|
Stan
UK
|
Nida wrote: Well said. Ellison should not be sworn in unless he accepts the Bible for that purpose. As I have said, the Islamic religion is the most evil religion today. You are correct in what you say. How foolish voters were to elect a man who disrespects our traditions and laws. <quoted text> You are a Republic not a religious enclave. So all those that are not of the christian faith must first affirm on a religious book that may mean nothing to them an oath. Hmm I think thats the complaint agaist Islamic countries. Now take on board your are a "multi-cultural, multi faith REPUBLIC" that includes ATHIESTS and you want them to make/take their OATH on a bible and if not they are not to be empowered. GOD no wonder America is in the mess it is you want them to LIE from the start. No wonder you got BUSH as a president.
|
|
sammy boy
Prairie Grove, AR
|
To Stan in the U K do your lords not swear a oath to the Queen ,God and country . And by the way your country is messed upped worst than ours . The point is Muslims have no buisness in a free socity and his appoment should be overturned if he can not swear a oath for God and country !!
|
|
Stan
UK
|
sammy boy wrote: To Stan in the U K do your lords not swear a oath to the Queen ,God and country . And by the way your country is messed upped worst than ours . The point is Muslims have no buisness in a free socity and his appoment should be overturned if he can not swear a oath for God and country !! We are a monarchy and like in a court of law allegiance does not have to be sworn on the bible but by "suitable means". See link ( http://www.parliament.uk/about/images/work/oa... ) if corrupts ( http://www.parliament.uk/ PLUS about/images/work/oath.cfm )
|
Joined: Dec 15, 2006
Comments: 127
Iowa City, IA
|
I feel like a child singing dirt but I don't see that Prince Charles is any improvement over President Bush. It appears that the UK is in as much a mess as we are, with the Muslims terrorizing people simply walking through their neighborhood, etc. As for your comments on the Bible in the swearing in of an official, I stand my ground on that. This country was founded by Christians and our Constitution is based on Christian principles, not atheist or Islamic principles. The fact we have freedom of religion does not give anyone the right to change that Constitution or our protocol. Protocol for this ceremony was established long ago and no one has the right to change it to accommodate himself. Stan wrote: <quoted text>
You are a Republic not a religious enclave. So all those that are not of the christian faith must first affirm on a religious book that may mean nothing to them an oath. Hmm I think thats the complaint agaist Islamic countries.
Now take on board your are a "multi-cultural, multi faith REPUBLIC"
that includes ATHIESTS and you want them to make/take their OATH on a bible and if not they are not to be empowered. GOD no wonder America is in the mess it is you want them to LIE from the start. No wonder you got BUSH as a president.
|
|
Joined: Dec 15, 2006
Comments: 127
Iowa City, IA
|
Spelling correction: I did mean "slinging" dirt. Stan wrote: <quoted text>
You are a Republic not a religious enclave. So all those that are not of the christian faith must first affirm on a religious book that may mean nothing to them an oath. Hmm I think thats the complaint agaist Islamic countries.
Now take on board your are a "multi-cultural, multi faith REPUBLIC"
that includes ATHIESTS and you want them to make/take their OATH on a bible and if not they are not to be empowered. GOD no wonder America is in the mess it is you want them to LIE from the start. No wonder you got BUSH as a president.
|
|
Bill R
Marcola, OR
|
sammy boy wrote: To Stan in the U K do your lords not swear a oath to the Queen ,God and country . And by the way your country is messed upped worst than ours . The point is Muslims have no buisness in a free socity and his appoment should be overturned if he can not swear a oath for God and country !! Sorry, but you are in the wrong country. Try Iran. Or Saudi Arabia. And your racism is every bit as offensive as the Taliban's Islamic fascism. Oh that we could have a world without both.
|
|
Stan
UK
|
Nida wrote: I feel like a child singing dirt but I don't see that Prince Charles is any improvement over President Bush. It appears that the UK is in as much a mess as we are, with the Muslims terrorizing people simply walking through their neighborhood, etc. As for your comments on the Bible in the swearing in of an official, I stand my ground on that. This country was founded by Christians and our Constitution is based on Christian principles, not atheist or Islamic principles. The fact we have freedom of religion does not give anyone the right to change that Constitution or our protocol. Protocol for this ceremony was established long ago and no one has the right to change it to accommodate himself. <quoted text> Ah but we do behead them when they get out of control. Still it not been necessary since Oliver gave "power to the people". So we ended up with a twit like you did.
