What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
163 Comments
- martalli, on 10/12/2007, -11/+52By Saudi funded, do you mean CAIR, or the Republicans?
- Civil44, on 10/12/2007, -14/+51because every single person in Saudi Arabia is the enemy of the us and should be slaughtered like pigs right appleann1? Ive said it before but every time I see you comment on an article like this I'm am repeatedly surprised by how negative your comments are towards liberals and Muslims.
In your world liberals are crucified and bush drinks the blood of a thousand Muslim babies a night right? I cant imagine anything different coming from your views.
bigot - maiku00, on 10/12/2007, -20/+54if you read the ***** bible, it says to never ever swear upon it
- hipnerd, on 10/12/2007, -8/+36I'm loving all the conservatives complaining that CAIR is "Saudi funded." Do they not remember the pictures of Bush strolling literally hand-in-hand with Prince Abdullah through the wildflowers on his Crawford ranch before accepting a quick smooch on the lips?
Does the cognitive dissonance hurt at this point, or is it just an annoying buzz that follows you around in the background at all times? - martalli, on 10/12/2007, -7/+32Since he is on the Holocaust memorial board, I wonder if he thinks observant Jews should also swear on the Bible or risk a breakdown of American civilization.
- Synthaetica, on 10/12/2007, -11/+31if this is not exemplary of the fundamental problem with this administration, and the implicit insertion of religiously intolerant dogma into politics in general, what is?
- EComni, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21@Jim
As opposed to a book that says that eating shrimp will get you put in hell and that it's okay to own slaves? I love double standards. They ROCK. - dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -8/+24Because Christianity is the only source of values around? Like offering your sister to your neighbor and stoning fools?
- thepeacemaker, on 10/12/2007, -17/+29Bush has a history of appointing lunatics and fanatics to important positions. He appointed a rabid hatemonger Daniel Pipes to the US Institute of Peace, a completely incompetent kingpin of the Arabian horse world Michael Brown to head FEMA, a former mining industry lobbyist Gale A. Norton as the secretary of the interior ....and the list goes on. So the idiot Dennis Prager's nomination comes as no surprise.
Comprehensive outrageous list or appointees:
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/bushco/cronyism.htm
http://peaceworks.missouri.org/articleostriches.html - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+24aren't you late for your clan rally?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+23231 years ago this country was founded that the government would be run as seperation of church and state. Maybe someday we will actually do this?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13This whole swearing on religious books thing is a heap of steaming ***** anyhow. I'd rather they swore on the constitution.
- pegme, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Methinks someone's sarcasm detector is broken.
Clearly sarcasm. Right? Oh science I hope so. - nagumi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Jim: actually, yes. If you read the parts you want to and ignore the others. Kinda like Islam and Catholicism, eh?
--
Naomi in Israel. - Novagenesis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11You're right, no mention of commanding violence in the bible.
"Suffer not a witch to live"?
...
What?
Let's add that God commanded a lot of human-on-human murder in the "olde days", too. - thegreyfox, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13your fear and insecurity is showing.....
- ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14I think it's important that we constantly keep Darfur at the forefront of our minds, but give me a break. The Muslim World is North Saharan Africa, West Africa, the Middle East, much of China and the Baltic States, and a significant portion of Southeast Asia.
That's a lot of ***** Muslims who have absolutely no interest in you. - BobTGoon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9May want to check out the Old Testament some time.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15http://watch.windsofchange.net/pics/2005/bush_saudi_arabia_txgh104.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/segacs2/weblog/bush_saudi.jpg - EComni, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13@nagumi
Stop making sense. Islam is clearly wrong *because* the holy book has bad parts in. Christianity is clearly right *despite* the holy book having bad parts in it.
It's so simple, even a caveman could figure it out. - fluoro, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14@tomcpp: "while in the muslim world, christians are crucified ... literally"
Right, so you think that if this happens one time then it must be part of the whole Muslim culture. With a little bit of research we could very easily come up with thousands of brutal murders that have happened in the name of Christianity, Islam, or probably Judaism. To take any single one of those incidents and claim that it defines the entire culture of the person who commits the act is absolutely ridiculous.
