What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
126 Comments
- Autolycus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+60@ iloveyouguam
Let me quote my Bible for you, since you were so kind.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
- Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment
Take it as you like, but Rep. Keith Ellison has every right to practice his religion and politics. - soogy, on 10/12/2007, -10/+49Official is when you sign the papers and things get started in a real swearing-in. Relax yourself you Bible nutjob.
This is just a ceremony in which he swears into office. As a gift and sign of respect to him, they used a Qur'an once owned by Jefferson in the ceremony instead of a Bible.
And even if it were the real thing, who the ***** are you to say he can't use the Qur'an if that is part of his religion? - devindotcom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+33Bush ate it.
- JFetch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24Why don't they swear on the Constitution?
- devindotcom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25Hitchhiker's Guide, probably.
- gamabunta, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26@ iloveyouguam
Because what you said is demeaning to people of other religions and because you are using that quote from the bible to further your own agenda - jlegum, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21It's not misinformation, the discription says that it's a "ceremonial," as opposed to an official, swearing in.
- Prototek, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17Heightened respect for other cultures is not how I would describe America post-9/11.
- sfacets, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19Separation of Church and state means people shouldn't have to swear in to office on any religious book. Looks like some hypocrisy here.
- thefirelane, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13>Would you turn your back on the values that founded this country anyways?
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"
-1796
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli
Unfortunately, I doubt that *the facts* directly contradict you will do anything to change your opinion - thefirelane, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12And... you loose... this is a PHOTO-OP ... no religious text is required for actual swearing in. Please read more, thanks.
- zcreem, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8the Good News Bible, that was sharp.
I thought your first comment was fair, but to quote the Bible, the Quoran or what ever other religious book or teaching, is seen as preaching, and I for one am sick of "people of religion" quoting the beliefs like they're fact. Although the sentiment of the quote, is sound advice.
BTW +digg - zcreem, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8On your Testicals, it's called a testament.
- Derrekito, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9@payrock
I am an atheist, and if I (by some dumb luck) were an elected official would I be forced to swear by some religious text? ***** tradition, the constitution was set up as a changeable document for a reason, for CHANGE... and it's time we had some. - freehunter, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13In an article about the Koran, I don't think quotes from the Bible have much of a place. I don't know what some guy from one book said has much to do with a guy liking another book, anyway. If I decided to read See Spot Run instead of Goodnight, Moon, would you start quoting from Goodnight, Moon to try to win me back to the light, or could you accept that I just like seeing Spot go running like a fool who doesn't care? And it is damn hard to get into a few political offices without taking an oath, so let's interpret the Bible correctly rather than simply reading word for word next time, okay?
- montiff, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12I'm happy that some good came from 911, a heighten respect for other cultures...
But you think more people would support peaceful humanist/atheist ideals, and not swearing on magical books.
The only holy script in my opinion are the constitution and the bill of rights.
sorry for the mini rant.
/rant - ike368, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7im jewish. when i get elected, i'm swearing in on the torah (those things are, like, 50 lbs!)
- alife, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6What happens if you are an atheist? Over which book do you make the oath?
May be as @montiff says the constitution will be a good book if one must be used. - worthawholebean, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10soogy: THIS IS NOT OFFICIAL. Sheesh. How many times do I have to say this? This is just a ceremony. The real swearing in happens without a book of any sort. It's not in the constitution, it's not tradition, so it doesn't happen.
- egbert, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"The source of the controversy has finally happened"
What is the controversy? This is just a photo-op. Who cares if he takes his ceremonial swearing-in with the Koran? - polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I would want to be sworn in with my ecology book.
- buuch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4w00t for diversity
- kronix2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"They don't swear in on the Constitution because that would be circular and silly."
The Bible describes the existence of God. The Bible must be a trustworthy source as it is the word of God. Therefore, God exists.
Yes, circular reasoning would be silly. - rodrigo74, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"I'm happy that some good came from 911, a heighten respect for other cultures..."
Yeah right. Ask that to any muslim or arabic-descendant in America. - worthawholebean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I am growing seriously tired of people thinking you have to be officially "sworn in" with your hand on a book. THAT IS NOT TRUE. There have been roughly fifteen million stories on digg on this topic, so I'm surprised people don't realize it.
- DavidDigg, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Your comment was buried because Diggers go to Bible websites when they want to see the Bible and they go to Digg when they want to see news. The Bible, I am told, is not news. The Good News Bible doesn't count!
- inactive, on 01/02/2009, -1/+5"And God promptly vanishes in a puff of logic"
- bigpeeler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Well said.
- Phssthpok, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@payrok [The Constitution only concedes freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.]
Bzzzzzzz WRONG!
Freedom FROM religion is exactly what the constitution concedes. The people who founded this country wanted to practice their religion not the Kings religion. So essentially the constitution protects atheists from being forced to worship someone else's religion. - drk1t, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The great melting pot called America is going to boil over one of these days.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I'm an atheist techie jew.. I'm swearing in on my laptop.
- guerrilla_suit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4An open atheist usually doesn't get elected.
- fufubag, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Who are the dumb asses digging this comment up?
edit - Derrekito... Jesus Christ, you people are soooo dumb. You do NOT have to swear on any ***** book to become a member of Congress.... - Fly1m1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4We are in desperate need of REAL separation of church & state.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Why hasn't it been mentioned that there is something wrong with this being an ENGLISH version of the Koran? From what I understand, it is stated in the Koran that the Koran must be in its original Arabic as the Arabic Koran is thought of as the word of God. Jefferson wasn't a Muslim and merely had this book so he could learn more about Islam.
