Social Rashida Tlaib to be sworn in to Congress with a Quran

[zebby23]

We have an atheist President right now.

Lol true... for some reason evangelicals as usual are duped

 

[oldshadow]

Don’t care as it doesn’t matter what you use as long as you take the oath.

Maybe we can then shame her into actually doing what she gave an oath to.

I don’t think.

“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.”

Also for those that don’t know.

“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.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 3

 

[Chest Rockwell]

We have an atheist President right now.

And the one before that and the one before that and the one before that and the one before that etc. etc....

 

[Islam Imamate]

I don't get this line of thinking. You don't like Christianity mixed with governing, so you'll support a more conservative belief system intruding into government because it (seemingly) opposes Christianity? Derp.

How about keep all religious symbols and beliefs out of a secular governing body? Be a person of faith on your own time, and be secular while you're representing a secular organization.

Swearing in on the Qur'an or Bible does not violate the establishment clause because its a personal choice, she's not making anyone else do it nor does the act have anything to do with public policy. I'm actually American and I have no problem with this or Christian Congressmen swearing in on the Bible.

Btw its quite interesting that almost every Congressman swears in on the Bible and then when one of the first Muslim Congressmen wants to swear in on the Qur'an suddenly we shouldn't have religious symbols during the ceremony.

 

[bushman505]

Ya, she seems to be big into symbolism

---The incoming congresswoman said that she has considered the possibility of using Thomas Jefferson's Quran or her own, calling the former President's Quran a "symbol," that "Islam has been part of American history for a long time.---

Yes Thomas Jefferson has that book so that he could better understand the terrorists and pirates he was dealing with in Tripoli.

 

[Grenz]

If I ever run for office, I'm going to insist on being sworn in on a copy of The Hobbit. Same level of credibility as these other fantasy books, and much more entertaining.

 

[Bald1]

No since Christianity IS unfortunately mixed with governing and Christians think they have a monopoly on American religion it’s nice to see another religion get some representation.

I agree with your last paragraph in a perfect world but as long as Christians try and claim America I like to see them fail.

And I'm saying get all religion out of government, while you're taking a schadenfreude view. Cheer for cancer because it might kill AiDS? Yeah, no thanks.

 

[Bald1]

Swearing in on the Qur'an or Bible does not violate the establishment clause because its a personal choice, she's not making anyone else do it nor does the act have anything to do with public policy. I'm actually American and I have no problem with this or Christian Congressmen swearing in on the Bible.

Btw its quite interesting that almost every Congressman swears in on the Bible and then when one of the first Muslim Congressmen wants to swear in on the Qur'an suddenly we shouldn't have religious symbols during the ceremony.

Except that's not my stance, and you know it.

 

[zebby23]

And I'm saying get all religion out of government, while you're taking a schadenfreude view. Cheer for cancer because it might kill AiDS? Yeah, no thanks.

Lol not quite... I hate both and cheer for neither but what I hate even more is how Christians think they own a monopoly on American religion and that we are a Christian nation. To me American Islam is the same as Christianity which is the same as Mormonism. All absolute nonsense and all deserving of equal representation in the government along with atheism. Everyone should be represented to the best degree possible. Before you ask no I don’t want pedophile and beastiality representation

 

[Alphafail]

Beats being forced to swear allegiance to a foreigner country imo.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Except that's not my stance, and you know it.

I know what your stance is, you're a laicite guy, but I also notice that stance of yours seems to crop up much more often in the context of discussions on Islam despite the fact that violations of the separation of church and state in the West usually involve Christianity as evidenced by the very phrase itself. The UK and Denmark still have state churches for instance.

Given that reality I'm not ready to humor "bothsidesism" on the matter and I'm not going to pretend that this small concession for a formality undermines secularism in the US in any meaningful way.

 

[Bald1]

Lol not quite... I hate both and cheer for neither but what I hate even more is how Christians think they own a monopoly on American religion and that we are a Christian nation. To me American Islam is the same as Christianity which is the same as Mormonism. All absolute nonsense and all deserving of equal representation in the government along with atheism. Everyone should be represented to the best degree possible. Before you ask no I don’t want pedophile and beastiality representation

I don't think anything of the sort about bestiality and pedo stuff. No, liberalism isn't a mental disorder and I'm not in the camp that thinks so.

