    I believe that our government is indeed secular and should remain that way. An oath is a solemn thing and is intended to invoke a promissory response. If one does not revere the object being invoked during the oath then it detracts from the ultimate objective. The objective here is not to convert this person to Christianity nor is it to show the world that the US is a Christian state because it is not. I wonder what a religious Jew would swear upon.

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #3224567

      There’s hope for you lot yet

      by tony hopkinson ·

      In reply to A first for America…The Koran replaces the Bible at swearing-in oath

      Anyone who stands in his way in swearing his oath by what he holds dear, is saying they what they hold to is meaningless.

      I’ve always wondered what I would do if I had to take the witness stand, swearing on the bible would mean nothing to me, my word though that means a lot.

    • #3224564

      Okay

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to A first for America…The Koran replaces the Bible at swearing-in oath

      I agree, who the hell cares what someone swears on, as long as THEY deem it an oath that cannot be broken. If YOU were asked to swear on the Quo’ran would you see it as an oath you couldn’t break? When compared to the bible?

      What would an athiest swear on?

      It’s outaded garbage really. My view is that everyone should be allowed to choose a religion or faith of choice. I would never try to deny someone’s ability to have faith.

      I don’t care what they have faith in though, religion, the New York Yankees or even Paris Hilton (well that last one worries me). They have faith as a personal and very private belief that keeps one going.

      BUT, religion has no place in government and no place in law.

      Swear on a Smarties box if THAT’s what will mean something to you and make you feel that you should not lie. But to force someone to state as much on something they don’t believe is just silly.

      It’s quite nice to see this side of you ProtiusX.

    • #3224554

      Wow.

      by drowningnotwaving ·

      In reply to A first for America…The Koran replaces the Bible at swearing-in oath

      Doesn’t a lot of American institutions enable people to “swear” in a non-religious manner, if they are not Christians?

      I know our courts do over this side of the world.

      I’ve no doubt Ellison is pushing the agenda to get a point, spurious or serious depending upon your own point of view, over to Joe Public. The nature of the reaction would appear that, irrespective of the final outcome, he already has his result.

      Thank you px for bringing this out.

      I certainly agree that the USA has every right to determine that, overall and historically, they are a Christian-based society and the Bible is the manifestation of that faith.

      But surely enabling people to swear on the bible if Christian, or on a non-religious basis if their own beleifs are different, doesn’t seem to actually threaten the basis of modern society. Is it that fragile?

      [i] [b] “If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11.” [/i] [/b]. Wow.

      • #3223453

        Yes, such is a well established practice here as well.

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to Wow.

        It’s an ancient practice called [i]affirmation[/i], and, it has a well defined place in English Common Law, which serves as the foundation of the Law in most of the States, as well as our Federal Law.

        There are, of course, those who are either ignorant of the facts, or choose to ignore such when convenient to their cause.

      • #3223438

        True

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Wow.

        I have been in many courts where no Bible is presented. People are sworn in simply with a raised hand.

        It does depend on the court though and those present. In a Supreme Court they will often have more formal approach.

      • #3223437

        Wow

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Wow.

        [i] “If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11.” . Wow.[/i]

        LOL 😀

        Well done, you’re getting it now.

        Touche’

    • #3224545

      Now THAT’s hyperbole!

      by nicknielsen ·

      In reply to A first for America…The Koran replaces the Bible at swearing-in oath

      [i]When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11.[/i]

      Somebody needs a life.

      Edit: title typo

    • #3223455

      Apparently you are ignorant of the ancient practice of [i]affirmation[/i]

      by deepsand ·

      In reply to A first for America…The Koran replaces the Bible at swearing-in oath

      Per [i]Encyclop?dia Britannica Article[/i]

      [b]affirmation[/b]

      “in law, a promise by a witness concerning testimony allowed in place of an oath to those who cannot, because of conscience, swear an oath. For example, members of the Society of Friends (Quakers), Jehovah’s Witnesses, and other persons who have objections against taking an oath are allowed to make affirmation in any manner they may declare to be binding upon their consciences?”

      The practice of affirmation predates the founding of the U.S., and the custom of using a Scripture (of any kind) as part of taking an oath.

      To insist that only the Christian Bible will suffice is not merely without logical foundation but egregiously disrepectful of the beliefs of others as well.

