Comments on: ACLU And CAIR, I Swear

By: thanks

thanks — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 06:20:47 +0000

Very nice

By: loboinok

loboinok — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:13:59 +0000

Why are these people still on American soil?

Ask fark.

By: patd95

patd95 — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:50:27 +0000

It seems like CAIR is a clear and present danger to the security of this nation. Why are these people still on American soil?

By: Always On Watch

Always On Watch — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 03:14:23 +0000

The ACLU seems determined to pull down all Christian symbols but equally as determined to support other religious symbols.

Make no mistake. CAIR does not stand for tolerance. The leaders have so stated.

Go to Saudi, and see what one takes the oath on. Not the Bible, as the Bible is even not allowed in the Kingdom.

My prediction: The judge in this case will be overturned. But the intention of that NC law does not recognize the Koran as “holy scriptures.” Is affirmation (without a holy book) allowed in NC? Not all states have that provision.

By: Jay

Jay — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:30:20 +0000

Dan, I see nowhere in the post that said I was against them swearing on the Koran. Read it again and show me where I said that. I just merely said it is strange they fight Christianity in the public square and government, but sue to put other religions in, such as Islam and Wicca.

For a prime example, they are sueing one city council over prayers that are “too Christian”, and at the same time trying to get Wiccan prayers put in place.

I think they should just choose one route or another. Don’t we all have equal rights to religious expression?

By: fark

fark — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 20:50:23 +0000

“You have to recognize what they are before using them! ”

And they gave us 2: free excercise and no establishment. No wonder there are 2 different responses to the theocrats.

By: Dan Beaulieu

Dan Beaulieu — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 20:16:11 +0000

I think that if you’re against letting Muslims swear on the Quoran, you’re missing the point of the swearing in. Swearing on a Christian bible means nothing to Muslims; if you don’t believe in Christianity, swearing on a bible does nothing to compel you to tell the truth. Fear of burning in hell for lying after swearing to God not to is the truth-motivator.

I am an Atheist, and once took something called an “affirmation”, meaning I double-promise to be honest, even without a Bible.

I just don’t see this as a major issue. If you can have someone swear to be truthful on a document that has some personal meaning to them, they are less likely to lie.

Comments?

By: loboinok

loboinok — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 19:25:19 +0000

“Were using the rules set down by the founders.”

You have to recognize what they are before using them!

By: fark

fark — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 18:59:58 +0000

“IF this country was founded on DIVERSE religions…I would agree. ”

but we’re not founding a country. Were using the rules set down by the founders.

By: Middle America

Middle America — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:56:56 +0000

Gribbit are you saying ACLU made the initiative to sue? I called the ACLU for mere questions last week and still waiting for that return phone call. : )