Say Anything Blog

I think its fine if that is what he wished to do.  The reason for swearing by oath on a bible is to draw in a representation of what that individual seeks his or her guidence and morals from.  I think every politician should swear on the constitution and whatever else they wish. such as a bible, koran, small child, cruifix, or whatever.

Prager writes:

Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible.

Also, where was the Jewish Dennis Prager when Debbie Wasserman Schultz took her oath on the Tanakh? Did he compare that book to Mein Kampf too?

This guy is a govt employee, sworn to serve the taxpayers of this country, who pay his salary.  The least he could do is respect our traditions.  I guess he doesn’t understand the concept of public service. He obviously thinks we are here to serve him.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

who is a Islam

Is this some sort of weird Jeopardy answer?

Gang, this microwave Muslim cannot swear an oath on the Qu’ran. It is against Islamic Law, you know, Sha’ria, to swear an oath under any circumstance. And most especially upon the Qu’ran.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Now Dick, don’t be picking on Rob’s word choices, he are allowed to use any word he wants.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

the swearing-in ceremony for the House of Representatives never includes a religious book. The Office of the House Clerk confirmed to ThinkProgress that the swearing-in ceremony consists only of the Members raising their right hands and swearing to uphold the Constitution. The Clerk spokesperson said neither the Christian Bible, nor any other religious text, had ever been used in an official capacity during the ceremony.

Bearing false witness

Jesus’ Attitude toward Oaths
33 ¶ Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, Lev. 19.12 but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: Num. 30.2 · Deut. 23.21
34 but I say unto you, Swear not at all; Jas. 5.12 neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: Is. 66.1 · Mt. 23.22
35 nor by the earth; for it is his footstool:  Is. 66.1 neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.  Ps. 48.2
36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Woof: I always find it charming when a leftie tries to use the words of Christ to justify his beliefs.  Do you really think Christ was referring to a public servant taking the oath of office?  If not, your cut and paste is irrelevant to this topic.  The real question is: Is this guy here to serve the public, or is the public here to serve him?

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Only pointing to the contradictory nature of oaths
sworn on holy books.

No man can serve two masters

I always find it charming when a leftie tries to use the words of Christ to justify his beliefs.

Woof: As usual, you willfully misinterpret the truth to suit your agenda.  Christ was speaking about public oaths spoken by citizens in the course of their daily activities.  Once again, you fail to present anything that ties your cut and paste to a public servant pledging to do his job.  Is he serving his own interests, or the interests of the constituents who elected him?  Which master is he serving, the one who pays his salary, or his religious ideology?

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Yes, davey, you are not a Christian. Is that easy enough for you to understand? Or should I put it in CAPS for you?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Is he serving his own interests, or the interests of the constituents who elected him?

How Prager and R108 could possibly support these hollow and pointless displays is beyond me. Forcing a Muslim to take an oath on a Bible...wow. If this is a positive, your religion is worse than I thought.

No one should be sworn in on the bible if they don’t want to. If someone doesnt believe in God what the hell is the point of it? They see no need to uphold something under a force they dont believe in. Its stupid. ‘Quaint’ as Gonzales might put it.

Yes, davey, you are not a Christian.

Dave: As usual, you have it backwards.  No one is forcing this guy to do anything.  He doesn’t have to serve in that office; I’m sure the next guy in line will be willing to serve, and to take the traditional oath as well.  We don’t need “public officials” who put their needs ahead of those of the public.  If he doesn’t mean his oath, then he shouldn’t take the public’s money; it would be dishonest of him to do so.
As far as what religion means to me, Dave, you haven’t the ability to understand that at all.  In addition, of course, it’s none of your business.  Nice to see you’re still using personal attack in place of a cogent argument.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

No one is forcing this guy to do anything.

I thought Prager “what if someone wanted to be sworn in on Mein Kampf” argument to be especially dim-witted.