    • #3223452

      One word, Protius: Thorazine

      by delbertpgh ·

      In reply to A first for America…The Koran replaces the Bible at swearing-in oath

      You get way too excited over way too little. What’s the next line of defense these crackpot Christian jabberwockies are going to proclaim in the defense of our beloved constitution? Swearing on the King James version instead of the dreaded papist RSV? Taking the oath in 100% cotton underwear? Brylcream?

      Honestly, these are symbols to solemnize an occasion, and to bring Godly blessings to an earthly task. But people lie after holding the book, or while holding the book, or reading it. So it means next to nothing, except to some hyperventilating little evangelist tub-thumper trying to scare people out of thinking and lining up behind rural Neanderthal politicians.

      Egad. I had better shut up. I’m letting show my prejudices against traditional Southern lunacy.

      • #3223428

        Egad; please [i]don’t[/i] shut up.

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to One word, Protius: Thorazine

        TR needs all of the sane ones, with the balls to speak out, that it can get!

      • #3223203

        Delbert, the point he is making

        by tig2 ·

        In reply to One word, Protius: Thorazine

        Is that Mr Ellison should be allowed to take the oath using whatever is meaningful to him and that the hysterical rant he received is just wrong.

        I have to agree. Mr Ellison is from the state I live in and I frankly don’t care if he takes the oath with a copy of William Shakespeare’s collected works… as long as it is meaningful to him.

        And I seem to recall that those elected to public office have always had the right to choose the book on which they will swear the oath of office.

        Protius is just trying to point out to us that this is going too far. I think you agree with him. I think that many of us do. I know I do.

        • #3223132

          Well, oddly enough, I agree with Mr. Protius about that

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to Delbert, the point he is making

          To the extent that he disagrees with the Ellison guy, I am with him, and I regret that I read his post so quickly that I had the mistaken impression he was just passing on Ellison’s “good word”.

    • #3223214

      Article VI of the US Constitution

      by brneyes ·

      In reply to A first for America…The Koran replaces the Bible at swearing-in oath

      “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.”

      Requiring anyone to take an oath on the Bible would obviously constitute a religious test which would violate our Constitution.

      Perhaps these right wing extremists should reread the Constitution which is the very foundation of American civilization.

      • #3223198

        Lumping

        by protiusx ·

        In reply to Article VI of the US Constitution

        I am a right wing extremist (or so I think of myself anyway) but I am committed to the tenants that formed our country. I look at it this way: Even though I am a Christian I appreciate the rights afforded me by the constitution. I take solace in the knowledge that my government will make no laws prohibiting the free expression of my religious belief. While I relish under this protection I understand that it also applies to all other religions. So the Muslim has just as much right in my country to worship as he or she deems is appropriate as do I and my Jewish friends. As much as I disagree with my Muslim American brethren I also disagree with the Secular progressives and think they are a much more dangerous creature.

      • #3223187

        So by your post

        by w2ktechman ·

        In reply to Article VI of the US Constitution

        Would’nt it be better if they swore on the Constitution of the US rather than the Bible (of any sorts)?

        That would be able to include all religions AND athiesm the same. They would be bound to the oath to the country instead of their personal religion(s). To me this would sound like a better way, than to choose various bibles, after all, they are not moving into a church position, they are moving into a government office.

        • #3223165

          That would be interesting

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to So by your post

          Do humans value religion or their nation more? We are bound to get different answers. Say a person, who values her/his religion & country, is asked to give up one of those things; which one would s/he choose?

          Immigrants through out history have shown that they are ready to leave their place of origin, but not their religion that easily.

        • #3223160

          Very good point

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to That would be interesting

          If you were to give me a choice I would always choose Christ over anything from this world.

        • #3223142

          But it wouldnt be a choice of religion

          by w2ktechman ·

          In reply to Very good point

          Our Government is supposed to separate religion and state, right? If they are being hired for a government job that requires an oath, what would be wrong with having it done to the constitution, or Bill of Rights for that matter?
          Their position is to protect the country, and to help its citizens, and to make the country better, correct?
          If so, the Constitution oath should be the preferred oath.

          As stated before, many religious people have placed an oath on the Bible, even if they do not believe in it at all. This seems ridiculous. If they are being sworn in for a high office in the Government, they should already be patriotic, right?
          Being so, they should have some values placed on their country, and probably are not looking to leave it.

