POL/REL: Taking the Oath of Office on the Koran

[Drake]

Sorry. My evil clone kidnapped my keyboard for the previous post. Please disregard that comment.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Just to make sure I didn't have a false understanding of the meaning of the word, I went to dictionary.com. Based on reading that, I'm not sure why you say this.

Edit: I'm not against it for others at all. I just don't understand the idea that if you're not "distinctly pro sodomy" that you don't know what the term actually means.

Because I thought everyone liked oral sex.

[cuervo72]

Everyone male, anyway.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Because I thought everyone liked oral sex.

There are 10 definitions on dictionary.com and 3 of them include this possible definition.

Either way, I think if you want to really talk about the word and what the common accepted meaning is of the word, oral sex is not it.

If you're trying to act smart and show that you know a defunct definition that isn't used anymore, more power to you. But it's quite clear that the most common dictionary definition is anal sex, and usually with someone of the same sex. In addition, that is just the definition that is clearly accepted in American culture.

Sorry. I just find it annoying when people try to act all smart like this and they are technically correct, but not practically correct.

[wade moore]

Dola: and I'm tired and suffering from some insomnia, so that's a factor too.

[ISiddiqui]

What do you mean its a 'defunct definition'? Hell, it's the first definition listed on dictionary.com! I thought most people knew that oral sex is included in 'sodomy' (and yes people were prosecuted for oral sex under sodomy statutes).

[Drake]

Xanax and Tequila are the best cures for insomnia known to man.

[Drake]

Now that we've moved on to debating the specifics of sodomy, I think this thread has taken a turn for the better. Or does that get us closer to Nazis again?

[ISiddiqui]

I hear Hitler liked to be anally sodomized.

Ooops..

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

What do you mean its a 'defunct definition'? Hell, it's the first definition listed on dictionary.com! I thought most people knew that oral sex is included in 'sodomy' (and yes people were prosecuted for oral sex under sodomy statutes).

Maybe I'm wrong here, but I had never heard of Oral Sex being included until I looked it up on Dictionary.com tonight.

FWIW, not that it's an absolute source, wiki even says that it is "most commonly used to refer to anal sex".

*shrug*... I dont' really actually care all that much. I just feel like if you ask 10 people in the US, 7 or 8 of them will say it means anal sex.

[cuervo72]

Most commonly, but not exclusively. I think some regard anything outside of vaginal sex (and even then in some places there might be rules on the books where it's anything outside of the missionary position) as technically being sodomy.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Most commonly, but not exclusively. I think some regard anything outside of vaginal sex (and even then in some places there might be rules on the books where it's anything outside of the missionary position) as technically being sodomy.

It does look that is technically correct.

[Ryche]

The definition of sodomy and its penalty from Minnesota statutes:

609.293 SODOMY.
Subdivision 1. Definition. "Sodomy" means carnally knowing any person by the anus or
by or with the mouth.
Subd. 2.[Repealed, 1977 c 130 s 10]
Subd. 3.[Repealed, 1977 c 130 s 10]
Subd. 4.[Repealed, 1977 c 130 s 10]
Subd. 5. Consensual acts. Whoever, in cases not coming within the provisions of sections
609.342 or 609.344, voluntarily engages in or submits to an act of sodomy with another may
be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more
than $3,000, or both.

[Raiders Army]

In retrospect, did Keith Ellison's constituents know he was Muslim? I'm sure that had to have come up in the elections. If they did and elected him, then it shouldn't surprise any of them when he wants to take his oath on the Koran...and in essence, they've condoned this and supported this.

If the people who voted for him didn't know he was Muslim, then I could see an argument against him taking an oath on the Koran. There are certain expectations that people have when they vote for someone and I believe this is one of them. If he didn't disclose that he was Muslim to the people, then they may have an argument there.

That being said, I highly doubt that he was voted into office without the people's knowledge that he was Muslim.

[Pumpy Tudors]

What if someone wants to take the oath while performing sodomy? What about that?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

What if someone wants to take the oath while performing sodomy? What about that?

It depends. It's not polite to talk with your mouth full.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by wade moore

I just feel like if you ask 10 people in the US, 7 or 8 of them will say it means anal sex.

You might be right, but that would run contrary to the response you'd get in Georgia I bet.

We heard the word a lot during the Bowers v. Hardwick case and although the law in question covered both, pretty much every conversation I heard, every joke that was told, any reference to it at all clearly had oral as the primary definition.

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

In retrospect, did Keith Ellison's constituents know he was Muslim? I'm sure that had to have come up in the elections. If they did and elected him, then it shouldn't surprise any of them when he wants to take his oath on the Koran...and in essence, they've condoned this and supported this.

If the people who voted for him didn't know he was Muslim, then I could see an argument against him taking an oath on the Koran. There are certain expectations that people have when they vote for someone and I believe this is one of them. If he didn't disclose that he was Muslim to the people, then they may have an argument there.

That being said, I highly doubt that he was voted into office without the people's knowledge that he was Muslim.