If we’ve elected someone who wants to be sworn in on a Nazi text we’ve got bigger problems then this silly argument.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob: It’s not the book; it’s the fact that this guy’s first act is to want the oath of office procedure changed to suit him.  Not a good beginning at all.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Is there a rule that says you have to swear an oath on the Bible?

I’ll also take exception to r108’s comment about leftists and Christianity...perhaps he will rethink it.

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

Mike, the Constitution specifically says that you do not have to swear on a bible or any other religions relic.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

And, frankly, I think this country would be a lot better off if more politicians took their oath on that document.

Rob,

This country would be lot better off if more politicians took their oath seriously… book or no book.

Dude doesn’t have to say the Pledge either.  Or be part of the prayer to open and close House Ceremonies.  Or like Jesus.  Or even acknowledge God or as some athiests say “god” exists at all.

Here is the problem for you idiots out there--

If you want the ACLU to stop their endless Crusade against religious symbols, stop being dicks about forcing them on people.  Stop making people participate in the pledge or stand for the National Anthem or say group prayers or take oaths they don’t believe in.

This again is a move by the Religious Right to force Christian beliefs on everyone much like “Intelligent Design” was.  Pat Robertson will be telling us that if this douchebag troublemaker doesn’t swear on the Bible, God will stop protecting us and cause another 9-11.  And the Christians making a big deal out of it is what this guy wanted to cause.  It further makes Christians look like intolerant idiots to the Secular Progressives out that that vote Democratic.  And for fence leaners, Athiests, and Moderates that are sick of the heavy handedness of the Religious Right, it further pisses them off.

Let the guy worship Allah or a freakin’ tomato or whatever.  Let him open his mouth and say things and don’t play into it by making the Hitler comparison.  You know an argument sucks when some dude compares what the guy is doing to Hitler.  First Rule of Debate.  Whoever mentions Hitler (Mein Kampf) first automatically loses the debate.  Who gives a damn if he represents Hamas or Hezbollah or the Nazis or the Communists.  Our government allows for him to do whatever he wants so long as it is legal and still represent his party. 

Be smart and mark it down and use it against the Dems in 2008.  And STFU about it now.

I’ll also take exception to r108’s comment about leftists and Christianity...perhaps he will rethink it.

What “statement” do you think I made about lefties and Christianity, Mike?

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Justin B

Nice job building bridges of understanding.

I happen to be arch conservitive social and fisical conservitive christian. For the record, I could care less if he takes his oath on a Chili’s menu and then orders the fajitas.

I do, however, wonder how you believe that you’re justified in lumping all christians togather and assuming what our individual viewpoints are? Likewise, as a conservitive christian that doesn’t think that he needs to take that oath on the bible, am I still an “idiot” or is that just a designation that only applies to christians that disagree with your view per issue?

You must understand, whether or not we look like “idiots” to the secular progressives is a total non-concern. Since the moral conjunctions that they do share with us are minimal having them back us isn’t a priority. Nor is having the ACLU on our side considering that the ACLU has ignored more than enough cases regarding religious freedom when the religion in question is christianity. Simply put, SP’s don’t believe like us so we don’t expect a lot out of them but you’re sadly mistaken if you feel we should roll over on our right to shape government just because the SP’s get offended.
Sorry, but you live in a country founded on christian ideas and they are intertwined in the fabric of our country and it’s institutions, which is the best country in the world BTW, so if Sp’s want to root them out they can try. Meanwhile, we’ll continue to fight them on it because we don’t see any need to wreck the best country in the world so that “multiculturalism” and situational ethics can turn us into France.

Bat,

This country would be lot better off if more politicians took their oath seriously… book or no book.

Good point.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

r108 said

I always find it charming when a leftie tries to use the words of Christ to justify his beliefs.

That statement...unless in fact you do find it charming in which case I apologise.

