|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Murder of Angels Captain
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 11:16 pm
The following is a very fascinating (and short) article I found on an Islamic forum. Quote: But It's Thomas Jefferson's Koran! By Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts Wednesday, January 3, 2007 Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, found himself under attack last month when he announced he'd take his oath of office on the Koran -- especially from Virginia Rep. Virgil Goode, who called it a threat to American values. Yet the holy book at tomorrow's ceremony has an unassailably all-American provenance. We've learned that the new congressman -- in a savvy bit of political symbolism -- will hold the personal copy once owned by Thomas Jefferson. If Keith Ellison takes the ceremonial oath of office using Thomas Jefferson's Koran, will he and Virgil Goode at long last be on the same page? Don't hold your breath. I think this article just goes to show that while in some respects Americans are becoming more tolerant of non-Christian faiths, we still have a long way to go before non-Christians are fully accepted. Points of discussion: The majority of the Founding Fathers were Freemasons, and a number of them, including Thomas Jefferson were Unitarians. Is America really founded on Christian values?
Should non-Christian state officials be sworn in on the Bible? Why or why not should they use the holy scripture of their own faith?
Should the Bible, a symbol of the Christian faith, (or ANY holy scripture, for that matter)even be used to swear in in the first place? Keep in mind the idea of seperation of Church and State.
Is it possible that a non-religious oath could be written and used in place of holy Scripture?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 7:04 am
Hah. I remember hearing about this on NPR. I was saddened that it was becoming a big fiasco. If I ever go to trial, swearing on the Bible myself would be meaningless. Now, if they printed off my own Code of Honor and had me swear by it, that would mean something extremely, extremely serious to me. Ah well.
The majority of the Founding Fathers were Freemasons, and a number of them, including Thomas Jefferson were Unitarians. Is America really founded on Christian values?
I'm not so sure the majority of our Founders were Freemasons, but they were NOT of one mind on religious issues, plain and simple. Was it founded on "Christian" values? Praytell, what precisely are Christian values to begin with? And are a great number of these values shared by other faiths anyway? If we're going to ascribe the Golden Rule as a Christian value, I think that's somewhat misleading. While it is part of Christian ethic, pretty much every other major religion has an equivalent.
Should non-Christian state officials be sworn in on the Bible? Why or why not should they use the holy scripture of their own faith?
Should? Probably not; it doesn't make much sense at all. It would make more sense for them to swear on something that has meaning to them, be that a different scripture, a personal code, or the progress of knowledge through science.
Should the Bible, a symbol of the Christian faith, (or ANY holy scripture, for that matter)even be used to swear in in the first place? Keep in mind the idea of seperation of Church and State.
I am not against the idea. The basic idea of swearing on a sacred text is that you're swearing an oath on something that is extremely important to you; something that's part of the essence of your being. To violate that violates yourself and the core of your being; you'd be living a lie. Oaths are meant to be taken seriously and oaths on something you really value should penetrate the oathmaker even more to their core. That's what the real point of the oath is supposed to be; it doesn't matter what the object of that oath is, but that the sensation of a very deep commitment is felt. For many, religion represents that thing of very deep commitment so a religious text is a natural choice for many.
Is it possible that a non-religious oath could be written and used in place of holy Scripture?
Yes, but it might not hold meaning for the individual. That's the real critical part. The oath has to have deep, personal meaning to the one saying it. Each person really should pick what they swear their oath to or write their own oathbinding speech. It may or may not be what is conventionally considered "religious." To me, though, any thing which is held with the passionate equivalent of belief in God is a religious belief; the object of oath must be something the person feels is true to that kind of passionate degree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 2:17 pm
The majority of the Founding Fathers were Freemasons, and a number of them, including Thomas Jefferson were Unitarians. Is America really founded on Christian values?
I think people just like to say that America was founded on Christian values because the pilgrams were Christian. But why would that matter at all? People came to America seeking religious freedom, so why should it matter what religion America's founders were? On that note, why sould it matter what religion anyone is?
