Politics 2008:The Caucuses and The Dem/Rep Conventions

[mccoyred]

Originally Posted by mulattogyrl

I don't understand what you mean either.

When he wanted to take the oath on the qu'ran instead of the bible, folks were all up in arms. Now that the specific qu'ran was owned by someone that 'they' can't argue with, it is somehow okay.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by mccoyred

When he wanted to take the oath on the qu'ran instead of the bible, folks were all up in arms. Now that the specific qu'ran was owned by someone that 'they' can't argue with, it is somehow okay.

I don't think the fact that it is TJ's Qu'ran changes Virgil Goode's mind. The irony is really only evident for those who know that the founding fathers were more Deist than Christian although there was quite a range of beliefs.

Goode can ramble on about tradition etc. but when John Adams and Teddy Roosevelt didn't use a Bible, you can't really fuss about a Congressman.

[ladygreek]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

The irony is really only evident for those who know that the founding fathers were more Deist than Christian although there was quite a range of beliefs.

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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by ladygreek

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

Random point: Humanism IS an outgrowth of Christianity if you look at its roots. In the late middle ages or early renaissance, depending on how you want to see it, Humanism was an attempt to reconcile Christianity with Classical/secular works and methods. I'm thinking Erasmus here, mainly. I'm also thinking of Humanism like "humanities" humanism, not "secular humanism," which in hindsight, I realize you might mean.

Certainly, today Humanism is closer to Deism than it is to Christianity, but I don't think it started out that way.

About Clinton/Obama, I was sort of joking about it in another thread. They do seem to complement each other.

Sorry for crashing your forum. I arrived here kind of accidentally. I was searching for a post on a similar topic.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by mccoyred

When he wanted to take the oath on the qu'ran instead of the bible, folks were all up in arms. Now that the specific qu'ran was owned by someone that 'they' can't argue with, it is somehow okay.

This makes more sense then saying that he shouldn't use TJ's book because TJ was a slaveowner and Ellison is black. That's like saying a Jew shouldn't spend money that Hilter touched...it's just a functional object, regardless of previous ownership. But I can understand the concern in the quoted post.

[SummerChild]

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

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

This makes more sense then saying that he shouldn't use TJ's book because TJ was a slaveowner and Ellison is black. That's like saying a Jew shouldn't spend money that Hilter touched...it's just a functional object, regardless of previous ownership. But I can understand the concern in the quoted post.

[ladygreek]

Originally Posted by SummerChild

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


SC

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.

[mulattogyrl]

Originally Posted by mccoyred

When he wanted to take the oath on the qu'ran instead of the bible, folks were all up in arms. Now that the specific qu'ran was owned by someone that 'they' can't argue with, it is somehow okay.

Gotcha.