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

Perhaps it’s just a matter of age, a sort of paternal prejudice on my part.  But I cannot recall meeting anyone who started a sentence with the address “Dude” whose thoughts or opinions were worthy of any sort of serious consideration.

Um...sometimes I talk like that… and it comes through in my writing.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

This is what Pat Robertson had to say about the Dover, PA School Board rejecting Intelligent Design:

“I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God. You just rejected him from your city,” Robertson said on the Christian Broadcasting Network’s “700 Club.”

Eight families had sued the district, claiming the policy violates the constitutional separation of church and state. The federal trial concluded days before Tuesday’s election, but no ruling has been issued.

Later Thursday, Robertson issued a statement saying he was simply trying to point out that “our spiritual actions have consequences.”

“God is tolerant and loving, but we can’t keep sticking our finger in his eye forever,” Robertson said. “If they have future problems in Dover, I recommend they call on Charles Darwin. Maybe he can help them.”

Because the citizens of Dover elected their School Board.  Well, the citizens of Minnesota elected this Ellison chap and he is rejecting God and Jesus, so the citizens of this area better not turn to God either when something bad happens, right?

First, I don’t lump all Christians together.  There are good Christians and dumbass backwards thinking a-holes.  Just like their are Muslim suicide bombers and Muslims that simply want Death to America, but don’t blow themselves or their kids up.  But the fact is that THE ONLY PEOPLE PISSED OFF ABOUT THIS ARE CHRISTIANS--am I correct?  So when referring to the people that are pissed about this, it would be correct to call them Christians, right?  Just like when referring to the 9-11 hijackers, I can call them “Muslims”?  They were all Muslims, correct?

I happen to be Christian.  I am also a pretty tolerant guy.  And I am happy that you are too.  Good for you.  But guys like Robertson and the others that are making a major case about this guy are doing it on behalf of Christianity, so why not direct your Christian anger at them for tarnishing the tolerant nature of our religion instead of at me for simply pointing out that these folks out there are the right wing fringe of both my Republican Party and also of my Christian Belief structure.  And they are assholes.  And they spread intolerance and borderline bigotry.  And they carry a hell of a lot of weight when guys like Hannity and McCain give addresses at Liberty University and Bush spoke at Bob Jones University.  Aholes writing articles about what book he swears on push secular progressives, agnostics, borderline Christians, and athiests away from a party that believes (possibly past tense) that government (especially Federal) needs to stop interfering in people’s lives.  This makes Christians and Republicans look like political hacks.

justin, why do you feel anything Pat Robertson has to say is of any importance whatsoever? You hang on his every utterance as if your life depends on it.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Damned blockquotes.  that was hosed.  tried to quote my hero Pat Robertson and instead put my stuff in quotes.

If you can fix it, Rob, that would seriously rock dude.  =)

But seriously, check my webpage link and what I write about in my spare time.  Bat One, keep in mind that it is ski season and I am ski bum mode where I basically chill and spend as much time as I can on the snow.  But there is no sense being pretentious or using big words when small words will suffice. 

I am actually a college graduate and a fairly bright guy who doesn’t do bong hits from a homemade pipe constructed out of PVC and soda cans.  Although I did just finish huffing some whiteout, so my thoughts may have been less coherent.

The guy averages almost half a million viewers for the 700 club.  Same thing with libs and Rush Limbaugh and his pill popping problem.  Why is it a big deal?  Well, he has a gadzillion listeners.

Look, the media is a marketplace that people shop from.  A marketplace of ideas.  And the ideas that stick and the people that stick as media figures are those that represent a significant portion of our population.  His ratings indicate that his message carries considerable weight, therefore his words merit appropriate attention.

I think he is an asshat, but his viewers don’t.  His opinions represent those of a significant number of Americans.  And particullarly the Religious Right.

What you just posted clearly illustrates one of the major problems in America. Instead of think for themselves they listen to a huckster in a $10,000 suit with a gold Rolex dangling off his scrawny wrist telling them some gooblydegook. And as for ratings, in the last Arbitrons I saw Ellen Degenerous has higher numbers than the 700 Club. Does that mean people should follow her advice and political leadership?

