Islamic Group Calls for Use of Koran to Take Oath

[Kontiki]

Good job, Ben! Keep fighting for that "most bigotted" title to go along with your "most intellectually dishonest" title.

[Ben Kenobi]

I wasn't arguing about atheists. I said people who hate the bible. Suppose a fundemantalist Muslim, who hates the bible, is forced to swear an oath on it. Is that not a violation of freedom of conscience? You're forcing him to swear on a book he abhors, not just one he doesn't believe in.

The US forces a fundamentalist Muslim to do many things he abhors, including respecting those who openly practice their religion, especially Christians and Jews. I am not certain, by your argument here, that the problem is with the ritual, rather than the person, since by your argument, I would think a moderate Muslim would see nothing wrong with the ritual.

[Ben Kenobi]

Good job, Ben! Keep fighting for that "most bigotted" title to go along with your "most intellectually dishonest" title.

Kontiki:

Ah, more love from Canada.

Actually, more moderate muslims would be a good thing for Canada, since they believe in family values, and oppose abortion.

[lord of the mark]

Ben, i would be offended to be required to swear on a NT. Does that make me an immoderate Jew?

[Ben Kenobi]

That's the Pledge of Allegiance, you dolt.

The U.S. Constitution makes no mention of God whatsoever.

Ah, okay. My bad.

Actually, I would think that to be a good compromise, making everyone who enters a court to swear on the constitution of the united states. And that answers all the other points too.

Singled you out? Who else expressed anything like what you did in this regard?

Islam should be kept as far away from our legal system as possible.

Nope, it was whoha.

[Ben Kenobi]

Funny, I don't see any accusations of bigotry thrown at whoha, either by loinburger or by Boris. I wonder why that is.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Actually, I would think that to be a good compromise, making everyone who enters a court to swear on the constitution of the united states. And that answers all the other points too.

Cause like, the ghost of James Madison is gonna punish me if I lie under oath? I think again we miss the original point of the oath. Swearing on the Constitution is just a fancier way of saying "I affirm".

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, i would be offended to be required to swear on a NT. Does that make me an immoderate Jew?

That makes you 'righter' than the others.

I was working on the campaign for an Orthodox Jew, and he told me about his reluctance to obtain Canadian citizenship, because of the ceremony where he would be sworn in. It was only after considerable thought, did he finally go through the ceremony, after a rather half-hearted oath. It's the first time I ever heard from anyone else who agreed with me, so we hit it off rather well afterwards.

Actually, I've worked for two of them, now that I think about it, so they are great folks.

[Ben Kenobi]

I think again we miss the original point of the oath. Swearing on the Constitution is just a fancier way of saying "I affirm".

Well, for me, I don't see a way that it can be compromised, since the object of the oath doesn't matter at all. I meant a compromise for those who want an oath, but don't want to swear by the bible, alongside the desire to have everyone swear by the same thing.

For those who are opposed to an oath, swearing by the bible is just as wrong as swearing by the constitution.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Pardon me? I wasn't aware that American Muslims were persecuted by American Christians.

In many places around the world, where Muslims are in the majority, Christians get persecuted. That's the issue here. In countries that protect religious freedoms, like the United States, Muslims are asked to abide by the same laws as everyone else, even as they are protected by the same laws.

Exactly, so why bring up the issue ? If I'm not wrong, we are talking about what happens in the North Carolina legal system.

I don't see how Muslims are persecuted by having to swear an oath on a bible, like everyone else. If provisions are made to allow Jews to swear on their holy book, or other substitutions, then the Muslims ought also be able to do so.

As I read the story, those muslims doesn't feel that they are persecuted, they just wan't to swear on qoran instead of the bible.

Another solution would be to do away with swearing an oath altogether.

An oath doesn't have to be based on religion - just a plain "I swear to tell the truth" should be enough.

Why should pharmacists be required to prescribe the morning after pill? I think they have every right not to prescribe the morning after pill, and to work as a pharmacist, according to their degree that they worked very hard to get.

It cannot come as a chock to such persons that if they take such an education they are supposed to deliver any kind o legal drugs, so if they have problems with that, they should find another carrer.