They definitely knew, it was a fairly large point of interest in the campaign. There were some questions raised about his relationship with Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam when he was in college, but it seemed pretty minor. But once he won the Democratic primary for the seat, there was little doubt he would be elected.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Maybe I'm wrong here, but I had never heard of Oral Sex being included until I looked it up on Dictionary.com tonight.

FWIW, not that it's an absolute source, wiki even says that it is "most commonly used to refer to anal sex".

*shrug*... I dont' really actually care all that much. I just feel like if you ask 10 people in the US, 7 or 8 of them will say it means anal sex.

Same here.

[JPhillips]

Glen:



or

[JPhillips]

Back to the substance here. This from Think Progress.

But Prager’s column is based on one other glaring error: the swearing-in ceremony for the House of Representatives never includes a religious book. The Office of the House Clerk confirmed to ThinkProgress that the swearing-in ceremony consists only of the Members raising their right hands and swearing to uphold the Constitution. The Clerk spokesperson said neither the Christian Bible, nor any other religious text, had ever been used in an official capacity during the ceremony. (Occasionally, Members pose for symbolic photo-ops with their hand on a Bible.)

So who made the mistake here, Ellison or Prager?

[Pumpy Tudors]

If sodomy isn't substance, I don't know what is.

[st.cronin]

I was going to avoid this thread until I noticed that Pumpy had posted here. Now I'm going to have to read the whole thing.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I was going to avoid this thread until I noticed that Pumpy had posted here. Now I'm going to have to read the whole thing.

I had no idea that I held so much power.

[SFL Cat]

While I do think the PC police are doing their best to push all expression of Christianity into some unseen dark little corner of society, I have no problem with someone placing their hand on whatever text that is sacred to their religion when taking the oath.

That said, people living in this country (especially Muslims), do need to understand that the religious heritage of this nation is Christianity and stop whining about being offended when they see it expressed. Do you think leadership in a Muslim country gives a rat's a$$ about what Christians and/or Jews might find offensive in their cultures?

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Do you think leadership in a Muslim country gives a rat's a$$ about what Christians and/or Jews might find offensive in their cultures?

I like the idea of modelling the US after what Muslim leaders would do with their countries. We should really run with that. Thanks SFL!

[Pumpy Tudors]

Is it too early to pull out the "people are really showing their true colors in this thread" line?

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Is it too early to pull out the "people are really showing their true colors in this thread" line?

They are? I didn't know that! Mine are A Day At The Office at work, but Sideline Green at home.

[st.cronin]

Ok, I was just kidding. I'm not really going to read the thread.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Is it too early to pull out the "people are really showing their true colors in this thread" line?

Damn, I've been found out once again. Alright, I admit it, I'm just another one of those mindless forum-posting bots who gets stuff off of google images to try and get a cheap laugh

SI

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

I like the idea of modelling the US after what Muslim leaders would do with their countries. We should really run with that. Thanks SFL!

Please carefully review what I wrote...in no way did I say we should model our society after what Muslim states do. If we did, you anti-religious folks might actually have justification for a beef. I am saying that free religious expression is guaranteed under our Constitution and that the government has no right to censure any such expression (barring animal or human sacrifice of course).

It gets a little irksome when the PC police go ballistic whenever they feel that Christian expression is just a little too public...i.e., oh my, we can't have that 200 year old cross in the public square anymore, some athiest/jew/muslim/hindu/troutfetishist/etc.etc.etc. might be offended...or After fifty years, we can't display that manger scene in the foyer of the city hall any more...someone might be offended.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Please carefully review what I wrote...in no way did I say we should model our society after what Muslim states do. If we did, you anti-religious folks might actually have justification for a beef. I am saying that free religious expression is guaranteed under our Constitution and that the government has no right to censure any such expression (barring animal or human sacrifice of course).

It gets a little irksome when the PC police go ballistic whenever they feel that Christian expression is just a little too public...i.e., oh my, we can't have that 200 year old cross in the public square anymore, some athiest/jew/muslim/hindu/troutfetishist/etc.etc.etc. might be offended...or After fifty years, we can't display that manger scene in the foyer of the city hall any more...someone might be offended.

I agree. This country seems to have Freedom of Expression and religion ... unless you're Christian. Heaven forbid the MAJORITY in the country get to decide things once in awhile.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

I agree. This country seems to have Freedom of Expression and religion ... unless you're Christian. Heaven forbid the MAJORITY in the country get to decide things once in awhile.

What country do you live in?

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

I agree. This country seems to have Freedom of Expression and religion ... unless you're Christian. Heaven forbid the MAJORITY in the country get to decide things once in awhile.

Didn't this whole thread start because someone dared to be sworn in using something other than a Christian bible?

[Buccaneer]

When is a tradition not a tradition?

(hey bro)

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

we can't display that manger scene in the foyer of the city hall any more...someone might be offended.

Actually, that has nothing to do with offending anyone. It's about abiding by the Constitution.

