Politics 2008:The Caucuses and The Dem/Rep Conventions

[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.