I agree wholeheartedly with what you say here. Which is why I don't understand why swearing on a bible is persecution of Muslims.

Noone is talking about persecution of muslims. Anyway, I see that you will find no problems if the bible was switched with the quoran - after all, thats also just a book, and no christians will find it uncomfortable to take an oath on it.

How can an oath, which in no way constrains you, be contrary to your conscience?

One of the purposes of making that oath is to make the witness aware of the seriousness of the testimony they are to give, and if they have to take an oath of something they see as a fairy tale, this is lost.

[Ben Kenobi]

It cannot come as a chock to such persons that if they take such an education they are supposed to deliver any kind o legal drugs, so if they have problems with that, they should find another carrer.

Are they, in fact required to provide all the drugs that are legal? Or are there specific drugs that they are required to provide? If they are not legally required to provide the morning after pill, then I see nothing wrong with a pharmacist who refuses to stock them.

Noone is talking about persecution of muslims. Anyway, I see that you will find no problems if the bible was switched with the quoran - after all, thats also just a book, and no christians will find it uncomfortable to take an oath on it.

If you read what I posted, I would see the two as the same, but I would have a problem with both of them, for the same reason.

And yes, there are quite a few Christians, two in this thread alone, Diplomat and myself who would prefer to let our yes be yes and our no, no.

One of the purposes of making that oath is to make the witness aware of the seriousness of the testimony they are to give, and if they have to take an oath of something they see as a fairy tale, this is lost.

Which isn't a conscience issue, then is it? It's hardly offensive if it is a collection of fairy tales, since swearing by the Brothers Grimm could hardly stir the same complaints.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Are they, in fact required to provide all the drugs that are legal? Or are there specific drugs that they are required to provide? If they are not legally required to provide the morning after pill, then I see nothing wrong with a pharmacist who refuses to stock them.

Unless I'm wrong, then you must have the education as a pharmacist to sell drugs - that is the case here with a few exceptions - so yes, they have no right to deny to provide any legal drug - if I'm not wrong, then the drug store we both are referring to (another thread) had it in stock but the pharmacist wouldn't sell it on religious beliefs.

If you read what I posted, I would see the two as the same, but I would have a problem with both of them, for the same reason.

And yes, there are quite a few Christians, two in this thread alone, Diplomat and myself who would prefer to let our yes be yes and our no, no.

But if both are equally bad, why won't you allow them both instead of banning one of them ?

Which isn't a conscience issue, then is it? It's hardly offensive if it is a collection of fairy tales, since swearing by the Brothers Grimm could hardly stir the same complaints.

Of course it's a consience issue, but not as you see it. It's a matter of taking the law seriously, wich can be a problem if the court demands you to swear on a fairy tale.

[Ben Kenobi]

Unless I'm wrong, then you must have the education as a pharmacist to sell drugs - that is the case here with a few exceptions - so yes, they have no right to deny to provide any legal drug - if I'm not wrong, then the drug store we both are referring to (another thread) had it in stock but the pharmacist wouldn't sell it on religious beliefs.

True, but that doesn't mean pharmacists are required to stock it in the first place. Pharmacies are businesses, even though they are stringently regulated in what they can provide, I don't believe they are required to stock everything that they are allowed to prescribe.

But if both are equally bad, why won't you allow them both instead of banning one of them?

For the reasons I have stated above. Introducing the Koran also introduces new problems in terms of equal treatment that are not currently present.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


The US forces a fundamentalist Muslim to do many things he abhors, including respecting those who openly practice their religion, especially Christians and Jews. I am not certain, by your argument here, that the problem is with the ritual, rather than the person, since by your argument, I would think a moderate Muslim would see nothing wrong with the ritual.

Nice dodge, but the question was, is it a violation of his freedom of conscience? Or do you now believe a right to freedom of conscience only exists if you're a moderate, and not a hardliner? Is the state forcing a hardline Muslim to swear on a bible that he abhors a violation of his freedom of conscience? And if so, how can you condone it, while also stating that Christian's freedom of conscience should be respected?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I have more respect for Muslims and their beliefs than they have for mine. So I suggest, that you be careful where you tread with your flames.

You're still tarring all muslims with the same brush, and you're still being a bigot.