          I am not saying that this will work in every instance (like in court), I am just stating for these types of positions, it should not be the Bible at all, but the documents that tell us what our Country is, what we stand for, and what they will be defending.

          When in office, are they defending God, or the Constitution? Are they making descisions about how to alter the Bible, or amendments to our rights? Are they deciding that everyone must worship a God, or are they figuring out how to make this Country work better (supposedly)?

          That is why I brought it up, their position in the Government is deep in the Government. In which case their oath should be to the Government rather than any God.

          If they were looking to be a priest/monk/Rabbi/etc. then their religious icon would be appropriate.

    • #3223201

      First of all

      by maecuff ·

      In reply to A first for America…The Koran replaces the Bible at swearing-in oath

      he is swearing to uphold the constitution, not the bible. And I could be wrong, but I don’t think the bible is part of the swearing in ceremony anyway.

      • #3223172

        You are correct

        by stephanisat ·

        In reply to First of all

        that he is swearing to preserve, uphold, and protect the Constitution. That said, the founders wanted religious people to hold office (read among other primary sources, The Federalist Papers). They did not want complete separation from religion and state, which is what “progressives” want. Our founders wanted to be free from a specific state-sponsored church. For example, they did not want to be like England where The Church of England was the established church. Swearing an oath to God to uphold the law was exactly what the founders intended, and the 2nd amendment puts in writing the fact that the framers of the Constitution respected all avenues of faith.

        • #3223158

          I must humbly disagree

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to You are correct

          The second amendment prevents the government from creating laws establishing a national religion AND prevents the government from creating any laws that interfere with the free practice of religion. While I agree that the founding fathers were religious they weren’t of the same religion. They were keen to freely worship in the style that suited them but they also wanted others to be free to worship in what ever manor they wished. It is the foundation of freedom of religion NOT freedom from religion.
          The swearing of an oath is more tradition than it is religious.

        • #3225265

          Wow

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to I must humbly disagree

          Something we agree on. We should mark this down in a calendar somewhere.

          Of course, it was inevitable that it would happen. You can’t possibly be wrong ALL of the time.

          🙂

        • #3225151

          Which amendment?

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to You are correct

          [i]…the 2nd amendment puts in writing the fact that the framers of the Constitution respected all avenues of faith.[/i]

          Funny, I thought the Second Amendment said something about bare arms.

        • #3225081

          “[i]the founders wanted religious people to hold office[/i]”?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to You are correct

          Funny, though, how the U.S. Constitution itself fails to support your claim!

          You seem to be reading [b]into[/b] the [i]Federalist Papers[/i] that which you desire to find.

        • #3225080

          “[i]the founders wanted religious people to hold office[/i]”?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to You are correct

          Funny, though, how the U.S. Constitution itself fails to support your claim!

          You seem to be reading [b]into[/b] the [i]Federalist Papers[/i] that which you desire to find.

    • #3223155

      I’ve got three words for ya

      by jmgarvin ·

      In reply to A first for America…The Koran replaces the Bible at swearing-in oath

      Freedom of religion.

      See, that’s what our country is founded on. Freedom. We aren’t like the rest of the world. We allow people to practice any religion they choose, we allow people to be racist, and best yet, we allow people to speak out against it.

      By denying freedom we are denying ourselves.
      However, comparing swearing on the Koran is not the same AT ALL as swearing on Mein Kampf. The Koran is a religious text and reconginzed as such. Further, it making him swear on the bible reduces the validity of anything he says, because he hasn’t taken an oath that may be meaningful to him.

      Not to mention the

      • #3223129

        hmmmmm

        by onbliss ·

        In reply to I’ve got three words for ya

        You stated:
        “We aren’t like the rest of the world. We allow people to practice any religion they choose, we allow people to be racist, and best yet, we allow people to speak out against it.”

        There are countries in the world that allow people to practice any religion they choose and the sundry things you mention.

        • #3223124

          You’re very brave to say that

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to hmmmmm

          you have to recall that for many (if not most) USAmericans, there are no other countries in the world. 🙂

        • #3223123

          We typically are far more open and able to do it

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to hmmmmm

          In other countries, even in Europe, some freedom is restricted….The US is the most open country I’ve seen…

          Not to say we aren’t stupid sometimes, but for we are far more open and free than most nations on the planet.

        • #3225263

          I disagree…sort of

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to We typically are far more open and able to do it

          Legally, the US is a very open-minded country. Socially, is quite a different story.

          — How many Americans would accept seeing two men or two women walking down the street holding hands, [i]anywhere[/i] in the country? In some countries, it’s a sign of friendship, not sexual orientation. On seeing it, many Americans react poorly.
          — How many Americans would accept an adult shop in an airport shopping mall or a railroad station mezzanine? Sex shops are in such places all over Germany. Again, on seeing it, many Americans react poorly.

        • #3225228

          :-)

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to I disagree…sort of

          [i]In some countries, it’s a sign of friendship, not sexual orientation. On seeing it, many Americans react poorly.[/i]

          Funny you mention that. Once at work we went to happy hour and we were walking in the uptown area; a fellow Indian was talking to me and he dropped his hands over my shoulder and was chatting/walking for few minutes. My American co-workers started laughing at that it took few minutes for us to realize the implication – then we all started laughing. It was good 🙂

        • #3225229

          Maybe you are right, but

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to We typically are far more open and able to do it

          ..you are making broad statements. There are other democracies that are very open, so unless you narrow down to specifics it is impossible to truly gauge how other countries are faring. In India, there is openess to an extent that nationalist/majority claim the government keeps appeasing the minorities.

        • #3225219

          OK, where in Europe is such freedom restricted?

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to We typically are far more open and able to do it

          The only restriction I am aware of is the French regulation against the hajib or burka or the wearing of any religious item in public schools, and that is applied to all equally, so its more a secular regulation than one religion against another. A Christian can’t wear a cross, a muslim a hajib etc.

          So where in Europe is there less freedom of religion than the US?

          I will grant you that in the past there has been some – the formerly communist countries, Portugal had sopme persecution of Jehovah’s witnesses. But this is in the past.

          James

    • #3223133

      A question for the people that are in favor of this

      by jdclyde ·

      In reply to A first for America…The Koran replaces the Bible at swearing-in oath

      So we are to allow anyone to bring in any book they choose for the swearing in?

      What if the person believes in nothing?

      Where does it go, and where does it end?

      From the way ALL of the politicians seem to act, regardless of party affiliation, maybe we should be doing away with the swearing in all together, as they clearly are not honoring that oath. Ask Mr Jefferson about his cool cash, or Foley about being a homosexual that likes 18 year old boys.

      • #3223128

        And that’s the point – except for the ceremony there is No point

        by drowningnotwaving ·

        In reply to A question for the people that are in favor of this

        The people who probably NEED an oath or two in their lives, will swear it on anything put in front of them and ignore it anyway.

        And the genuine people who don’t need to swear an oath, well, don’t need to swear an oath.

        As long as the party is fun afterwards then I guess it is okay. The odd inauguration ball, the odd intern out by the fire escape. Ceremony and tradition can be important.

      • #3223127

        If you ask me….

        by onbliss ·

        In reply to A question for the people that are in favor of this

        …swearing in or taking oath on some thing also seems childish. It is like a child saying “promise”. Sometimes even a child keeps the promise better than adults.

        We are just naive 🙂

        • #3225251

          It comes from a different time when people had standards

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to If you ask me….

          When people would swear on something near and dear to them, they really would fear they would lose what it is they swore on, (swear on my mothers eyes) or in the case of the bible, incur Gods wrath.

          It is like at work. When invoices are printed up, there is also a report to be compared to the invoices to make sure they are correct before being sent to customers. After years of this, and different people going through these positions, people forget why they do something. One day the lady doing the job asked why they printed this long report and then just threw it away. She was horrified to hear that every weeks SHE was suppose to have been VERYIFING her work with that report.

          After generations of no respect or teaching of traditions, everyone is just going through the motions with no idea why.

        • #3225232

          Actions vs Words

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to It comes from a different time when people had standards

          Shouldn’t the actions be given more importance than the words? If people have no standards what’s the use asking them to swear?

        • #3225214

          Disagreement.

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to It comes from a different time when people had standards

          The ratio of people whose word means something hasn’t changed, fear of the consequences when your word is found to be meaningless has.

          An oath made before god, is a stiffener for those who aren’t naturally inclined to stick to it. Not even that works nowadays, after all Jesus will forgive you for being a weak willed worthless lying fool, it’s says so in the book.