|
|
nellie jean
Laurel Hill, FL
|
Certainly,the people in the white house does not know what the constitution is all about. We are already in big trouble anyway ,so why not let muslims be congressmen and women or president. ,it is too late to save America from corruption,we have gone over the mountain edge long before 2007. As for me I will gladly be killed if caught reading the Bible of Abraham,Issac,and Jacob,which it is coming to that very thing.
|
|
|
|
“We're All Bozos On This Bus”
Joined: Dec 7, 2006
Comments: 11066
Colchester, IL
ISP:
Macomb, IL
|
Nida wrote: Protocol for this ceremony was established long ago and no one has the right to change it to accommodate himself. <quoted text> When newly elected members of Congress raise their right hands as they take their oaths of office in January, they won't be placing their left hands on the Bible, their high school yearbooks or any religious texts. During official swearing-in ceremonies, elected members don't place their hands on any books. It's up to individual members, however, if they want to carry sacred texts. "Some members carry a Bible. You don't actually put your hand on a Bible. I can't see how anyone would object to carrying a Quran," Senate historian Don Ritchie said.
|
|
Stan
UK
|
nellie jean wrote: Certainly,the people in the white house does not know what the constitution is all about. We are already in big trouble anyway ,so why not let muslims be congressmen and women or president.,it is too late to save America from corruption,we have gone over the mountain edge long before 2007. As for me I will gladly be killed if caught reading the Bible of Abraham,Issac,and Jacob,which it is coming to that very thing. But I thought you were the Nation of "total freedom" Not one rule for Christian and one for everyone else .... not one rule for men another for women .......... treat all as equal then moan about the PC crap.
|
|
Danniboy
Canberra, Australia
|
Nida wrote: I feel like a child singing dirt but I don't see that Prince Charles is any improvement over President Bush… As for your comments on the Bible in the swearing in of an official, I stand my ground on that… The fact we have freedom of religion does not give anyone the right to change that Constitution or our protocol. Protocol for this ceremony was established long ago and no one has the right to change it to accommodate himself. <quoted text> You’re right, Prince Charles probably isn't much of an improvement on Bush. So good thing he isn't running the UK hey? Good thing he isn't even the Head of State, which would be Queen Elizabeth. The current leader of the UK (for a bit longer) is Blair. Who also isn’t much of an improvement on Bush but at least he isn’t a glove puppet. I also agree that freedom of religion should not enable someone to change your Constitution, or mine. Which is why I'm surprised to hear you claim that someone should be required to swear on a Bible. Because that sounds like a person taking the freedom the have to practise Christianity and trying to change the US Constitution. If you had actually read your Constitution and the Extrinsic Material you would be aware it contains the statement: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" You would also be aware that it has been an option, since the word Go, to either swear an oath religiously or AFFIRM one, which means a non-religious promise, in every single place an oath is required. This is so in your courts, in your Congress, even in your President. If you had read the Constitution you would also be aware it prescribes no oath for Congressman, only the President. If you were aware of history you would know the first Congressional oath, the one laid down by the founders of the entire US, read simply: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States." Again, optional to make it a religious oath or an affirmation and ZERO mention of religion. The current one, with all the hoohaa about taking it without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, still allows for swearing or affirmation – and it certainly doesn’t include any mention of the Bible. The only oath actually prescribed by the US Constitution reads: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Do you see any mention of God in there? Any mention of Bible? Any mention of any kind of religion at all? Do you even see the ‘so help me god’ that some people add as an optional extra? No, you don’t. All those people who like to thump their Bible/Koran/Torah/Baghavadgita and decry how everyone else is degrading the US Constitution might actually wish to read it, or even explore a bit of their own history, before they get up on the soapbox and thump that book - lest they succeed only in demonstrating their ignorance. I include Nida and snowman foremost in that. You have no idea what the Koran says on other religions or governments do you? You've never read the book have you? I'll bet you've never even thought what the Bible means when it says 'Thou shalt have no other God before me'. Not exactly a suggestion of religious freedom is it? How about where it says tis easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than a rich man into Heaven or one must get a good price when they sell their daughter? Going to sell you daughter and give away all your money? Going to destroy the cities of the idolators, kill all the people, butcher the animals where they stand, salt the fields and take all gold and silver as a tribute to God? Coz that’s in your book too.
|
|
Bill R
Marcola, OR
|
Danniboy wrote: <quoted text>
You’re right, Prince Charles probably isn't much of an improvement on Bush. So good thing he isn't running the UK hey? Good thing he isn't even the Head of State, which would be Queen Elizabeth. The current leader of the UK (for a bit longer) is Blair. Who also isn’t much of an improvement on Bush but at least he isn’t a glove puppet.