The same thing is happening over there. When the images of what American troops were doing to captured prisoners at Guantanamo, a lot of Muslims over there were doing exactly what you're doing.. they were telling each other, "Hey, look what the evil Americans do to people they capture.. they treat them like animals and torture them. All Americans are like this and are totally wicked and evil." - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10swearing on a bible is something that only happens in movies and on tv anymore. They don't do it in court. They don't do it in congress.
- fluoro, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11@Irenaous:
Islam is grounded in basically the same Judeo-Christian ideology, so I don't see how this is breaking that tradition. And as someone already pointed out, the Bible (in particular the Old Testament) does not even come close to reflecting our modern idea of morality or our laws. As such, I think nobody should be allowed to swear in on any religious book but that's just my opinion.
However, you mentioned that Islam is somehow anti-democratic and stuff. I'm not really aware of that, but I also admit that I haven't looked into it enough so I would appreciate some linkage of sources for that. I happen to believe that the US government is also anti-democratic, so if it turns out that Islam also is then I still don't see any conflict of interest here. - ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Most of the founding fathers who approved the Constitution WERE Christians. If you pick and choose which founding fathers you want to refer to, of course you'll get a different distribution.
It was Thomas Jefferson's great effort to remove religion from the Constitution before getting it accepted by the Congress. He succeeded. So, while the Constitution is free from religious compulsion, it is because he convinced several Christians to agree with him that religious freedom was necessary, not because they were atheists. - neoform, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11I heard that if you swear on a Bible and you lie, a hole in the ground forms and sucks you straight down to hell.
- 10lbhammer, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11@ tomcpp
you forgot one important statistic:
illegal war... 600,000+ dead iraqis - ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Don't forget, Bush appointed an anti-non-proliferation-treaty proponent who believed that the United States should never compromise its position as a military superpower to the position of temporary ambassador to the United Nations, a group founded in response to the use of nuclear weapons in World War II.
How's THAT for ***** irony? Good thing Bolton's gone now. - mb96net, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8What if they don't hold the constitution to any degree of esteem, like Bush?
If someone has integrity they don't need to swear on anything, because they will uphold their values regardless. If they don't then they won't regardless. So does swearing on any book actually accomplish anything other than create this controversy? - tweaked, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@ Irenaeous.
I appreciate that you're expressing your views in a significantly more polite and thoughtful manner than the rest of the Digg population that stands on your side of the issue.
And yet, in a similar spirit of mutual respect, I have to point to the claim made by various others in this thread -- the passages that refer to hateful, anti-democratic, etc. ideologies in the Koran all have obvious parallels in the Bible, the Talmud, the Rigveda, really, any religious text. So the statement that he is giving a 'prominent role' to this kind of ideology is really an argument against any kind of religion in politics whatsoever.
The Bible is just functioning as a symbol of traditional morality in these ceremonies, not as an affirmation that its principles necessarily have any place in democratic governance. So I don't see why the Koran can't do the same thing. Really, for a Muslim to swear on a Bible has considerably less symbolic meaning, since he has no allegiance to it whatsoever. But I'd be inclined to trust a Muslim who swore to something on the Koran... certainly more than a Christian who swore to something on the Bible.
You are right that Prager has the right to try and dissuade him from swearing on a Koran, especially if he doesn't advocate any legislative action. But of course, you also agree that I have the same right to try and dissuade all of the Christian members of congress from swearing on bibles?? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6So everything in the bible is an American value is it? I can mosey on through it and find something, anything - and then declare that all americans should swear to that?
going back to the "Thou shall not kill" thing - well no Americans will need any guns then - right? - so won't all police have to hand in their guns, plus the whole army, plus everybody else (which personally i think would be great).
But hang on - they all swear on the bible. And only God is allowed to kill? Ah I see they are agents of God right? so they can kill cos god said so - well he didn't say so but he would have if he had time...
Hmm all this sounds confusing..... maybe I should seek a clergy man to clear all this up for me... - GordonV, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Why not throw out both the Bible and the Koran?
Obviously this "religion" thing is a failure at unifying humanity and making peace. - ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7We were doing this quite nicely until the 1860's when they added "In God We Trust" as a motto and the 1900's when they added it to our money and then the 1950's when they put "Under God" in our pledge of allegiance.
So, technically, they had a good ~100 year run without religion getting in the way of things. - vudicarus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@marklj-----Educate yourself (and thanks, I did have fun seaching)
Myth:
The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution.