          In that sense an oath before Allah, probably has more clout.

        • #3225205

          actually, it depends what the oath is

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Disagreement.

          it is perfectly acceptable to say or do anything to the “infidels”. If the oath was made to Allah for other islamics, then it would have much more clout.

        • #3225185

          Well yes.

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to actually, it depends what the oath is

          But I swear to uphold the constitution of the United States can’t be held to by just holding to it for islamic citizens.

          We have no plans to raise taxes as an honest politician once said.

        • #3225248

          It comes from a different time when people had standards

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to If you ask me….

          When people would swear on something near and dear to them, they really would fear they would lose what it is they swore on, (swear on my mothers eyes) or in the case of the bible, incur Gods wrath.

          It is like at work. When invoices are printed up, there is also a report to be compared to the invoices to make sure they are correct before being sent to customers. After years of this, and different people going through these positions, people forget why they do something. One day the lady doing the job asked why they printed this long report and then just threw it away. She was horrified to hear that every weeks SHE was suppose to have been VERYIFING her work with that report.

          After generations of no respect or teaching of traditions, everyone is just going through the motions with no idea why.

        • #3225078

          Per the Constitution – “[i]shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation[/i]”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to It comes from a different time when people had standards

          I fail to find any reference to a requirement for the use of [b]any[/b] object so as to lend credence to said Oath or Affirmation.

      • #3223121

        The slippery slope doesn’t fit here

        by jmgarvin ·

        In reply to A question for the people that are in favor of this

        The Koran is no different than the xian bible to a Muslim. Why shouldn’t they be able to swear on it?

        • #3225250

          If he were in the middle east, I am sure he would

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to The slippery slope doesn’t fit here

          What would happen if someone from the Christian faith wanted to do the same in the middle east? A quick exectution?

          Remember last year they guy that was charged and possibly facing the death penalty because converting from Islam to Christianity is a capital offense.

        • #3225222

          What a specius argument

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to If he were in the middle east, I am sure he would

          First off, we weren’t talking about the middle east, we were talking about the US. You seem to indicate the lowest common denominator would be fine. I really do hope you aspire to more than that. I know I do.

          Forcing someone to swear on a Bible when they are of another faith is frankly utterly stupid. What meaning could it possibly have if their faith doesn’t hold the bible up as a holy book. If an oath is required, make it something meaningfull. If the person required to make an oath has no books of significance, make it their honor or whatever.

          As for your sidewipe smear of the middle east, perhaps you should stop watching Fox and do a little research. Why was the pope in Turkey (middle east by most people’s definition)? One reason was to talk to the head of the eastern Orthodox church there. The are significan Christian populations in many middle eastern states; Yasser Arafat’s wife was Christian. My dentist, a Palestinian woman by birth, is Christian.

          In Lebanon, about 6 million Christians left during and after the civil war of the late 70s/early 80s. About 1.5 million remain. Egypt has about 10 million Christians. Over a million Christians in Syria, about a million in Iraq.

          The middle east/muslim world is not one single minded entity. In some places Christians are welcomed, in other tolerated, in other persecuted.

          James

      • #3225268

        Do nihilists run for office :D

        by tony hopkinson ·

        In reply to A question for the people that are in favor of this

        99.9999999999 % of the people who run for office, couldn’t keep their word if their life depended on it.
        Actually, that’s a good idea, at least they only get to lie once. 😀

        Which means more?. What you swear to, or what you swear on. If you break an oath does that mean what you swore on is meaningless, or that an oath someone else gave has no value?

        No on both counts, all you can do is trust them to have a word and cane them if they break it, or not trust them in the first place.

        Question, isn’t eighteen old enough to know whether you are homosexual or not?

        • #3225249

          I would think so Tony

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Do nihilists run for office :D

          As it turns out that is how old the ex-page was when all the emails and IM messages where sent to him, and then conveniently hidden away until just before an election showing that the people that came out against this homosexual were more interesting in a political smear than protecting more boys from his influence.

        • #3225238

          Not so long back in the UK you had to be 21

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to I would think so Tony

          before you were legally allowed to be a practising homosexual. There was a massive hooraw when they fetched it down to 18, (now 16, I think ?)
          All sorts of people waffling about impressionable young men being influenced into changing their sexuality.