I also agree that freedom of religion should not enable someone to change your Constitution, or mine. Which is why I'm surprised to hear you claim that someone should be required to swear on a Bible. Because that sounds like a person taking the freedom the have to practise Christianity and trying to change the US Constitution.
If you had actually read your Constitution and the Extrinsic Material you would be aware it contains the statement:
"no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States"
You would also be aware that it has been an option, since the word Go, to either swear an oath religiously or AFFIRM one, which means a non-religious promise, in every single place an oath is required. This is so in your courts, in your Congress, even in your President.
If you had read the Constitution you would also be aware it prescribes no oath for Congressman, only the President. If you were aware of history you would know the first Congressional oath, the one laid down by the founders of the entire US, read simply:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."
Again, optional to make it a religious oath or an affirmation and ZERO mention of religion. The current one, with all the hoohaa about taking it without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, still allows for swearing or affirmation – and it certainly doesn’t include any mention of the Bible.
The only oath actually prescribed by the US Constitution reads:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Do you see any mention of God in there? Any mention of Bible? Any mention of any kind of religion at all? Do you even see the ‘so help me god’ that some people add as an optional extra? No, you don’t.
All those people who like to thump their Bible/Koran/Torah/Baghavadgita and decry how everyone else is degrading the US Constitution might actually wish to read it, or even explore a bit of their own history, before they get up on the soapbox and thump that book - lest they succeed only in demonstrating their ignorance.
I include Nida and snowman foremost in that. You have no idea what the Koran says on other religions or governments do you? You've never read the book have you? I'll bet you've never even thought what the Bible means when it says 'Thou shalt have no other God before me'. Not exactly a suggestion of religious freedom is it? How about where it says tis easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than a rich man into Heaven or one must get a good price when they sell their daughter? Going to sell you daughter and give away all your money? Going to destroy the cities of the idolators, kill all the people, butcher the animals where they stand, salt the fields and take all gold and silver as a tribute to God? Coz that’s in your book too. Danniboy - I carry no brief for the Muslim guy who was elected, but I must say it is a pathetic situation when someone from Australia must remind posters in the United States of what the truth is regarding the Constitution, oaths of office, and the illegality of imposing a religious "test" on a candidate for public office. Unofrtunately there are those who simply don't get it, believing that a country founded on Judeo-Christian principles is the same as a theocracy.
|
|
Shocked and Awed
AOL
|
I am still waiting for the Good Guys in Islam to respect the US CONSTITUTION and grow a spine, made of red, white and blue. That is, if they want to really be an American.(PUT A SOCK IN IT, YOU BONG SMOKING HIPPIES) Any of you smart mouths have one you loved, die on 9/11? Think about that, before you pop one out of your FINGERTIPS. I guess some of you have forgotten about this guy, from Minnesota. Trained in an igloo, I imagine. Seems he didn't really want to DIE..but...You know..The OSAMA had told him..You got to DIE for ISLAM. I think there was a stellar and BRIGHT female FBI agent that blew the whistle, she could have stopped it from all happening, she was kicked off of her high heels, by some loser(s). Hope they aren't still on the FEDS payroll. HEY, whatever happened to that Investigation anyway? Minnesota is sending a Muslim to CONGRESS that wants to swear on the KORAN...Whoah..I am not convinced of that one! What the "HEY YOU" are they smoking?!!!!!!!!! A Blast from The Past! "I said,'You look like you're carrying the whole world on your shoulders.' And he looked at me and said,'I am. I am.'" His name was Mohand, he said. He would not go into the details of his troubles, but they sounded bad. "Several times he told me to quit talking to him, because he was a dead man," Hanlon says. "'You are talking to a dead man,' he