on this book of moroni

"I haven't really thought about the historical significance of it," he told the AP. "I'm a Muslim. It's my faith."

John Quincy Adams swore his presidential oath on a book of law.

I don't know why people feel a need to swear on anything,

besides, most politicians have their fingers crossed while taking an oath or swearing on any religious book.

I imagine that Bush didn't ahve anymore trouble with bombing after his swearing on the Bible than Clinton did after he swore on the Bible.

Quote:

I don't know why people feel a need to swear on anything,

Me neither- either you're a liar or you're not.
(I meant to say, either you're honest or you're not, but my true beliefs subconsciously took over - I think they're all pretty much liars- I have little faith in any of them)

Quote:

besides, most politicians have their fingers crossed while taking an oath or swearing on any religious book.

That makes it all okay then.

Quote:

I imagine that Bush didn't ahve anymore trouble with bombing after his swearing on the Bible than Clinton did after he swore on the Bible.

So are you saying you believe that Bush and Clinton are of similar caliber in terms or moral fortitude and integrity?

LSM, I don't hold integrity to be the stronghold of any particular political party- in my mind it's not a virtue that respects or depends upon partisanship.
But I do have to say that if I had to rely on someone's intellect and judgement in almost any situation into which I was trusting someone to lead me, I'd choose Bill Clinton over George Bush.
(Except marriage, in terms of faithfulness. But even in marriage, in terms of almost any other aspect aside from faithfulness- I'd still choose Bill Clinton- he's just more my type - again, in terms of trusting in or depending on someone's judgement or intellect- nothing else - just wanted to make that clear... ).

They could swear on a box of Crackerjacks with as much effect as a Bible or Book of Mormon. I don't see a need for controversy here.

edgarblythe wrote:

They could swear on a box of Crackerjacks with as much effect as a Bible or Book of Mormon. I don't see a need for controversy here.

Not really Edgar. Not if they're really and truly believers. I understand that the Bible or the Book of Mormon might hold no more significance than a box of crackerjacks for some people, but for others it does. I guess the secular equivalent for a non-believer would be something like saying, "I swear on my mother's grave" or "I swear on my daughter's life". Either one is a situation after which someone who had respect for their mother's grave or their daughter's life would feel uncomfortable lying.

But for most of these guys it's all just a bunch of words- and some of them probably would sell their soul or their daughter's life for this chance at power (although I don't think BC or GB would- they seem to be dedicated and loving fathers if nothing else-maybe someone else's daughter's life though).

I think the issue here is the separation of church and state. This custom pretty much betrays the fact that our government doesn't take it seriously.


LSM- I was being sarcastic when I said, "So that makes it all okay then". Crossing your fingers like a five year old child....and then feeling like it's okay to go back on your word.
I agree with your assessment of politicians- I'm just an equal opportunity cynic in terms of politicians. I don't care what side of the divide they're on.
Marriage involves a whole different set of urges and circumstances than running a country LSM. I think BC had better instincts for running a country- and was equipped with the more appropriate set of skills and strengths for the job-that's all I'm saying.

Okay, LSM since the swearing in subject has seemed to have pretty much died, I'd like to respond to a couple of your points. If anyone objects - sorry.
I get what you're saying about the silverware, but I've decided that I just can't worry who other people have sex with. There are way too many other things that are way more important- especially when that person is running a country.

That's not to say I didn't think BC was Stupid (with a capital S) for doing what he did (or taking what he got) with/from Monica Lewinsky. And I think in terms of how he used her- that was just wrong and bad on so many different levels- and I lost respect for him as a man and a person, but at the end of the day, despite all of that, I have to admit I think he was good for our country. I think he left it better than he found it. I really do believe that.
And I don't believe that to be true about George Bush.

In other words, maybe BC doesn't have what it takes to be a faithful husband, but was equipped for the job of president whereas George seems able to be a good and faithful husband, but is woefully lacking in the crucial characteristics it takes to perform his presidentital duties to any level of competence. Not to be cruel, but he's an embarrassement to our country.
So I'd rather have someone who is good at being a president and bad at being a husband for my president than someone who is good at being a husband and bad at being a president.

In terms of how things would have gone had Kerry won the election, I wasn't all that impressed with or excited about him until his concession speech. (I wanted Howard Dean- I was so upset when he self-destructed, except I think that was blown way out of proportion)
When I listened to Kerry's speech, I really did feel a sense of loss for what might have been. So why do you automatically assume it wouldn't have been better with Kerry? Simply because he's a Democrat? And how do you think it could have been any worse than it's turned out?
I'd ask the same question in terms of Gore.
(I do have to admit though that GB's first term was a nightmare and would have tested just about anyone's levels of performance and limitations).

I vote conservative & Kerry sure isn't conservative.

Plus, I just don't like him as a person, from what I've seen. He's haughty, aloof, & basically a snob, IMO.

Now for BC, it wasn't the sex with Monica, or whatever BC wanted to call it, it was his perjury, obstruction of justice, & the fact that he did try to deny another US citizen (Paula Jones) her civil rights. I wish when the Monica stoery first broke that BC would've just said, that is none of your business & let it go, because while I thought it was tawdry & legally sexual harrassment, had he not lied about it we wouldn't have gone through that whole nasty mess.

There's the fact that we were attacked 7 times durng his presidency & he did nothing about any of them except the first WTC & all he did then was prick the outer skin, he didn't get to the bottom of it.

I'm not defending Bush, however, he was barely in office (8 months)when we had 911, that was huge, the biggest attack on American soil we've ever had before or since. We've never had anything like it, I don't know how any president would've handeled that.

What's happening now with Iraq is up for debate, I wasn't for us going to Iraq, I differed with Bush & most of congress, they gave him the green light because they had the same intel he had, & unless or until it's proven otherwise, that's all we have to go on.

Hindsight is always 20/20. It's said that the Dems won Congress back because of Iraq, lets see what they do with it.

I don't think Bush is an embarrassment to the country, i think the people that bad mouth every move Bush makes, & yes, I mean every move, are causing the embarrassment & giving aid to our enemies.

I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm), with my hand on my coffee mug, the newspaper, TV remote or briefcase handle, that by the time the Super Bowl rolls around I will not remember why Keith Ellison is famous, if I even knew at all.

For the record, you know of Ellison, a Democratic freshman congressman from Minnesota and Muslim convert, because in December he announced his intentions to use the Quran in the ceremonial swearing-in photo opportunity and to hold it in his left hand during the official swearing in with the other 434 representatives and 33 senators.

Outrage ensued. Accusations flew. Mud was slung. Utah wasn't spared, as evidenced by the Dec. 6 press briefing with White House press secretary Tony Snow.

"Would he support the Book of Mormon being used to swear in LDS members of Congress if they ever ask for that?" a reporter queried about the president, according to the transcript.

Talk continued, including suggestions that an LDS senator had asked to use the Book of Mormon during his oath of office and had been allowed.

The confusion lies with Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Oregon, who in 1997 carried a combination of the Bible and Book of Mormon during his swearing-in, according to USA Today. But there was no laying his hand on it.

It was much ado about nothing for a number of reasons. In the first place, the official swearing-in takes place when all of the representatives and senators stand and repeat the oath at one time with nothing more than their right hands raised. The ceremonial one is simply a photo opportunity.

None of Utah's federal delegation, all of whom identify with the LDS faith, has ever used a Book of Mormon while taking the oath of office. Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch uses the Bible on hand for the ceremony. Republican Sen. Bob Bennett uses a family Bible. Democratic Rep. Jim Matheson doesn't have a ceremonial photo op. Republican Rep. Rob Bishop used a Bible during his ceremonial swearing-in the first time but hasn't bothered with it since, and he doesn't use any book during the actual swearing in. Republican Rep. Chris Cannon has never even bothered with the ceremonial swearing-in on any kind of book.

"The issue has never come up," Joe Hunter, Cannon's chief of staff, said.

Ditto for the LDS Church. It has a few members in the upper echelons of the national government as well as hundreds in state and local governments, but has never addressed the issue, spokesman Scott Trotter said. If a member wants to swear on the Book of Mormon, the church won't endorse or discourage it.

"Since we embrace the Bible, we don't see this as an issue," he said.

On Thursday Ellison officially became the first Muslim serving in Congress when he took the oath of office.

Ellison, characterizing his faith as mainstream American, tried to minimize the media hype over Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., who'd criticized him about his swearing-in desire, and the Quran, the Associated Press reported.

He challenged an Arab journalist's contention that Americans dislike Muslims and struck a matter-of-fact tone in describing his feelings about making history by swearing on the Quran, the AP reported.

"I haven't really thought about the historical significance of it," he told the AP. "I'm a Muslim. It's my faith."

Photos of the ceremonial oath show Kim Ellison, Ellison's wife, holding a copy of the Quran formerly owned by Thomas Jefferson, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Keith Ellison smile broadly at each other. The world kept turning.

Oath of office facts

John Quincy Adams swore his presidential oath on a book of law.

Theodore Roosevelt didn't use a book at all.

Franklin Pierce and Herbert Hoover both chose to affirm instead of swear.