I haven't seen anyone say "OOOH it's TJ's then no big deal" The people who think that it's neat that it is TJ's Qu'ran are not the anti-Qu'ran swearing people. Those people don't care whose Qu'ran it is. Does that make sense?

Mr. Goode and his ilk aren't saying that ownership of the book makes it ok. Thus I think her concern is misguided.

I think it IS a big deal simply because, unless I missed something, this swearing in wasn't going to happen on a qu'ran PERIOD. When this particular qu'ran was brought forth it happened right away. If I DID miss something, please inform me and I will adjust accoridingly. Thank you.

To my knowledge it was going to happen no matter what and here's why:

The official swearing in is a group thing where everyone raises their hand and swears the oath (no books, bible or otherwise).

Then, after that there are private ceremonies that are mostly just photo opportunities. This is where they swear on a book. He is not the first person to request a non-Bible. They've stated that not only have presidents chosen other books, John Q. Adams chose a law book for example, but that Senators and Congressmen have also chosen others or none at all.

Here's an article that talks about it. It refers to Ohio's state legislators as well as the national ones. Columbus Dispatch

There was never anything in the news about the Qu'ran not being allowed except in the sense that some prejudiced idiots think that the Bible is and should be the only option. Particularly Rep. Goode. However I've not seen anything stating that it wouldn't be allowed, he just thinks that it shouldn't be ok.

/But I've read his comments and he's also a grade-A idiot

AlphaFrog,

Who are you or anyone else to say what makes more sense to someone else or whether someone's thoughts are basically valid?
Different people care about different things. That's what makes the world go around. It may be a functional object to you but it may have deeper symbolic meaning to someone else.


ETA: On my own personal opinion, I think that he *should* use the book that has significance for him. It seems to me that the point of swearing to something and placing one's hand on a book is to really mean it based on the content of the book. If the Bible will not be as meaningful for him as the Qu'ran, he should use the Qu'ran. I don't see the big deal at all.

What if an athiest swore on the Bible? I'm sure that it has happened but in hindsight, it seems quite silly.


SC

THANK YOU!! And folx ask me why I am a Humanist, which is an outgrowth of Deism, rather than a Christian.

So I do see the irony. ;)

That's not true. The real swearing in happens en mass without any hands on bibles or anything else. They just all stand and raise their hands and repeat what they are told. The hands on the bible, Qu'ran, etc. are privately done after the official swearing in, and are for photo-op, personal gratification purposes.

ETA: oops, should have read ahead.

And there have been presidents who did not swear on the Bible or anything. My guess is that athiest chose not to do the private swearing in photo-ops. And yes I believe there have been and are more athiest and agnostics in public office than we know.

Thank you for the information on the process, soror.

So if the whole 'swearing/affirming on a book' thing is not the official process, why all the big deal? I swear, this country spends more time on extraneous stuff than a little bit.

Everyone does not have your knowledge (at least on this subject). I appreciate being informed because I learn something new everyday but I don't appreciate your tone or how you speak to people, Ms Superiority.

So are you :cool:

Retract your claws. You asked, I replied.

No, not everything that happens is "to my knowledge" but seeing how you haven't exactly refuted what I said, I don't see my knowledge being wrong in this situation.

http://www.nola.com/newsflash/topsto...ist=topstories

Obama is IN!

My old constitutional law prof is going to be President!!! :)
Anywho, why did this Irish newspaper have a headline on MSN.com today talking about Obama is attempting to be the first Black President??:confused:

Talk about out of touch with reality. Haven't they ever heard of Shirley Chisolm and Jesse Jackson, Sr. (who apparently ran twice). Shoot you could even count Al Sharpton. But I thought that *everyone* knew that Jessee had run b/c he's all over in the Middle East doing peace talks, etc. Surely they have heard about him in Ireland???:confused:

How could the paper have been so ignorant as to publish that and not catch that huge mistake?

Obama is attempting to become the first black president. He's not the first person to attempt, however. Fortunately, like Jackson and Sharpton, he won't win.

Why "fortunately"? :confused: Not trying to bait you or anything, but I'm curious to know why it would be a good thing if Obama didn't win?

Although, based on those who have OFFICIALLY announced their intention to run in '08, I don't have a favorite either way.

Look at SummerChild, angling for the Atty. Gen. gig ...:D

Seriously, this will be interesting to watch unfold. We all see what we think we know and like about Obama. As he takes definitive political positions and defines his ideas -- which he better do first, before his political opponents do it for him -- we'll be better able to access his candidacy and make our assessments about his ability to perform on the domestic and international stages.

Personally, I'd like to have seen more of a legislative track record in the Senate, but that's not to say he wouldn't do a great job as president. Clearly, many have come the presidency with a lot less....Obama is intelligent, pragmatic and moderate in his thinking, so that will go in his favor with a lot of people.