said.'I don't exist. I'm a ghost. I'm not even here, I'm dead.' I thought he was going to kill himself, maybe even that night." They talked for three hours. There was no piercing his fatalism, but the brooding man did brighten a few times when he talked to Hanlon about "this great big wonderful thing," in her words, that he claimed was forthcoming. "We are really going to show your country something," she says he told her. "Something big. It's going to be really big." She had no idea what he meant; he was clearly distraught, and she wasn't sure any of it meant anything. But each time, the spells of euphoria passed as quickly as they came and he would be morose. Hanlon never saw him again, and after a few days she had little time or reason to think of him any further. The events of September 11 shocked her, but for whatever reason they never caused her to think of the young man Mohand--until a year later, when every television network was running nonstop documentaries and news reports dedicated to the 9/11 anniversary. http://www.mcgillreport.org/alshehri.htm
|
|
Shocked and Awed
AOL
|
DID ANY OF THOSE AMERICAN'S IN MINNESOTA THAT IS SENDING THAT MUSLIM THAT WANTS TO SWEAR ON HIS KORAN, TO CONGRESS, FEEL WHAT I FELT, WHEN I WATCHED THOSE FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS, FROM 80 COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD, JUMP FROM 110 FLOORS TO AVOID A 747 FUELED BOMBED INFERNO-BECAUSE OSAMA SAID TO DO IT, IN THE NAME OF THE FRICKEN KORAN??????????
THREE WORDS!!!!!
HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!!!!!
THE ONLY THING I FEEL SORRY FOR IN MINNESOTA, IS THE COWS, BECAUSE THEIR EARS FREEZE AND CAN FALL OFF, IN THE COLD WINTERS!!
|
|
Bill R
Marcola, OR
|
Shocked and Awed wrote: DID ANY OF THOSE AMERICAN'S IN MINNESOTA THAT IS SENDING THAT MUSLIM THAT WANTS TO SWEAR ON HIS KORAN, TO CONGRESS, FEEL WHAT I FELT, WHEN I WATCHED THOSE FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS, FROM 80 COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD, JUMP FROM 110 FLOORS TO AVOID A 747 FUELED BOMBED INFERNO-BECAUSE OSAMA SAID TO DO IT, IN THE NAME OF THE FRICKEN KORAN??????????
THREE WORDS!!!!!
HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!!!!!
THE ONLY THING I FEEL SORRY FOR IN MINNESOTA, IS THE COWS, BECAUSE THEIR EARS FREEZE AND CAN FALL OFF, IN THE COLD WINTERS!! Shocked and Awed - I presume you voted against John F. Kennedy because he was a Roman Catholic and obligated to take his directions from the Pope, as would also be the case for all other Roman Catholics in Congress. Mormons, of course, must consult with the folks in Salt Lake City. Italian-Americans no doubt have Mafia connections and are just waiting for the phone call that says, "I need for you to return the favor...". Hispanics must surely favor illegal immigration. Have I missed anyone?
|
|
Joined: Dec 15, 2006
Comments: 127
Iowa City, IA
|
Willie: I concede that you are correct in saying an elected official does not have to put his hands on the Bible or other book during the ceremony; but after the ceremony, there is a re-enactment of that ceremony with the Speaker and the official does place his hand on a book, the Bible usually or what he so chooses. The phrase "so help me, God" is at the end of the oath. This phrase was put into the ceremony by George Washington at his inauguration and has remained as a part of the oath. As required by Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, members of Congress shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution. Representatives, delegates, and the resident commissioner all take the oath of office on the first day of the new Congress, immediately after the House has elected its Speaker. The Speaker of the House administers the oath of office as follows: "I,(name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or 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. So help me God." It is without doubt that the God mentioned is the Christian God. When Ellison takes his oath, he will be swearing his allegiance to the Constitution by using the name of a God he doesn't believe in. Will that make him a liar, as has been stated on this forum? WildWierdWille wrote: <quoted text>
When newly elected members of Congress raise their right hands as they take their oaths of office in January, they won't be placing their left hands on the Bible, their high school yearbooks or any religious texts.
During official swearing-in ceremonies, elected members don't place their hands on any books. It's up to individual members, however, if they want to carry sacred texts.
