If Feingold wins in 2008...
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:46:44 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Process (Moderator: muon2)
  If Feingold wins in 2008...
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: If Feingold wins in 2008...  (Read 18268 times)
nini2287
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,616


Political Matrix
E: 2.77, S: -3.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 21, 2006, 02:58:27 AM »

...would he be sworn in on the Bible?
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 21, 2006, 10:38:50 AM »

Good question, actually.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 21, 2006, 11:20:03 AM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

No mention of any bibles.
Logged
TheresNoMoney
Scoonie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,907


Political Matrix
E: -3.25, S: -2.72

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 21, 2006, 12:31:35 PM »

I'm sure he would.
Logged
The Dowager Mod
texasgurl
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,972
United States


Political Matrix
E: -9.48, S: -8.57

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 21, 2006, 01:13:58 PM »

It's not required just a quaint tradition.
Logged
PBrunsel
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,537


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 21, 2006, 06:06:59 PM »

Only Franklin Pierce was ever sworn in on the U.S. Constitution.
Logged
nini2287
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,616


Political Matrix
E: 2.77, S: -3.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 22, 2006, 01:15:14 AM »

Only Franklin Pierce was ever sworn in on the U.S. Constitution.

Was there any reason for using the Constitution instead of the Bible with Pierce?
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 22, 2006, 02:04:56 AM »

...would he be sworn in on the Bible?

Hopefully we get to find out.  The Constitution idea would actually be a real good fit for Feingold however
Logged
YRABNNRM
YoungRepub
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,680
United States
Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2006, 02:51:28 PM »

Only Franklin Pierce was ever sworn in on the U.S. Constitution.

Was it an actual copy?
Logged
PBrunsel
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,537


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 22, 2006, 05:39:39 PM »

Only Franklin Pierce was ever sworn in on the U.S. Constitution.

Was there any reason for using the Constitution instead of the Bible with Pierce?

He blamed God for the recent death of his son Benny. It had nothing to do with "seperation of Church and State."
Logged
Platypus
hughento
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,478
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 25, 2006, 04:06:45 AM »

couldn't they get a bible and hjust white-out the new testament?

Or, as a campaign pledge to ensure 90% black support, black them out instead?
Logged
kashifsakhan
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 525
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 30, 2006, 11:20:56 AM »

im sure people will think this is a stupid question....but why exactly should feingold not be sworn in on the bible?
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,833


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 30, 2006, 01:12:28 PM »
« Edited: March 30, 2006, 01:14:00 PM by Governor Afleitch »

im sure people will think this is a stupid question....but why exactly should feingold not be sworn in on the bible?


He's Jewish.

He could swear on the constitution or even the Torah perhaps? Funnily enough was Johnson not sworn in on a Catholic mass book on the presidental plane?
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,509
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 30, 2006, 04:03:50 PM »

im sure people will think this is a stupid question....but why exactly should feingold not be sworn in on the bible?


He's Jewish.

He could swear on the constitution or even the Torah perhaps?

Isn't the Torah nothing more than the Old Testament section of the Holy Bible?  If so, then the Bible would represent the combined traditions of both the Jewish and Christian faiths, and technically the Torah would already be incorporated into it in the form of the Old Testament. 

Therefore, I do not see any reason why Russ Feingold would find it objectionable to be sworn in on the Holy Bible as tradition dictates. 
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,833


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 30, 2006, 04:15:13 PM »

Therefore, I do not see any reason why Russ Feingold would find it objectionable to be sworn in on the Holy Bible as tradition dictates. 

He may not object of course, but by swearing on the Bible he is swearing on a book that proclaims that Jesus Christ is the son of God. Not that I speak for him, but he would have every right to take objection to that Smiley
Logged
PBrunsel
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,537


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 31, 2006, 10:19:21 AM »

Feingold fancies himself a Champion of the Law, so he would be sworn in under the Constitution. Whether he is a Champion of the Law is debatable however.
Logged
jerusalemcar5
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,731
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -8.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: April 30, 2006, 10:40:53 AM »

im sure people will think this is a stupid question....but why exactly should feingold not be sworn in on the bible?


He's Jewish.

He could swear on the constitution or even the Torah perhaps?

Isn't the Torah nothing more than the Old Testament section of the Holy Bible?  If so, then the Bible would represent the combined traditions of both the Jewish and Christian faiths, and technically the Torah would already be incorporated into it in the form of the Old Testament. 

Therefore, I do not see any reason why Russ Feingold would find it objectionable to be sworn in on the Holy Bible as tradition dictates. 

The tradition is terrible.  If a Jew became president he would never swear over something that declared Jesus had any relation to G-d.  It would be heresy and would strongly anger the pwerful Jewish lobby and most likely the Israelis.  Besides this, Feingold is an excellent liberal who most likely believe beinbg swown in a religious book to be unconstitutional anyway.  I would be shocked if he was not sworn in some other way.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: April 30, 2006, 10:42:21 AM »

How is being sworn in on the Bible unconstitutional?
Logged
Platypus
hughento
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,478
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 03, 2006, 01:26:57 AM »

The argument is good old C+S.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: May 03, 2006, 01:29:21 PM »


No one is swearing to uphold the Bible as law; they are swearing on the Bible to uphold the law.  That's a fairly ridiculous argument.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: May 22, 2006, 06:06:50 PM »

It seems to me that swearing in on the Bible is no more merging church and state than praying in the White House.  The fact that one president did not do this tells me that it's entirely voluntary on the part of the president-elect, and is simply a way of expressing that the president-elect is being honest when taking the oath.

Separation of church and state does not mean that politicians are not allowed to be religious.
Logged
jerusalemcar5
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,731
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -8.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: May 22, 2006, 06:15:59 PM »

I kind of forgot about this thread, but I now have a response.  I made a mistake, I take back the unconstitutional part. 

Though I do believe it is more unconstitutional than praying at the White House.  The inauguration is an official ceremony of the state that should have nothing to do with religion.  Praying at the White House, is the business of the people involved.  I just don't think religious objects should be used during state ceremonies.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: May 22, 2006, 06:17:36 PM »

I kind of forgot about this thread, but I now have a response.  I made a mistake, I take back the unconstitutional part. 

Though I do believe it is more unconstitutional than praying at the White House.  The inauguration is an official ceremony of the state that should have nothing to do with religion.  Praying at the White House, is the business of the people involved.  I just don't think religious objects should be used during state ceremonies.

First of all, I appreciate your retraction.  But with all due respect, something is either unconstitutional or it isn't.  Appropriateness is another matter, though, and on that I sympathise with your argument.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: May 22, 2006, 06:18:39 PM »

The inauguration is an official ceremony of the state that should have nothing to do with religion.

And it doesn't.  It has the president-elect swear to uphold the Constitution.  The fact that it includes a religious prop does not make it a religious ceremony.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: May 22, 2006, 08:07:18 PM »

Theodore Roosevelt did not use a Bible in 1901. I suspect that he had to swear himself in to the Presidency suddenly upon McKinley's death; it is possible that no Bible was available. (Roosevelt had no religious objection to using the Bible--he used the book during his second term, and also when he was taking the oath as Governor of New York.)
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.05 seconds with 12 queries.