Response:
That is true, the phrase "separation of church and state" does not actually appear anywhere in the Constitution. There is a problem, however, in that some people draw incorrect conclusions from this fact. The absence of this phrase does not mean that it is an invalid concept or that it cannot be used as a legal or judicial principle.
There are any number of important legal concepts which do not appear in the Constitution with the exact phrasing people tend to use. For example, nowhere in the Constitution will you find words like "right to privacy" or even "right to a fair trial." Does this mean that no American citizen has a right to privacy or a fair trial? Does this mean that no judge should ever invoke these rights when reaching a decision?
Of course not - the absence of these specific words does not mean that there is also an absence of these ideas. The right to a fair trial, for example, is necessitated by what is in the text because what we do find simply makes no moral or legal sense otherwise.
Courts have found that the principle of a "religious liberty" exists in the First Amendment, even if those words are not actually there:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/phrase.htm - jigga82, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7@capncash
Wow, you have absolutely no knowledge of Islam to say why muslims hate americans or if muslims hate americans. Why don't you read or learn before you speak. You sound quite similar to a Mr. President I know, who says Islamists hate Americans because they are jealous of their freedom.
Muslims in general dislike American foreign policy for the same reason why African Americans dislike the slavery they went through, for the same reason why Native Americans dislike Americans for taking their land. Its a little something called Imperialism we learned about in school. No, violent behavior is not justified, but standing up to power is, and speaking out is. Yes some muslims confuse the American gov't with the American people, that you solve through dialogue, not invasions. Muslims who are educated understand the difference, and love and cherish the rights they are given as humans in America. And if you need examples of American Imperialism on Muslims, just look for American support for every thug dictator in the Middle East, including the one you just went to war with!
And how about stopping the rhetoric of, o liberals sound like Islamic Fascists for justifying the fascists hatred against America. Just because bin laden says America is acting like a colonial power, doesnt mean if liberals say that, they love Bin laden. They just want to have a little more analysis of the situation than the 4 words Bush can put together. The fact that a psychotic killer mad man says something, doesnt mean that thought is off limits for the whole world. If bin laden is wearing a brown shirt, does that mean if someone normal wears a brown ***** they are a terrorist?
I'm sorry if my logic and reasoning goes a little beyond, "they hate us for our freedom." I just couldn't stand to sit here anymore and listen to this third grade reasoning. Let's all try to think about the world without putting ourselves on the high moral ground first, shall we? - johnny23, on 10/12/2007, -11/+13Um, who really cares? The swearing in ceremony for congress doesn't use a bible...never did.
This guy just wants his name in the paper. I lump him in to the same group as Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. - dwiezel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Right. Elected officials do take an oath to serve and should be held accountable regardless of the instrument, symbol or lack thereof used in the process of executing their oath.
- cakestick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You really, really can't make this stuff up.
- fluoro, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7"You guys do know that its because of Liberals lack of values and moral character that the Muslim people hate Americans.."
No, it's because of immoral US foreign policy that people hate the US. Liberals are not the ones who are advocating invading and bombing, and ultimately destroying, other countries just to serve our own power interests. Liberals are not the ones inciting anti-Muslim hatred in this country. Liberals are not trying to drum up fear and using that as a political tool. Liberals are not the ones who prey upon American Christians for political support and then do nothing to uphold the Christian value. American Christians should be ***** -pissed- at GW Bush and the Republican Party because it devalues the moral integrity of the Christian religion, both here and abroad. If Muslims are angry at lack of moral character, it is not because of Muslims.. it is because they perceive American Christians as being aggressive, war-mongering, and racist. You should thank Republicans, GW Bush, and people like Prager and CNN's Glenn Beck for this... not liberals.
"And Libs defend Muslims to their graves.."
No, we defend "people". I'm an atheist and I would rather see Muslims and Christians and Jews lose their addiction to religions, but until that happens I would defend any of them who need defending. And I would still do this knowing that none of them would defend me if I were the one in need. - tomcpp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You never actually completely read the bible, did you ?
Do it once. You will not repeat your stupid statements. - ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4There were only 2 confirmed killings from the Pope speech.