"Some members carry a Bible. You don't actually put your hand on a Bible. I can't see how anyone would object to carrying a Quran," Senate historian Don Ritchie said.
|
|
Stan
UK
|
Nida wrote: Willie: I concede that you are correct in saying an elected official does not have to put his hands on the Bible or other book during the ceremony; but after the ceremony, there is a re-enactment of that ceremony with the Speaker and the official does place his hand on a book, the Bible usually or what he so chooses. The phrase "so help me, God" is at the end of the oath. This phrase was put into the ceremony by George Washington at his inauguration and has remained as a part of the oath. As required by Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, members of Congress shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution. Representatives, delegates, and the resident commissioner all take the oath of office on the first day of the new Congress, immediately after the House has elected its Speaker. The Speaker of the House administers the oath of office as follows:
"I,(name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or 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. So help me God." It is without doubt that the God mentioned is the Christian God. When Ellison takes his oath, he will be swearing his allegiance to the Constitution by using the name of a God he doesn't believe in. Will that make him a liar, as has been stated on this forum?
<quoted text> Whether you like it or not his God is the same GOD as yours, the difference is only in the "modern" scriptures of the faiths. All three Muslim .Christian and Jew worship that same God. Your only complaint seems to be therefore if it should be your scriptures or his that are used. But what anyway if he were an Athiest. Get real you are a republic not a religious enclave, otherwise you better start by notifying them millions of Athiests they cannot stand because to do so means they have to start their term with a LIE, still you do have Bush don't you.
|
|
Forest Gump
Evansville, IN
|
Much to do about very little; If the voters do not aprove of his job performance at the next election,he will be replaced. Regardless of what of what he was touching when sworn in.
|
|
“We're All Bozos On This Bus”
Joined: Dec 7, 2006
Comments: 11066
Colchester, IL
ISP:
Macomb, IL
|
Nida wrote: Willie: I concede that you are correct in saying an elected official does not have to put his hands on the Bible or other book during the ceremony; but after the ceremony, there is a re-enactment of that ceremony with the Speaker and the official does place his hand on a book, the Bible usually or what he so chooses. The phrase "so help me, God" is at the end of the oath. This phrase was put into the ceremony by George Washington at his inauguration and has remained as a part of the oath. As required by Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, members of Congress shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution. Representatives, delegates, and the resident commissioner all take the oath of office on the first day of the new Congress, immediately after the House has elected its Speaker. The Speaker of the House administers the oath of office as follows:
"I,(name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or 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. So help me God." It is without doubt that the God mentioned is the Christian God. When Ellison takes his oath, he will be swearing his allegiance to the Constitution by using the name of a God he doesn't believe in. Will that make him a liar, as has been stated on this forum?
<quoted text> Specious argument at best. Since it is Ellison saying the oath, he (Ellison)will be invoking the deity he believes in (so help ME God). It's sad, really, to think that this sort of bigotry is still prevalent. There is no other word for, it, by the way - it's bigotry. This is the same "logic" that has been used to criticize Roman Catholics, Jews, Mormons, not to mention practitioners of any number of of flavors of Protestantism. Oink on, little piggy ... you've proven you think the same way that the Taliban, the Klan, and others like them do.
|
|
Forest Gump
Evansville, IN
|
Shocked and Awed wrote: DID ANY OF THOSE AMERICAN'S IN MINNESOTA THAT IS SENDING THAT MUSLIM THAT WANTS TO SWEAR ON HIS KORAN, TO CONGRESS, FEEL WHAT I FELT, WHEN I WATCHED THOSE FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS, FROM 80 COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD, JUMP FROM 110 FLOORS TO AVOID A 747 FUELED BOMBED INFERNO-BECAUSE OSAMA SAID TO DO IT, IN THE NAME OF THE FRICKEN KORAN??????????
THREE WORDS!!!!!
HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!!!!!
THE ONLY THING I FEEL SORRY FOR IN MINNESOTA, IS THE COWS, BECAUSE THEIR EARS FREEZE AND CAN FALL OFF, IN THE COLD WINTERS!! So do you believe that no terrible things were ever done in the name of GOD?( the one in the bible) Religion is used as a tool to manipulate people to do things that they probably not do on their own. PEACE
|
|
|
News Photos
Judge it!
Search the Top Stories Forum:
Poll:
Top Stories in the Blogosphere Forum
Sagittarius
Most Popular
