U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 09-20-2018, 11:56 AM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,105 posts, read 15,655,929 times
Reputation: 8788

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicano3000X View Post
Freedom of religion.
Either way, Bible, or Koran, doesn't this violate separation of church and state?
No, it doesn't, unless you don't know what "separation of church and state" means. It came from the 1100 Charter of Liberties. You see, our Framers knew their history, and our Constitution was derived from over 700 years of English history. One of the items in the 1100 Charter of Liberties states: "The Holy Church of God shall be free from the hand of government.

And that's where the so-called "separation clause" came from and what it means. It was to keep government out of the Church.

 
Old 09-20-2018, 11:59 AM
Status: "Can kindness win?" (set 1 day ago)
 
Location: Here and now.
10,381 posts, read 2,813,517 times
Reputation: 11121
This whole argument is silly. Taking an oath is no guarantee of good behavior, and even less so if the person taking it is doing so over a book which means nothing to them. Honestly, taking one over a book one does not accept seems not only dishonest, but actually disrespectful to those who do accept it.

If oaths are to be taken at all, and over a single document, let it be the Constitution, since at least that applies equally to all Americans.
 
Old 09-20-2018, 11:59 AM
Status: "Busy being triggered by pumpkins" (set 7 days ago)
 
Location: Suburb of Chicago
17,361 posts, read 8,542,942 times
Reputation: 18098
Quote:
Originally Posted by LS Jaun View Post
Well, Kennedy didnt put his hand on a book that Represented Islam. We know what Islam does to countries. We can see it in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Somalia. There's a reason why Islam has been at war against every other society it has come up against for over 1400 years now.
And we've seen that westernized Muslims aren't like that. They're police officers, FBI agents, they work for Homeland Security so they've gotten jobs where they've passed all kinds of background checks. They also fight in our military.

That whole mess in the Middle East has to do with their culture and the radical Ayatollah's. Drugs and inbreeding don't help either.
 
Old 09-20-2018, 11:59 AM
 
Location: North America
18,293 posts, read 11,611,584 times
Reputation: 7580
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
It's all in the original intent and meaning. It meant freedom of Christianity and Judaism. No muslims from Africa and the middle east coming to America to practice islam was foreseen or intended.
No it meant freedom of religion. I don't see anything resembling the words Christianity or Judaism or the exclusion of Islam in that statement. It meant government out of religion and vice versa.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Regarding the Separation of Church and State, Jefferson used the phrase in his letter to the Danbury Baptists.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State"

Last edited by carterstamp; 09-20-2018 at 12:08 PM..
 
Old 09-20-2018, 12:00 PM
Status: "Praise Be" (set 19 days ago)
 
Location: Trumpville
7,258 posts, read 3,280,003 times
Reputation: 6300
I have always thought people should take the oath of office by swearing on the Constitution of the US and not a religious holy book. That makes a lot more sense.
 
Old 09-20-2018, 12:01 PM
Status: "Busy being triggered by pumpkins" (set 7 days ago)
 
Location: Suburb of Chicago
17,361 posts, read 8,542,942 times
Reputation: 18098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
Atheists use the Bible, or a legal document/book. Even Trump used a Bible, although he does not claim to have any kind of relationship with God. Such people do whatever gets them through the ritual with least contradiction. For a muslim to request the Quran makes perfect sense for the reasons already stated.
Ah, thanks, Finn.

I agree. What wouldn't make sense is for a Muslim to take his oath using the bible.
 
Old 09-20-2018, 12:03 PM
 
11,661 posts, read 3,253,090 times
Reputation: 3575
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax View Post
So the founders were just too dang stupid to be able to explicitly say that? Seems like a pretty easy inclusion if that was actually the intent.
Not stupid but intentionally vague and believing it wasn't necessary to be specific when to the extent the people had religious beliefs it was virtually all Christian.
 
Old 09-20-2018, 12:06 PM
 
Location: Brew City
3,135 posts, read 1,955,353 times
Reputation: 4174
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...ian_bible.html

I'm imagining the same dumb look on the OP's face when he realizes there's no reason someone can't swear on a Koran.
 
Old 09-20-2018, 12:06 PM
 
824 posts, read 310,751 times
Reputation: 1108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
OP seems to have the charmingly idiotic idea the Judeo-Christian Bible is the official book of US government.

Or that oaths are only valid when sworn on that book.

But no idea what an oath actually is.

Of course, given the behavior of so many good Christian public servants who have sworn their oaths on the Bible, I can see the source of the confusion...

Well said! Thank you!
 
Old 09-20-2018, 12:07 PM
 
Location: Old Hippie Heaven
16,179 posts, read 7,095,017 times
Reputation: 9178
Quote:
Originally Posted by DUNNDFRNT View Post
This, although the "not freedom from religion" crowd will oppose.
Totally agree. The oath itself makes no mention of god or religion, and there is no requirement that the person making the oath swear by any religious artifact at all.

Last edited by jacqueg; 09-20-2018 at 12:22 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top