- Vincep1974, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The Islam term for acceptable lying in advancement of Jihad is called Taqiyya.
Taquyeh is an allowance Allah grants to Muslims to lie. If a Muslim is being endangered in some way and their giving honest answers to some question puts them into more risk, Allah permits them to lie in order to protect themselves. The problem with this is that Muslims view the fact that someone is not muslim as an obligation to get the Non-Muslim to either 1) convert, 2) become a dhimmi or 3) be killed. (Given that the Muslims are in control and if they aren't in control, they are to eventually control it) Refusal of the Non-Muslim to conform to this is viewed as an offense against the Muslim and thus since the Muslim now views himself as being under attack can cite self-defense as an excuse to lie. So these lies are used when dealing with Non-Muslim in order to give the Muslim an advantage in his ultimate goal of global sharia. - pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3relax ppl, this was ceremonial. no more (not the official swearing in), no less (not just a photo-op).
- Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"I thought muslims didn't consider translations of the Koran to be valid? "
Translations are not considered valid, but many translations of the Qur'an include the original Arabic text. - Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Would a Muslim nation allow a Christan to hold an office and swear in with his hand on a bible?
Iran makes such an allowance.
I don't think so.
Your incorrect assumption has no relevance. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@artificial001
Thats a long list dude. Which of all of those would you and your family be afraid to get on a plane with? - kronix2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I'm swearing on my copy of The Origin of Species. That ought to really rile the evangelicals.
- mtshasta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The essence of this is that Ellison made the issue of using a Koran for staged publicity photos! Then it ends up that he apparently doesn't know enough about his own professed religion to avoid desecrating the Koran in public. On top of all this the irony is that a woman made Ellison use his left hand in the photo op--a double insult to an Islamic man and in public!
- jerrydill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2if people think all these different religions and culture can live together in peace and harmony in this country just check out how well the middle east and Europe is doing. doesn't work folks!
- Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Great Sky Father say Be Nice to One Another. Also Say Kill Anyone Who Not Worship Great Sky Father. Great Sky Father Very Conflicted. Best You Ignore Him.
- julianrz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I do not care what he sworn-in on. But the fact that he made it a BIG DEAL and refused to observe the ceremony (what's wrong with the Bible?), clearly indicates his priorities to me. What kind of legislature this character will be promoting? What amazes me is that some people actually voted for this guy
- worthawholebean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Cleanlyness, what are you trying to say? Because it sounds to me like some sort of insanely twisted logic.
- iloveyouguam, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6This is ridiculous, I have to say, it seems to me that the majority of the people burying my comments have no idea what I was attempting to say. Merly quote the bible and you'll be shut up, feels like I'm back in brainwashville, aka college.
This is a photo-op, with a Koran. There is nothing official about this picture. You don't take an oath to congress with a bible, koran or a tape of milly vanilly. This is clearly meant as a Problem-Reaction-Solution psych-op. If you don't know what I mean then you are the type of person I was referring to in the previous paragraph.
I wasn't quoting the verse to preach to anyone, I was trying to point out that even Jesus is saying not to swear on anything in the bible that is routinely used to swear oaths on.
Now, obviously in the next couple days and weeks this is going to get on the major news networks, and then there's going to be some big outcry from some idiot representing the "christian right" about how that's not right, and it shouldn't be permitted, and then even more people will join the "we hate christians because they're a bunch of idiots" when IF YOU READ THE FRIGGIN BOOK JESUS SAYS NOT TO SWEAR OATHS.
I'm no neo-con, but you guys have got to be careful how you're letting information manipulate you. shezz.. ever read eyes wide shut? - Velveteen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@rednesss
Dug for what looks like great history, but I'd like to clarify:
The concept of "jihad" is just the opposite of the context it's given by the mainstream. The word "jihad" literally means "struggle," and it's not the struggle you fight against nonbelieving peers - it's the struggle you fight against oppression and the everyday disconnection of your spiritual practice. The act of turning off the television and doing something worthwhile is "jihad." Remembering to pray five times a day, even when you'd rather be playing WoW, is "jihad." And yes, killing is "jihad" - but only when you're stuck in a "kill or be killed" situation regarding your faith (Jesus was good at this one).
The Muslims who are trying to justify killing all non-Muslims are the religious equivalent to the Phelps and Falwell crew, whom most Christians I know have decried as non-Christian - not fighting anything close to an actual "jihad." - stevebee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2
The problem is not which book he swore on.
The problem is that a Muslim was elected to high office. Their belief system is anti vote, anti woman, anti anything-but-Muslim.
Their holy figure personally led dozens of blood-soaked raids and ordered the killing of hundreds, if not thousands, of people.
So the fact that thousands of people, just in the past five years, have been killed in the name if Islam makes it scary that a Muslim, especially one with ties to terrorist front groups like CAIR, could be elected. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Here ya go dude......all muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists are muslims - they don't go walking around with a label on their forehead which ID's them either way. To be safe I don't want any of them around me and sure as hell wouldn't vote for one to represent me. You must be from Minn.....
-
Show 51 - 100 of 126 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is