An African Catholic nun and a Middle-Eastern priest who was kidnapped. Except we only assume the nun was killed for the Pope's speech, her killers never said why they killed her and there was no rioting in the area associated with it. Likewise, the ME priest who was kidnapped was at first held for ransom and then killed (after his ransom was raised) despite openly and repeatedly apologizing for the Pope's words and saying he completely disagreed and holding a unifying workshop in his church to apologize. So, again, there's a huge question about why he was really killed as well. - rlh1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No,
My question is,
If congress does not in fact swear in on the Bible, or anything, why is Ellison saying that he will swear in on the Koran?
and I assume that a troll is someone who doesn't agree with you. - ESkog, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4No one in this thread is saying that horrible things aren't done in the name of Islam. Many, though, are saying that it's illogical to take what some interpret as "correct" and use it to characterize the whole religion. There are splinter sects of Mormons who believe that the correct reading of the Bible is that they should have as many wives as humanly possible and those wives should all serve the husband through eternity. Would you like that to be the poster Christian family throughout the rest of the world?
Islam is also about 600ish years younger than Christianity. What was the Western Christian world up to 600 years ago? Oh yes, killing Jews for land. - dwxpub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@marklj
"Separation of church and state" is normal person talk for legalese of "Establishment Clause of The First Amendment". And it is extended to the states by virtue of the 14th amendment. But I'm guessing you already knew that.
And if you're looking for a legal document that has these words in it - check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education.
"The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. New Jersey has not breached it here."
Is a supreme court opinion a legal document? - fleischner, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Meanwhile, and absolutely unrelated (yeah, right):
Somalia official issues beheading threat
MOGADISHU, Somalia — Residents of a southern Somalia town who do not pray five times a day will be beheaded, an Islamic courts official said Wednesday, adding the edict will be implemented in three days.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1105AP_Somalia_Prayer.html - emid, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9Please don't defend this guy by saying it is because he's Jewish. He's a douche-bag, plain and simple. There are plenty of other Jews who completely disagree with his ridiculous view. I am one of them. This is a pluralistic society and making someone swear on someone else's holy book is just wrong. Intolerance from any direction is never to be applauded or justified. The idea that someone is undermining US values by not swearing on your preferred holy scripture is a joke.
I'll also point out that I could care less about his views about the Holocaust. You'll notice that the more religious Jews get, the more willing they are to blame the Holocaust on the Jews themselves (for sinning against God). That kind of mentality starts to test the lmits of even my tolerance. - buckrogers1965, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4 The Constitution specifies in Article VI, clause 3:
"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."
The "No religious test" part is important here. Requiring someone to swear upon a specific book would be a religious test and therefore would be against the law.
It would also sort of stupid. Why make someone swear an oath on something they don't believe in. You would want them to swear on something important to them. Otherwise the entire ceremony becomes pointless.
Not to mention that swearing an oath at all (let alone on a bible) is against several important passages in the very book they want to use:
Matthew 5:34
But I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven for it is God's throne; nor by the earth for it is his footstool.
James 5:12
But above all things, brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.
Theodore Roosevelt did not use a Bible when taking the oath of office in 1901.
There is no law that requires putting you hand on any book when taking office, merely that you take the oath of office.
The words, so help me god are also optional at the end of the oath.
I took my oath of office as an officer in the United States Army without placing my hand on a bible. I also declined to say, "So help me god" at the end of the oath. - monkeychewtoy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5So wait, we should support him because he's being called a douchebag for being a douchebag? I mean, since he's wrong, and he probably knows it, and he's harassing this guy, 'accusing' him of practicing his faith, why would we want him running anything?
- sethdfowler, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4The swearing in on the Bible, Torah or whatever is done so that you are vested by your higher power to take responsibility for the office. If I was Jewish and was made to take an oath on the bible, the only power holding me to that oath of office is my own sense of ethics and morals, not Jesus or my own higher power. It's not about respecting the origins of the United States...get real! This is not a "Christian" country and is not meant to be a country of any particular religion. Come on...separate the church and the state!
- Kyderdog, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8>Welcome back to the 60's boys and girls...
you missed it by a decade
Welcome back to the 50's boys and girls... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3You moron, our country was founded on Enlightenment principles. In many ways, these principles are directly opposed to so-called Christian principles. For example, we have a representational government. At the time of the American Revolution, Christian Europe was dedicated to the Divine Right of Kings. One of our most important freedoms is freedom of religion. Compare this to "you shall have no other gods before me."
-
Show 51 - 100 of 163 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 