          Not wearing that me, you can be influenced into bigotry, or perhaps to not find it unpalatable, which sex of partner makes you double take is built in though.
          I’ve never fancied it myself, though I don’t have a problem with those who do.

          Foley however abused his position, for that he should be taken to task.

          Were the electorate aware of his orientation?

        • #3225201

          it seems his wife didn’t even know?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Not so long back in the UK you had to be 21

          .

        • #3225184

          Well he should be barred from holding office

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to it seems his wife didn’t even know?

          for being a liar, a coward and fool then.
          Being gay, is simply the thing he couldn’t face others knowing about him.

        • #3225177

          As with most Republicans that have a scandel come out

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Well he should be barred from holding office

          They leave office in shame, and Foley is long gone. He was gone within a few days.

          If he had been a Democrat, he would still be in office sitting pretty, bragging about it (like another rep that actually had sex, not just send emails or another that got caught with lots of cash hidden in his freezer. But because there are no ethics involved in being a democrat, he is not in violation of them.)

    • #3225207

      This I agree…

      by onbliss ·

      In reply to A first for America…The Koran replaces the Bible at swearing-in oath

      … is asking for too much.

      http://www.startribune.com/462/story/848991.html

      *************
      Area Muslim religious leaders have asked for a prayer room at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport after six Muslim leaders were escorted off a plane last week because of security concerns.
      The local imams, who prayed on the mezzanine level before meeting with airport officials Friday afternoon, said a prayer room is essential because of the need to pray several times a day. The act itself is nonintrusive, they said.

      “We as Muslims, we are part of this country,” said Abdulrehman Hersi, a Minneapolis imam. “You have to pray wherever you are. Our prayer … we believe that we talk to our lord. It does not make harm to anyone.”

      Airport director Steve Wareham said it would be possible to accommodate their needs, possibly in the form of a “meditation room” like those available at other airports. Such a room would be interfaith, he said.

      Wareham said the airport does not have a meditation room, although quiet waiting rooms and spaces are available. A chaplain has a small room at the airport, he said, adding that until now there haven’t been requests for a prayer room.

      Six imams were removed from a Phoenix-bound US Airways flight Nov. 20 after a ticket agent and passengers said they were praying loudly at the gate and visiting each other while on the plane.

      They were questioned by authorities, including the FBI, and released.

      The incident caused a nationwide debate about security concerns versus the imams’ civil rights.

      The airport police report describes concerns about the imams reported by passengers and airline employees.

      They included “very loud” praying that included “chanting” of “Allah, Allah, Allah” before the flight. Two of the men requested seat-belt extenders that an off-duty flight attendant didn’t think the men were large enough to need.

      US Airways spokesman Morgan Durrant said the airline has reviewed but not changed its policies in light of the incident. “We feel that the crew followed procedure and acted for the safety of others,” he said.

      The imams have said that their prayers were standard sunset prayers and that the seat-belt extenders were requested because some are large men. (The police report lists the weights of two as 230 and 250.)

      The imams, who had attended a religious conference in Bloomington, flew home the next day on Northwest Airlines.

      The Twin Cities imams who met with airport officials Friday said there is a gap in communication. They said officials need to forge more understanding with the Muslim community.

      “We are Americans,” said Abdullahi Wasuge, an assistant imam in Minneapolis.

      Merlin Tolsma, deputy chief of airport police, told them everyone has a responsibility to ensure safety at the airport. He later said that authorities have an obligation to investigate complaints made by travelers. “People pray all over the place here all the time,” Tolsma said.

      Airport officials plan to visit a local mosque at the imams’ invitation, said airport spokesman Pat Hogan. The imams did not make specific demands in the meeting Friday, he added.

      Chris Beebe, a US Airways pilot and official for the Air Line Pilots Association in Washington, said the decision to remove and question the imams was made “because of an accumulation of circumstances.”The captain responsible for the flight will almost always take the most conservative position, the action that most guarantees safety,” Beebe said
      *******************

      • #3225186

        depends on how it is asked for

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to This I agree…

        if this is done as an honest REQUEST, rather than a demand, it would fit in with past practices according to what the director said.

        Funny though, that this is the first request for such. I have to assume this is not the first time a muslim has flown in the US……

Viewing 10 reply threads