Is this a step toward religious tolerance?

Question

What do you think of Leonard Pitts' editorial regarding Keith Ellison's oath of office?

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/columnists/leonard_pitts/16407032.htm

I think it's a step in the right direction, how about you?

.

Answer 1

As to the quotes attributed to the conservatives in the editorial I can only say, "read the first amendment to the US constitution." And yes I believe it is a step in the right direction. Do you suppose they would let a Pastafarian swear in using The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Answer 2

Well... As long as they uphold our constitution and our democratic values then why not?

Of course, if you see what is going on in Britain, France, and Australia you'll realize it may be a problem in the future.

If the majority of the people in congress and the senate were Muslim, it would be reasonable to think that laws based on Islam or Sharia would be introduced.

Western beliefs (not just religious but secular) are not compatible with many Muslim beliefs. America to them is the epitomy of debauchery and sin.

Then again, I could be wrong.

In secular society there is nothing wrong with religious tolerance but at what price? What happens when the goals of the religion is to convert everyone in the world or at least dominate it?

Maybe I'm being narrowminded...

Answer 3

I have no tolerance for Islam. Most other religions don't bug me. However it was a smart move using a book from Jefferson, but I don't like using either the Bible or the Quran. It should be the constitution we say the oath on and THAT should have been in the Constitution and maybe we need to make than an amendement. ONLY the Constitution or a true copy of it can be used in all swearing in ceramonies for Federal office.

Answer 4

Yes, it's definitely a positive step. I was interested also to read this in that article:

"Law Professor Jonathan Turley, writing in USA Today, reminds us that Presidents John Quincy Adams, Theodore Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover opted not to use Bibles. Jewish lawmakers have used Jewish holy books. President Franklin Pierce declined an oath altogether."

Answer 5

Given the number of crooks and liars who swear oaths on religious books, how can you trust one who does? It's the adult equivalent of "I had my fingers crossed when I promised! Ha ha!"

Swearing on a coriander - oops, koran - isn't any different than swearing on a babble - oops, bible. The only thing that matters is, will Ellison perform his duties and not be corrupt?

Given that he swore his oath on a religious book, that's doubtful. Chicken George, Dick Chicanery, Rumsfelch, Foley, Frist, Cunningham, Delay, Allen, and too many others to count took oaths on the buybull - oops, bible.


.

Answer 6

No. It is a step away from religious tolerance. Mr. Ellison succeeded in his goal of putting the Koran in people's face rather than peacefully accepting the American way. In my opinion he only added to the dislike of Islam and angered many people. If you think his actions added to tolerance why was it headline news across the country? The only way you hear about the Koran is when it is involved in controversy. Is that good?

Answer 7

Nice. What silly people who spoke out against it.

And Space Guy, the whole point of religious tolerance is to be tolerant of other religions. If one religion starts exerting themselves through laws supporting their own religion, they aren't being very tolerant, are they?