Other than that, we seem to be on the same page, I just don't believe we should open the door to more rubbish we'll have to sweep out just because, well, fuck it, there's already garbage in here!

Now, before people of faith get their panties in a bunch, I'm not saying having faith is garbage. But I am saying religion mixed with government absolutely is.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

As all religions are silly, as American Freedom means the right to worship whatever, huzzah for people being free to believe in nonexistent super beings and swear oaths on the silly ancient books of confused rules.

 

[Bald1]

I know what your stance is, you're a laicite guy, but I also notice that stance of yours seems to crop up much more often in the context of discussions on Islam despite the fact that violations of the separation of church and state in the West usually involve Christianity as evidenced by the very phrase itself. The UK and Denmark still have state churches for instance.

Given that reality I'm not ready to humor "bothsidesism" on the matter and I'm not going to pretend that this small concession for a formality undermines secularism in the US in any meaningful way.

I don't think it undermines secularism to a much greater degree. But it is more, not less religion in government. And that's taking a step backwards.

And to be clear, I'm in favor of secularism because of the three Abrahamic faiths. Islam and Christianity are more of a concern than Judaism, the former because it used to exactly what the latter is right now. Buddhism and Taoism don't pose the same issues in my opinion.

 

[nac386]

Swearing on a Holy book is just a personal symbolic gesture meant to prove that you are being honest. The oath that you are taking is to your country and Constitution, not to the religious book that you are using to symbolize your sincerity.

For that reason, I don't see the incorporation of a Holy book as an introduction of religion into government. It's no different to me than if the person requested to use a photo album of their family and swore on their lives to uphold their duties. It's all just symbolism.

Generally, I find symbolism to be a bit dumb. I am not emotionally moved by symbols, and I feel no allegiance to symbols. Their use in these proceedings just seems a bit dated to me.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I don't think it undermines secularism to a much greater degree. But it is more, not less religion in government. And that's taking a step backwards.

And to be clear, I'm in favor of secularism because of the three Abrahamic faiths. Islam and Christianity are more of a concern than Judaism, the former because it used to exactly what the latter is right now. Buddhism and Taoism don't pose the same issues in my opinion.

Offering a reasonable and fair concession to a Muslim Congresswoman is taking a step back? Its adding more religion to government despite having virtually no relevance to public policy? At that point its not actually about policy, its about ideology.

If she lost to a Christian opponent who would predictably swear in on the Bible we wouldn't be having this conversation, you'd seemingly be perfectly at peace with it. Its only when a Muslim asks for the same courtesy afforded to Christians that suddenly you seem to care about religious symbolism during government beauty pageants.

 

[tinker_190]

We have an atheist President right now.

This is a misnomer. I would say Trump is more apathetic to formalized, metaphysical religious morality in the conventional sense. Atheism, at least as I see it in the modern world, is formalizing arguments that any divinity doesn't exist; not completely ignoring the discussion entirely.

 

[Bald1]

Offering a reasonable and fair concession to a Muslim Congresswoman is taking a step back? Its adding more religion to government despite having virtually no relevance to public policy? At that point its not actually about policy, its about ideology.

If she lost to a Christian opponent who would predictably swear in on the Bible we wouldn't be having this conversation, you'd seemingly be perfectly at peace with it. Its only when a Muslim asks for the same courtesy afforded to Christians that suddenly you seem to care about religious symbolism during government beauty pageants.

Fair enough.

You're probably right. My disdain for Islam leaves me with blind spots that other religions get to hide in. Point taken.

 

[HockeyBjj]

We have an atheist President right now.

The key was openly.

I'm sure it's the majority of politicians that aren't actually Christian believers, but just dodge questions, give easy answers and make the appearances neccesary, or all out fake it (like Trump) as it's seen as too bad of a poll hit to actually be an outspoken atheist although anyone with a brain knows most are.

 

[dontsnitch]

I know some Government jobs in Canada require you to either swear to God or to the Queen. I personally won't swear to God, but I'll sign your contract or recite some pledge.