US Congressman taking an oath on the Quran

[Neo]

<wipes a tear>Look at you two, finally in agreement</wipes a tear>

Need a tissue bro?

 

[zraver]

Asin

You did try to equate the tradition of the founding fathers with American tradition. The American founding fathers would've enslaved Keith Ellison for being black.

Ben Franklin and many others would disagree with you. many of the founders were anti-slavery or came to the realisation that All men Were created equal meant what it said or America was a farce. Both George washington and Thomas Jefferson manumitted thier slaves

From what I've read, the definition of an American is fluid and that's why America takes pride in calling itself the melting pot of all races, traditions and cultures. You unfortunately are trying to say that the current American way is a way of shame... Either you're proud of it or you are ashamed of it.

Were not talking gay marriage or civil rights, were talking a about a living link to the spirit and ideals of them men who founded the only nation on earth at the time willing to even give a nod to true equality.

He can keep religion and state separated, you can't.

this is not a religious issue, it's about tradition, thats what you cant see.

Maybe with you, should be a hint that you are being racist quite often in your life. Nice to know.

If you really knew me and the causes I champion you wouldn't call mea racist.

Tomcat,

Then by your definition, Martin Luther King was a divisive BSer too, because he also ditched “hundreds of years of pulbic dispalys to American culture and system of government” by demanding treatment of blacks as equals to whites, right?


MLK was fightign to bring the American dream to more Americans more fairly. I am proud to be a membe rof the same nation as him. This congressmen is not doign that, he is asserting his indivuality and defiance of our traditions for no reaosn other than getting into the media spot light. I bet he didn't tell the voters he wouldn't swear on a bible either.

A. Rahman,

You mean you didn't see me form your terrorist creating madrassa across the street?

 

[Keysersoze]

Ok lets not let this descend into a issue of race. As it is clearly an issue of tradition.

Now let us look at some other traditions.

Jefferson Bible

Beginning in 1817 and continuing every other year until the 1950s, new members of Congress were given a copy of "The Life And Morals of Jesus of Nazareth", an "edited" version of the Bible by Thomas Jefferson that excluded what he felt were statements about the supernatural. Until the practice first stopped, copies were provided by the Government Printing Office; a private organization, the Libertarian Press, revived the practice in 1997

Bean soup

According to custom, bean soup must be available on the menu every day in the Congressional dining areas. This tradition, which dates back to the early twentieth century, is said to be based on an edict by Senator Fred Dubois of Idaho (or in another version of the story to Senator Knute Nelson of Minnesota). Fortunately the recipe and the specific type of bean is allowed to vary.

Maiden speeches

From the Senate's earliest days new members have observed a ritual of remaining silent during floor debates for a period of time. Depending on the era and the Senator, this has ranged from several months to several years. Today, of course, this obsolescent Senate tradition survives only in part — the special attention given to a member's first major address, or maiden speech.

Now those are all traditions too. Should they have eqaul or less value than the Tradition that you defended with passion. At the end of the day they are all traditions right? There are some "traditions" that are around south asia that are morally unsound, but have been around for hundreds of years and are a link to our pasts......Should we defend them with as much passion? traditions only have the value placed upon them. Hence some are dropped or are modified.

This is a good debate guys lets not get carried away with slanderous remarks!

 

[TomCat111]

Tomcat,

Then by your definition, Martin Luther King was a divisive BSer too, because he also ditched &#8220;hundreds of years of pulbic dispalys to American culture and system of government&#8221; by demanding treatment of blacks as equals to whites, right?


MLK was fightign to bring the American dream to more Americans more fairly. I am proud to be a membe rof the same nation as him. This congressmen is not doign that, he is asserting his indivuality and defiance of our traditions for no reaosn other than getting into the media spot light. I bet he didn't tell the voters he wouldn't swear on a bible either.

Thank you for your comments. However, you have avoided a very simple yet very important question. I hope this time you will take a moment to address it. Let me repeat

Let me ask you, what is more important to you, is it the Bible, the American traditions, or the American constitution?

 

[zraver]

I answered your question previosly, the constatution which is why this particular tradition is so important. It is a living link to the spirit of the that documents framers.

 

[TomCat111]

I answered your question previosly, the constatution which is why this particular tradition is so important. It is a living link to the spirit of the that documents framers.

Thank you for answering.

Since the Constitution matters the most to you, check with any expert on the US Constitution and he/she will tell you, that the Constitution unambiguously separates the church from the state, and does NOT even remotely hints at protecting any tradition, but the tradition of democracy. And in a viable democracy you can NOT force your traditions on anyone, regardless, how near and dear it might be to your heart.

 

[zraver]

Tomcat, the American democracy has remianed viable and capable of self improvement for 230 years with the tradition of swearing on the same book the founders swered on on so your experts argument is prima facia untrue.

Neve rmind that we force our laws and traditions on imigrants who move here and ahve done so since day 1. Your argument is absurd. This guys so reaoisn for not swearig on bible is a desire to be in the media, and thats not a good enough reason tothrow out 230 years of history.

 

[TomCat111]

Tomcat, the American democracy has remianed viable and capable of self improvement for 230 years with the tradition of swearing on the same book the founders swered on on so your experts argument is prima facia untrue.

Then take it to the Federal court. I am willing to bet anything, your argument will be turned down immediately, and no Federal appeals court will take it.

Neve rmind that we force our laws and traditions on imigrants who move here and ahve done so since day 1.

Amazingly, you can see a parallel between civil-laws and traditions, but I certainly can&#8217;t see one. In other words if you want to compare apples with oranges then please don&#8217;t let me stop you.

Your argument is absurd. This guys so reaoisn for not swearig on bible is a desire to be in the media, and thats not a good enough reason tothrow out 230 years of history.

1. Its not like your argument holds any legal or moral weight, so calling my argument as &#8216;absurd&#8217; wouldn&#8217;t make difference beyond your self-righteous desire to force your will on others. Its 21st century, so get over it.
2. Other than insignificant minority of purists like you, nobody has a problem with it. Therefore, if there anyone making a media-circus out of it, its people like you who are insisting to force your desires on others.

 

[zpak]

I hope you all know that the swearing in is an unofficial event. The actual official swearing in does not involve any religious text. This is something they do on their own time, in their own place. Why all the fuss??? Mountain out of a molehill. Highlighted uneccessarily by Islamophobes in the US.

Look out! Them "Moz-lems" are cummin to getcha *hick accent *snicker

 

[Awesome]

Tomcat, the American democracy has remianed viable and capable of self improvement for 230 years with the tradition of swearing on the same book the founders swered on on so your experts argument is prima facia untrue.

Neve rmind that we force our laws and traditions on imigrants who move here and ahve done so since day 1. Your argument is absurd. This guys so reaoisn for not swearig on bible is a desire to be in the media, and thats not a good enough reason tothrow out 230 years of history.

Are you going to go against your constitution to enforce 200 year old traditions?