[Cork]

I came across this site while googling "Islam".

http://www.masada2000.org/islam.html

Makes for some interesting reading concerning Islam.

-Cork

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Glen:



or

I just popped back here to see that I had stirred up about 25 posts and improved the thread.

It took me a good five or ten seconds to put this together resulting in a very nice Laugh out loud moment.

Thank You.

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I have a problem with sodomy, but the difference between myself and many muslims, is that I am not going to start riots and begin killing people when things don't go my way.

No, (some) Christians just make laws banning it and throw people in jail over it.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

Actually, that has nothing to do with offending anyone. It's about abiding by the Constitution.

I could debate that, and readilly would. Too bad I already threadjacked this thread once.

So

What are your thoughts on head?


------
Speaking of oral sex.

One of my favorite moments on Letterman had Dave pondering this new something or other that claimed to have the ability to reduce the size of a person's head. Dave couldn't figure out why anyone would be interested, and a comment was heard off stage. Letterman turns away from the camera cracking up. He then turned around to declare "Anton thinks we could all use a little head"!

[Marc Vaughan]

On a totally unrelated note some people protested in England about Jedi's not being recognised properly as a religion (in the last referendum 'Jedi' was the fourth most popular entry under religion believe it or not - us English have a strange sense of humour .... and of course a love for all things StarWars ).

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

Actually, that has nothing to do with offending anyone. It's about abiding by the Constitution.

No, you are wrong, all the constitution says is that the state shall not sanction any one particular religion...there is no real seperation of church and state per say. People have looked at this part of the constitution for years and misread what it says.

[ISiddiqui]

Like Thomas Jefferson, that bastard

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

I agree. This country seems to have Freedom of Expression and religion ... unless you're Christian. Heaven forbid the MAJORITY in the country get to decide things once in awhile.

Yep. You Christians are really persecuted. I don't know how you guys make it in this country.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Yep. You Christians are really persecuted. I don't know how you guys make it in this country.

We just have to hold out hope that someday we might live long enough to see a Christian president of the US. Maybe a few Christian senators or Supreme Court justices too. Just imagine it!

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

No, you are wrong, all the constitution says is that the state shall not sanction any one particular religion...there is no real seperation of church and state per say. People have looked at this part of the constitution for years and misread what it says.

Sure. Whatever you say.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

It means I am more likely to adhere to the status quo, rather than be an agent for change. It doesn't mean I am against change, it just means I am more likely to be very careful about change, and watch how is progresses on a day to day level, and even be mindful of it's potential consequences/benefits.

How exactly does this impact this action? Take Mayor Michael Bloomberg, should he have to swear on a bible, when he is Jewish?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

I agree. This country seems to have Freedom of Expression and religion ... unless you're Christian. Heaven forbid the MAJORITY in the country get to decide things once in awhile.

Define what Christian means?


The problem in our country, is the people who declare themselves Christians are very different in values, beliefs, ect..

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Maybe I'm wrong here, but I had never heard of Oral Sex being included until I looked it up on Dictionary.com tonight.

FWIW, not that it's an absolute source, wiki even says that it is "most commonly used to refer to anal sex".

*shrug*... I dont' really actually care all that much. I just feel like if you ask 10 people in the US, 7 or 8 of them will say it means anal sex.

I wouldn't use it that way but if you asked me if oral sex was considered sodomy I'd have known that it is. I've heard this definition used enough over the years having lived in bible belt states. I have no idea how common this knowledge is in other parts of the country though.

I'm just adding another data point here.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Yep. You Christians are really persecuted. I don't know how you guys make it in this country.

Say that the next time you walk into a store, and the greeter says "Happy Holidays", not because that's what they SHOULD or WOULD say, but rather what the HAVE to say for fear of some ridiculous minority group threatening to boycott and spread it all over the media if they DARE say "Merry Christmas". There's MILLIONS of Christians in this country, celebrating their Holy Day, and the greeter can't even say the doggone name of the holiday.

Or tell those children in a school who would LOVE to be able to have a moment of prayer or even a moment of silence, but the 1 child from an athiest family has the ability to just be, y'know, SILENT during a moment of silence gets to destroy everyone else's ability to have a prayer. A school might have THOUSANDS of children, but 1 single child gets to dictate school policy.

Or how a church in a school (private or not), CHURCH, mind you, are being asked to remove a cross from sight because some group is offended.

How about the fight to have the words "Under God" removed by the dollar bill, or the Pledge of Allegance?

The day is coming when some crackpot minority group, religion or even athiests, sue the government to have Christmas removed as a National Holiday on the grounds that it's against separation of Church and State. Because that's OBVIOUSLY what the Founding Fathers intended by that amendment -- the COMPLETE removal of any mention of God in the Government.

But we bend over backwards for other religions, like the states that allow picture-free licences for Muslim women who want to wear veils.

Yeah, Christians are treated WONDERFULLY in this country. Riiight. Hell, I'm not what you would call a regular church goer, and I can see it.