Sorry for the snarky tone, I thought you were actually putting him out there as someone you followed. You do post alot of his qoutes in different threads.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Nah, it is a fair criticism.  Sorry this is longwinded.  The dude is a douchebag, but every time I talk to a “Conservative Christian” friend of mine, they think Robertson is off his rocker.  So if all Christians want to distance themselves from this guy, why the hell does he have any viewers at all?  Nah, they claim that he is unhinged, but secretly and quietly they agree with his nonsense.  Now I am not saying all of them, but a lot of them.

We collectively choose who represents us, whether by voting or by viewing on the TV.  I can’t distance myself from my viewing preferences or my political affiliations.  But these are overt preferences and I make them known.  Every time you watch “The View” you are endorsing Rosie O’Donnell and her viewpoints, just like everytime you spend money at a movie with Tim Robbins, you are endorsing Moveon.org and their agenda.  So at the end of the day, the importance of these media figures is determined by their viewership numbers, not by how well “Christians” think Robertson represents their views.  His viewers endorse him with their dollars and Neilsons.  He has a mighty big pulpit, so until his Christian viewers start boycotting and shutting him up, he represents the Evanglical movement.  If you have someone who represents your collective group who is doing a piss poor job, you speak out publicly about it.  That is what cost the Republicans this election with scandals involving Foley, Delay, Duke Cunningham, etc.  These guys were a-holes, but instead of calling them out internally, we closed ranks and protected them. 

Notice how rarely you hear Conservative Republicans challenging this kind of nonsense about needing to swear on the Bible and guys like Robertson and Falwell.  So either we agree or we just don’t want to eat our own.  Every time some bigoted idiot runs their yap as a major leader of “Evangelicals” or “Republicans”, they need to be bitch slapped back down if they make ignorant statements by the Evanglicals and Republicans themselves.  That is what we keep asking the Muslims to do.  Turn in their Radical Muslim neighbor for throwing bombs, not simply ignore them as a crackpot that doesn’t represent them.  Who gives a damn what book he uses to swear on?  Well obviously some in our society do.  And those that do are Evangelical Christians of the ilk that agreed with what Falwell and Robertson said about 9-11 being our own fault because of the ACLU, Abortion, Gays and turning out back on God.  And they also happen to be Republican.  These folks don’t represent all of us and don’t represent the majority of us, but the fact is that just like when a tornado strikes, the news always interviews the nastiest drunk in the trailer park, the media takes these idiots and projects their ignorance onto all of us.  All because we can’t police our own.

It’s not the book; it’s the fact that this guy’s first act is to want the oath of office procedure changed to suit him.

WRONG

the oath of office procedure doesn’t dictate that the Bible must be use, and it does allow for the Qu’ran to be used. ..no oath of office procedure has to be changed in order for a Congressmen to swear in into office using the Qu’ran. Pragers article is little more than knee-jerk-styled reactionary emotionalism.

IF the Qy’ran says blow yourself up and kill the infidel and do it in the name of Allah??? I say forget that idea. I can see it now. Swearing in on the Qu’ran and suddenly jihad breaks out…

Prager should put the Bible down and do a crash reading of the U.S. Constitution:

Article VI, paragraph 3 of the Constitution (via RedState.com):

“The . . . Representatives before mentioned . . . 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.”

My personal opinion is that the U.S. Constitution should be made to be required in order to take the oath of office.  ..and that everything else in addition of as a substitute to it must be disallowed.

aNON, it satates in the Qu’ran, and is accepted as a part of Sha’ria, that no man shall swear an oath upon the Qu’ran nor in the Name of Allah.

I would accept him and every other elected official in our country swear their oath of office upon the Constitution. After having passed a highschool level civics test on the Constitution and the basic operation/organisation.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem