Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 30, 2014, 07:22:23 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Questions and Answers
| |-+  Presidential Election Process
| | |-+  If Feingold wins in 2008...
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: If Feingold wins in 2008...  (Read 15232 times)
skybridge
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1930
View Profile
« Reply #25 on: May 23, 2006, 02:41:07 pm »
Ignore

This is a long shot, but perhaps in the present trend of things, the religious conservatives might try to deny him office, much like Lionel Rothschild was barred in England in the mid-19th century. Anyway, don't you have to take an oath to serve in Congress too?
Logged

Elitist Northern Liberal.
jerusalemcar5
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2743
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -8.35

View Profile
« Reply #26 on: June 06, 2006, 06:58:48 pm »
Ignore

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.

I never said the ceremony was religious.  The Bible is.  It is specific to one faith.  I am saying that it should be devoid of religion.
Logged
adam
Captain Vlad
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4985


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -5.04

View Profile WWW
« Reply #27 on: June 09, 2006, 04:22:18 pm »
Ignore

I think every person who is sworn should have a choice. I couldn't really care less.
Logged

This is merely a polite notice.


G - I - U - L - I - A - N - I


Thank you.
© tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35708
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.52, S: -8.00

View Profile
« Reply #28 on: June 14, 2006, 08:57:22 pm »
Ignore

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.
I never said the ceremony was religious.  The Bible is.  It is specific to one faith.  I am saying that it should be devoid of religion.

The idea of separation of church and state is that people have a choice, and a government endorsement of atheism is just as bad as it endorsing Christianity or Judaism or whatever.

The lack of endorsement of faith or religion is not endorsement of atheism.  It's an endorsement of nothing.
Logged

in a mirror, dimly lit
Emsworth
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9081


Political Matrix
E: 8.32, S: -7.22

View Profile
« Reply #29 on: June 14, 2006, 10:32:53 pm »
Ignore

The lack of endorsement of faith or religion is not endorsement of atheism.  It's an endorsement of nothing.
Good point. Separation of church and state calls for neutrality, not hostility towards religion, or hostility towards non-religion.
Logged
revas
Newbie
*
Posts: 17


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: July 03, 2006, 09:30:00 pm »
Ignore

hello,

Governor Lingle, of Hawaii, is jewish and took the oath of office upon a tanakh (Jewish Bible) :

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lingleinauguration2002.jpg
Logged

L'angoisse de la mort est un luxe qui touche bien plus l'oisif que le travailleur axphixié par sa propre tache. (Albert Camus)
jokerman
Cosmo Kramer
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7050
View Profile
« Reply #31 on: July 03, 2006, 09:45:51 pm »
Ignore

The lack of endorsement of faith or religion is not endorsement of atheism.  It's an endorsement of nothing.
Good point. Separation of church and state calls for neutrality, not hostility towards religion, or hostility towards non-religion.
In my opinion, the recent interpretations of "seperation of church and state" (and entity not even in the constitution at all) have been an utter witchhunt against all expressions of religion, and that, in my opinion, is hostility towards religion, not neutrality.
Logged
Emsworth
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9081


Political Matrix
E: 8.32, S: -7.22

View Profile
« Reply #32 on: July 06, 2006, 02:23:20 pm »
Ignore

In my opinion, the recent interpretations of "seperation of church and state" (and entity not even in the constitution at all) have been an utter witchhunt against all expressions of religion, and that, in my opinion, is hostility towards religion, not neutrality.
The idea of separation of church and state does not constitute a vendetta against all expressions of religious views. It merely opposes expressions of religious views by the government. Private people remain free to express whatever they please.
Logged
MODU
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22107
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #33 on: July 06, 2006, 02:29:04 pm »
Ignore



Fortunatly, we won't ever find out.  Tongue  However, I'm sure he would.
Logged

Attention bloggers:  Join SeededBuzz and gain access to thousands of new readers.  Simply paste a link and summary of your article for community members to link back to, drawing more activity to your site.  Membership is FREE!

Visit MODU's Musings


"Anybody who doesn't appreciate what America has done and President Bush, let them go to hell." - Betty Dawisha, Iraqi vote
jokerman
Cosmo Kramer
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7050
View Profile
« Reply #34 on: July 06, 2006, 08:00:37 pm »
Ignore

In my opinion, the recent interpretations of "seperation of church and state" (and entity not even in the constitution at all) have been an utter witchhunt against all expressions of religion, and that, in my opinion, is hostility towards religion, not neutrality.
The idea of separation of church and state does not constitute a vendetta against all expressions of religious views. It merely opposes expressions of religious views by the government. Private people remain free to express whatever they please.
Well, the problem is "government" is being interpreted as being government employees and property etc.. rather than what it should be, explicit establishment of a religion by legislation.
Logged
GOP = Terrorists
Progress
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1673


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: July 10, 2006, 04:45:58 am »
Ignore

Pretty sure he would use the Constitution instead.

But I think the real question is would anyone actually want him to swear to uphold the Constitution using a Christian Bible that he doesn't believe in?
Logged

jerusalemcar5
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2743
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -8.35

View Profile
« Reply #36 on: July 13, 2006, 02:32:10 pm »
Ignore

In my opinion, the recent interpretations of "seperation of church and state" (and entity not even in the constitution at all) have been an utter witchhunt against all expressions of religion, and that, in my opinion, is hostility towards religion, not neutrality.
The idea of separation of church and state does not constitute a vendetta against all expressions of religious views. It merely opposes expressions of religious views by the government. Private people remain free to express whatever they please.
Well, the problem is "government" is being interpreted as being government employees and property etc.. rather than what it should be, explicit establishment of a religion by legislation.

Separation of Church and State was meant to fully separate the two, not so limited as to say you can't set up an official religion. 

Based on you rules it would only be wrong it the government officially endorsed the Nazi party, but fine if they hung nazi flags throughout government buildings.  Do you actually think that?
Logged
nini2287
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6644


Political Matrix
E: 2.77, S: -3.39

P

View Profile
« Reply #37 on: July 13, 2006, 02:55:01 pm »
Ignore

For what it's worth, I e-mailed Feingold last night asking him what he would do.  I'm not sure if he's allowed to give a response to non-Wisconites, but we'll see.
Logged


Conan
conan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3155


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: August 23, 2006, 12:40:15 am »
Ignore

Having the bible sworn on at the inaugural is just to have something that means a lot to the person and that was the point. Feingold probably wouldnt want to cause any right wing contraversy and swear in on it.
Logged

jerusalemcar5
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2743
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -8.35

View Profile
« Reply #39 on: August 23, 2006, 01:33:44 am »
Ignore

Having the bible sworn on at the inaugural is just to have something that means a lot to the person and that was the point. Feingold probably wouldnt want to cause any right wing contraversy and swear in on it.

He would enrage the Jewish community (a very noisy bunch) if he swore in over the Christian Bible.
Logged
Senator Cynic
Dr. Cynic
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11896
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.11, S: -6.09

View Profile
« Reply #40 on: August 24, 2006, 05:39:28 pm »
Ignore

If Russ doesn't want to swear in on the bible for his religion, then I see no reason why he shouldn't be granted that right. What difference does it make if he wants to swear in on the Bible, the Torah, or the Talmud, as long as he does his job.

I think the problem is that Americans have never had a non-christian President, and the first one will probably endure hell from religious righters, no matter if they be Jewish (It's the same God), Muslim (Once again, the same god), or Athiest.

I feel sorry for the first non-christian President, for they will have to surely endure hell for the first year at least because of thier religion.
Logged

HockeyDude
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7274
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.19, S: -8.78

View Profile
« Reply #41 on: August 24, 2006, 06:00:32 pm »
Ignore

I would personally be sworn in on the Constitution, so I'm guess that's how he would do it. 
Logged



We're back in paradise!  (Aka Oklahoma)!
Immortalized for profound absurdity^
Conan
conan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3155


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: August 26, 2006, 02:34:02 am »
Ignore

If Russ doesn't want to swear in on the bible for his religion, then I see no reason why he shouldn't be granted that right. What difference does it make if he wants to swear in on the Bible, the Torah, or the Talmud, as long as he does his job.

I think the problem is that Americans have never had a non-christian President, and the first one will probably endure hell from religious righters, no matter if they be Jewish (It's the same God), Muslim (Once again, the same god), or Athiest.

I feel sorry for the first non-christian President, for they will have to surely endure hell for the first year at least because of thier religion.

Actually it should be noted that many of our presidents were christian in name only or on paper or according to old state laws before the founding.  For example many of our presidents including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson while they attended Christian services, were deists along with many of the other founders and early presidents.
Logged

Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines