?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Religious hate speech is. . . amusing? - Chronarchy

> Recent Entries
> Archive
> Friends
> Profile
> Chronarchy.com

Links
Ár nDraíocht Féin
Three Cranes
MySpace
Chaos Matrix
OSU PSA

November 28th, 2006


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
10:43 am - Religious hate speech is. . . amusing?
One should not laugh at hate speech, but OMFGROFLMAO:

Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress.

Wow. I just. . .

Only gasps of laughter can define exactly how I feel about that statement.

I suggest that we all vote on exactly which book we want every rep to swear on when we vote in each election. They could put a little box next to the race, so you can say that the Secretary of State needs to swear on the Tao Te Ching, the Governor should swear on the Torah, your congressman should swear on the Koran, and the president should swear in the Principia Discorida.

At least if the current president had sworn on the Principia, he'd have been telling the truth.
Current Location: Southeast of Disorder
Current Mood: amusedamused
Current Music: "If the Phone Doesn't Ring, It's Me", -JB
Tags:

(43 comments Leave a comment)

Comments:


[User Picture]
From:unnamed525
Date:November 28th, 2006 03:53 pm (UTC)
(Link)
There have been cases where non-Christians wanting to do things like perform the benediction at local government meetings were refused and this was upheld in court. The idea that Christians are oppressed in America is pure fiction.
[User Picture]
From:chronarchy
Date:November 28th, 2006 03:59 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Of course it is. But the mythic narrative of oppression is strong within their culture. I probably wouldn't ever write a paper on it, but I'd be interested to study and think about the implications of the oppression myth as it applies to various religions.

Every religion seems to think it's oppressed in some way. Wiccans are oppressed by Christians, Islam is oppressed by Christians, Christians are oppressed by everybody but the Jews, and the Jews are oppressed by everyone.

It's amazing how everyone seems to find time to be oppressed.

Oppression narrative seems to be a key component in religion today, at least as a broad generalization. The creation of enemies who oppress us or keep us down is something we all do. I really wonder exactly what function it serves?

But of course, writing about it is going to offend everyone, because it'll be another example of oppressing them :) I can't win with that line of thought :)
[User Picture]
From:ns_kumiho
Date:November 28th, 2006 05:36 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

Is an oath sworn on something you don't really believe in an oath at all? I mean I know that most members of congress don't take the oath to serve the best interests of the United States with much seriousness but also eliminating the minute bit of guilt as well by swearing on something you do not believe in? (Matthew 5:33-37 which explictly denounces oaths in the said book they want to swear an oath on aside) It's a bit like swearing an oath on a cheerios box...

[User Picture]
From:chironcentaur
Date:November 28th, 2006 05:36 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Wow, what an idiot. Making a great big deal out of absolutely nothing.

Honestly, if you're swearing on oath on a book that really doesn't mean anything at all to you, then what is your oath really worth? Would you still be compelled to uphold it, if you swore it on something meaningless?

If a Christian were to get elected to office in a Muslim country and wanted to swear his oath on the Bible instead of the Koran (probably not how they do things over there I know, but for the sake of argument let's pretend), how much you want to bet this moron would be screaming about how the poor oppressed Christian should have the right to have his precious Bible with him and how dare those mean, nasty Muslims tread on his religious beliefs like that. :-P
[User Picture]
From:singingwren
Date:November 28th, 2006 05:54 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Have you ever been in the Starbucks near Chipotle on High Street? There's lots of big disturbing murals in it, and one of them has a huge pyramid with an eye on it near the bottom. It watched me at Starbucks. I moved seats.

Fuckin' Discordians. Y'all can swear on THIS *fist to the face*!
[User Picture]
From:chronarchy
Date:November 28th, 2006 06:25 pm (UTC)
(Link)
No, I don't generally patronize either Starbucks or Chipotle. They both generally make me uncomfortable, so I don't ever go in them if I can help it.
[User Picture]
From:delphinastar
Date:November 28th, 2006 06:40 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Wow! Is that guy for Real???

So much for separation of church and state and all that, huh?

Actually- I never understood why you swear on a bible anyway...
Why do you have to make it religious? Couldn't you just promise to the country? You're representing a country... So instead of "I Swear to God" Why not, "I swear to the United States of America"

Or does that make too much sense?

*Huff*
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:skye_windsinger
Date:November 28th, 2006 07:36 pm (UTC)
(Link)
*raises hand* Ooo, oo, pick me, pick me!!! So does that mean that everyone who has ever sworn on a bible has never lied and has only done exactly what his constituants wish before putting his own wishes and desires into laws and bills???? Oh, oh and that when someone actually cares about keeping their oath and wants to swear on a book that has meaning for them it's wrong because "that's not how our fathers did it"? Just wondering...

This guy is a nutball..and the fact that there are almost 300 comments with most supporting this guy...makes me wonder sometimes why I don't just move to Canada and learn French. At least, I wouldn't have to pay for health care... ;O}
[User Picture]
From:nontacitare
Date:November 28th, 2006 07:56 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I think there is something to be said for all officials to swear on the same document, but using the bible never made sense to me. As Americans, the one document we have that defines us and unites us (in theory) as a people is the US Constitution. Why can't all elected officials swear on that?
[User Picture]
From:chronarchy
Date:November 28th, 2006 08:03 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I suppose they could, but they swear to uphold the constitution. There's a mental disconnect between swearing on the thing you're swearing to uphold. . . If you break your oath do you have to then go even further and destroy the constitution?

There's an interesting question :)

Of course, we know how well swearing to "uphold the constitution" has worked recently.
[User Picture]
From:qryztufre
Date:November 28th, 2006 08:38 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I'd like to see where the Satanic Bible & the Necronomicon may fit into such a voting system :D I mean, heh, the Satanic Bible it was written for such people to begin with... and as for the Necronomicon: Cthulhu For President!


(this is the second time I've brought satan up in LJ today *pokes sleepingwolf *)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:tlachtga
Date:November 28th, 2006 11:49 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Prager, I happen to know, is one of those weird conservative Jews who constantly goes on and on about how America is a Christian nation and that Christians are being persecuted. I know it's probably, um, un-PC to call him an Uncle Tom, but... Well, he's a Jewish Uncle Tom, happy to serve his percieved overlords in hopes of keeping his own (again percieved) special position as one of the "good Jews".

He's a wacky fellow, but I find Michael Medved more fun.
[User Picture]
From:tlachtga
Date:November 28th, 2006 11:51 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I have to admit, I don't see the point in swearing to uphold anything, since no one really means it, and it's just a promise that's going to get broken.

Oh, sorry, I'm feeling cynical today. Must be one of those post-family-Thanksgiving moods.
[User Picture]
From:ardgruntler
Date:November 29th, 2006 12:37 am (UTC)
(Link)
Good gods! This guy's a loon!

Oh - and I'm pretty sure that Bush did swear some kind of oath on the Principia Discordia. Too bad he didn't read past the title.
[User Picture]
From:smithing_chick
Date:November 29th, 2006 04:57 am (UTC)
(Link)
Too bad he didn't read past the title.

See, that's the problem. He can't read words of more than one syllable. He saw the title & assumed that it was about being a Prince. He's acted accordingly ever since. :-P

> Go to Top
LiveJournal.com