Democrat to take the oath of office on the Koran?

I have a bible that they stamped the cover incorrectly... the Bible appears to be backwards and upside down. I wonder if they'd think it was bad if I used it for my photo op after the swearing in ceremony...

Anyway. This keeps getting repeated as if they actually do put their hands on some book while taking their oath. This is hogwash of the highest order. They take the oath as a large group with no hand on any item whatsoever. After they take their oath they then have photos taken pretending to place their hand on the Bible, Koran, Dhammapada, Satanic Discord, or whatever they choose...

I can't see how what this guy puts his hand on for a photograph after taking his oath degrades any portion of the bonds that keep this nation together.
 
Damocles said:
I have a bible that they stamped the cover incorrectly... the Bible appears to be backwards and upside down. I wonder if they'd think it was bad if I used it for my photo op after the swearing in ceremony...

Anyway. This keeps getting repeated as if they actually do put their hands on some book while taking their oath. This is hogwash of the highest order. They take the oath as a large group with no hand on any item whatsoever. After they take their oath they then have photos taken pretending to place their hand on the Bible, Koran, Dhammapada, Satanic Discord, or whatever they choose...

I can't see how what this guy puts his hand on for a photograph after taking his oath degrades any portion of the bonds that keep this nation together.
Click to expand...



Would you see it differently if they were really placing a hand on a holy book in an official ceramony?
 
No. I wouldn't care. However, I do believe in accuracy. This man isn't taking an oath on any book, nor is his complaining contemporary.... And his complaining contemporary is Jewish. It's a bit odd that he'd be upset that this guy takes a picture with a Koran over a Christian Bible.
 
The guy is taking an oath over a Koran, its just not in an official ceramony.
 
I saw the photo thing afterward. He didn't take an oath, it was just a ton of photographers and two, count them, two Korans... Nary an oath was spoken.
 
If I took an oath on a bible or a copy of "My Pet Pony" it would mean the same thing to me.
I Believe in my word being good, not in a book keeping my word good.
 
So whats the fuss ...!!

The Official swearing in ceremony for the House of Representatives never includes a religious book, the swearing in ceremony consists only of the Members raising their right hands with left hand on the rostrum and swearing to uphold the Constitution. The Bible, nor any other religious text, had ever been used in an official capacity during the ceremony. Occassionally, Members will pose for symbolic photo-ops with their hand on a Bible.
 
Yep that is the main point. Apparently those doing the whining have no sense of personal responsibility and must swear on a holy book for their word to be good ;)
 
so; since the actual oath is taken sans any books then all theis arguement is politica bulls*it from both sides; too bad the republicans were too stupid to point this out when he made a big deal about using the quran to take his oath with.

so it lloks like the new dem congress is starting out with the same old political crap.....what a surprise.............
 
The hand on the bible/koran thing is just a photo op thing and is no way required. I view this entire thing as spin by those paranoid of all things Muslim. Or those eager to use it for political purposes.
 
Damocles said:
I have a bible that they stamped the cover incorrectly... the Bible appears to be backwards and upside down. I wonder if they'd think it was bad if I used it for my photo op after the swearing in ceremony...

Anyway. This keeps getting repeated as if they actually do put their hands on some book while taking their oath. This is hogwash of the highest order. They take the oath as a large group with no hand on any item whatsoever. After they take their oath they then have photos taken pretending to place their hand on the Bible, Koran, Dhammapada, Satanic Discord, or whatever they choose...

I can't see how what this guy puts his hand on for a photograph after taking his oath degrades any portion of the bonds that keep this nation together.
Click to expand...
Rationally speaking, you're correct, of course. This isn't a rational issue, however.

The photo-op is a purely symbolic -- and political -- act. The choice to use a Koran in that symbolic act changes the symbolism. Symbols are very powerful, like it or not -- though not so much so as the loonies sometimes make it seem, I admit.

The simple fact that they object to the use of the Koran in this context says a lot about the objectors. It demonstrates what they really want, which is a homogeneous, laregely theocratic society.
 
I heard on NPR this morning he recited an oath, when that photo was taken.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Rationally speaking, you're correct, of course. This isn't a rational issue, however.

The photo-op is a purely symbolic -- and political -- act. The choice to use a Koran in that symbolic act changes the symbolism. Symbols are very powerful, like it or not -- though not so much so as the loonies sometimes make it seem, I admit.

The simple fact that they object to the use of the Koran in this context says a lot about the objectors. It demonstrates what they really want, which is a homogeneous, laregely theocratic society.
Click to expand...

I don't see this as "it is what the objectors really want" any more than I see it as "it is what the perpetrators/supporters really want".......and that is to change the way things have always been done. I got to admit that I don't like change but could care less whether someone takes an oath on the Bible, Koran or Curious George (I liked that book when I was in school, doesn't matter how politically incorrect it is :)).

The big stir is that while we are not a theocracic society we are a society where the vast majority claim Christianity......the vast majority of our founders claimed it or were brought up with its morals. Most people see this man taking a photo op (really, that's all it was) on the Koran as being that "they're trying to change us from the inside out." Most have no idea about the moral code taught in the Koran and they mistakenly think it symbolizes what happend on 9/11 or any other Middle Eastern terror activity. I have a Muslim friend from Syria (works for GM) who has more core morality about him than most of the Americans claiming to be Christians that I know.

To those who are griping about this man's "photo op" I say that they're making much ado about nothing.

To those who support him because it is his right to do what he did I say that I agree with you.

To those who support him becasue it makes the Christian's (Religious Right) mad I say that you are as bad as those who oppose him.

Oh, and also, I am tired of seeing this all over the news stations. Maybe they'll get over it and talk about some really important things now......but probably not :(.
 
Last edited:
leaningright said:
I don't see this as "it is what the objectors really want" any more than I see it as "it is what the perpetrators/supporters really want".......and that is to change the way things have always been done. I got to admit that I don't like change but could care less whether someone takes an oath on the Bible, Koran or Curious George (I liked that book when I was in school, doesn't matter how politically incorrect it is :)).

The big stir is that while we are not a theocracic society we are a society where the vast majority claim Christianity......the vast majority of our founders claimed it or were brought up with its morals. Most people see this man taking a photo op (really, that's all it was) on the Koran as being that "they're trying to change us from the inside out." Most have no idea about the moral code taught in the Koran and they mistakenly think it symbolizes what happend on 9/11 or any other Middle Eastern terror activity. I have a Muslim friend from Syria (works for GM) who has more core morality about him than most of the Americans claiming to be Christians that I know.

To those who are griping about this man's "photo op" I say that they're making much ado about nothing.

To those who support him because it is his right to do what he did I say that I agree with you.

To those who support him becasue it makes the Christian's (Religious Right) mad I say that you are as bad as those who oppose him.

Oh, and also, I am tired of seeing this all over the news stations. Maybe they'll get over it and talk about some really important things now......but probably not :(.
Click to expand...
You object to my pointing out that the extreme religious right desire a homogeneous, largely theocratic society or do you disagree with that characterization?
 
OrnotBitwise said:
You object to my pointing out that the extreme religious right desire a homogeneous, largely theocratic society or do you disagree with that characterization?
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree with that statement. That is exactly what the "extreme" RR desires.

I also think the "extreme" moral left desires just the opposite of that or desires to go that far in the opposite direction.

Somewhere in the middle is where we have to come to terms. I say "we" meaning those of us who aren't so "extreme" in our convictions or have the ability to separate our religion and our politics/policy.

I underlined that part of your post to point out that while we are not "theocratic" we are largely religious and tried to use that fact to show why some are so upset over this.........not to agree with them but to point out where they are coming from. I think they're wasting time and energy on a non-issue but I can see where they are coming from.
 
leaningright said:
I absolutely agree with that statement. That is exactly what the "extreme" RR desires.

I also think the "extreme" moral left desires just the opposite of that or desires to go that far in the opposite direction.

Somewhere in the middle is where we have to come to terms. I say "we" meaning those of us who aren't so "extreme" in our convictions or have the ability to separate our religion and our politics/policy.

I underlined that part of your post to point out that while we are not "theocratic" we are largely religious and tried to use that fact to show why some are so upset over this.........not to agree with them but to point out where they are coming from. I think they're wasting time and energy on a non-issue but I can see where they are coming from.
Click to expand...
Curious. What would this "opposite direction" that the extreme moral left -- thanks, BTW; I like that :) -- look like? Seems to me that it's pretty much what the framers of the constitution had in mind.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Curious. What would this "opposite direction" that the extreme moral left -- thanks, BTW; I like that :) -- look like? Seems to me that it's pretty much what the framers of the constitution had in mind.
Click to expand...

And I tend to disagree with that assessment. To go in the extreme opposite direction of the RR is to have behavior such as is exhibited by Brittany Spears and the like to be the norm. It is to say that there is no right or wrong behavior.........all is acceptable. I don't think this is what the framers of the constitution had in mind. I am not for legislated morality but I am for standing up for what is right and condemning what is wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens.

The name of American…with slight shades of difference, you have same religion, manners, habits and political principles…Of all the dispositions and habits which led to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Of the 56 men who signed the nation's birth certificate, definitely 50, maybe 52, were Christians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
leaningright said:
And I tend to disagree with that assessment. To go in the extreme opposite direction of the RR is to have behavior such as is exhibited by Brittany Spears and the like to be the norm. It is to say that there is no right or wrong behavior.........all is acceptable. I don't think this is what the framers of the constitution had in mind. I am not for legislated morality but I am for standing up for what is right and condemning what is wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens.

The name of American…with slight shades of difference, you have same religion, manners, habits and political principles…Of all the dispositions and habits which led to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Of the 56 men who signed the nation's birth certificate, definitely 50, maybe 52, were Christians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to expand...
Religion and morality are two entirely different things. You can have either one without the other. Morality is essential. Religion is not. One might argue that it is the most reliable mechanism for instilling morality -- though others will dispute that, I assure you -- but it isn't the only way.

You completely misapprehend, I think, what it is that the "extreme" moral left want. Either that or you're using the term in a way that I don't understand. If anything, we tend to be a bit too prigish, in my view. Where we tend to differ from the extreme religious right is in why we think that Spears' behavior, for example, is reprehensible and what it is about that behavior that is immoral.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Religion and morality are two entirely different things. You can have either one without the other. Morality is essential. Religion is not. One might argue that it is the most reliable mechanism for instilling morality -- though others will dispute that, I assure you -- but it isn't the only way.

You completely misapprehend, I think, what it is that the "extreme" moral left want. Either that or you're using the term in a way that I don't understand. If anything, we tend to be a bit too prigish, in my view. Where we tend to differ from the extreme religious right is in why we think that Spears' behavior, for example, is reprehensible and what it is about that behavior that is immoral.
Click to expand...

You might be absolutely correct about my conception of what the "extreme" moral left want. I am still trying to learn, which is why I am here.
 
Jarod said:
I heard on NPR this morning he recited an oath, when that photo was taken.
Click to expand...
I watched it. He did not. Nancy even had to remind him to raise the right arm and not to put it on the Koran. During it there were about a thousand photographs taken, but no oaths.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top