Should non-Christian state officials be sworn in on the Bible? Why or why not should they use the holy scripture of their own faith?
No. If you aren't Christian, the Bible has no meaning to you, so why would your oath mean anything? They should be able to choose what they're sworn in by.
Should the Bible, a symbol of the Christian faith, (or ANY holy scripture, for that matter)even be used to swear in in the first place? Keep in mind the idea of seperation of Church and State.
Something of meaning to the person swearing the oath should be used. The Bible has no meaning at all to a Buddhist, and the Koran has no meaning to a Pagan. And what about people without religions at all? Maybe instead of a religious text, there should be a code of honor, like Starlock suggested.
Is it possible that a non-religious oath could be written and used in place of holy Scripture?
While I like the Personal Code of Honor idea, I think that would only work for agnostics and atheists. Anyone with a religion would want to use an oath specific to their religious beliefs. There should be a basic oath written, and then religious references could be switched out depending on the religion of the person taking the oath.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 4:33 pm
Should non-Christian state officials be sworn in on the Bible? Why or why not should they use the holy scripture of their own faith?
The bible doesn't mean anything for non-christians, so how would the oath be effective? A state official will be held to their oath more by the scripture of their own faith, not by the scripture of some other faith.
Should the Bible, a symbol of the Christian faith, (or ANY holy scripture, for that matter)even be used to swear in in the first place? Keep in mind the idea of seperation of Church and State.
Once again, it's all about meaning. Whatever holds meaning for the swearee is what should be used. The church and the state are seperate, but that doesn't mean they don't meet occasionaly and shake hands.
Is it possible that a non-religious oath could be written and used in place of holy Scripture?
That depends entirely on whether it holds meaning for the person to be sworn in. It's all about meaning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 9:23 pm
The majority of the Founding Fathers were Freemasons, and a number of them, including Thomas Jefferson were Unitarians. Is America really founded on Christian values?
No, it clearly isn't. It's founded on the values of Liberty, Freedom and Justice.
Should non-Christian state officials be sworn in on the Bible? Why or why not should they use the holy scripture of their own faith?
They should be sworn in on the Constitution, for what are hopefully obvious reasons.
Should the Bible, a symbol of the Christian faith, (or ANY holy scripture, for that matter)even be used to swear in in the first place? Keep in mind the idea of seperation of Church and State.
See answer to question above.
Is it possible that a non-religious oath could be written and used in place of holy Scripture?
As long as the congressmen/women take an oath to protect the values laid out in the Constitution, and respect the Bill of Rights, I don't give a rat's a** about the wording of the oath.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:00 pm
As for the use of a sctipture, why not use something as obvious as the Declaration of Indendence, or the U.S. Constitution. I think that using any holy text might bias a religious politician to make decisions based on their religion, instead of for the good of the people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 7:45 pm
Another point of discussion I propose: historically, traditional Quakers have refused to take oaths. They believe that one should always tell the truth and that honor should go to God alone. Thus, taking an oath would not only be redundant, but also would be showing honor to a political office rather than to God. As you can probably imagine, this practice has caused much trouble for traditional Quakers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:39 am
So was this copy written in Arabic or translated, did it say?
Its not surprising that at least some of the founding fathers would look to Islam for some guidance, they did have their golden age when Europe was still pretty far into their dark ages after all. They would have been a pretty good example for a young America to fall back on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 7:22 pm
lol if i ever get a government office then ill swear in on the Imperial reforms not the bible
Im actually laughing because the bible has no meaning to non christians so they can do whatever they want and never go a day feeling guilty about violating their religion or beleifs
I think that you should be able to swear on something that is of great importance to you wether it is religious or etc
Perssonaly im somewhat outraged that we have only had christian, catholic and etc presidents and no non christian or catholic presidents
Oh and im dissapointed in America for not having at least one female president by now, that comes from my prefrence for Matriarchys
I wonder how America would respond to having a Polythiestic president, now that would be something to watch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
