Islamic Group Calls for Use of Koran to Take Oath

[lightblue]

I wonder why anyone still bothers with arguing with BK tbh. Done it once or twice but he's so set in his dogmatic viewpoints that you're not going to budge him, add to that a fair dose of ignorance and basically what you get is a slightly more eloquent Fez, just fundy christian instead of fascist. Might as well argue with your curtains or something for all the good it'll do.

As for the thread itself, not letting Muslims swear on the Koran instead of the Bible is truly dense. I mean we've all seen what kind of value they attach to it, it'd probably mean an awful lot more to the average muslim than swearing on the bible does for the average christian. I mean if you pick on one religion then you should kick em all out of the courtroom where they have no business anyway really.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by lightblue
I wonder why anyone still bothers with arguing with BK tbh. Done it once or twice but he's so set in his dogmatic viewpoints that you're not going to budge him, add to that a fair dose of ignorance and basically what you get is a slightly more eloquent Fez, just fundy christian instead of fascist. Might as well argue with your curtains or something for all the good it'll do.

Do you really mean that extreme viewpoints shouldn't be argued against ?

As for the thread itself, not letting Muslims swear on the Koran instead of the Bible is truly dense. I mean we've all seen what kind of value they attach to it, it'd probably mean an awful lot more to the average muslim than swearing on the bible does for the average christian. I mean if you pick on one religion then you should kick em all out of the courtroom where they have no business anyway really.

except I don't believe that religion has anything to do in public affairs.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by BlackCat
And that is why rarely used drugs isn't in stock, but when needed, they get it. And yes, pharmacies are both a public service and a business - they deliver nessecary drugs and make an earning of it. And no, it's not the pharmacists decision to deliver a drug or not if a person needs it - "Sorry, we don't sell this drug that is essential to your survival because we don't earn enough on it - oh, don't bother to try another pharmacist in 300 miles range - they think the same".

In the case you refer to it was even much more clear cut.
Not only was the pill in stock, but the pharmacists didn´t own the pharmacy but were just employees of a large pharmacy chain which owned the pharmacy.

So by refusing to deliver the morning after pill (which was in stock and for which the customers had a valid prescription) they also violated their contract with the pharmacy chain (as it very probably says that they should sell what is in stock as long as they have a valid prescription is given [or the medicine is free] and it very probably doesn´t say that they are free to refuse to deliver medicines according to their beliefs )

AFAIR one of the pharmacists not even refused to deliver the pill, but also refused to give the prescription back to the customer (so she could go to another pharmacy and get her morning after pill there). So this pharmacist even more clearly broke the law to abide to his faith

[BlackCat]

@Proteus_MST

I admit that I can't remember the details of that thread but I certainly agree with your summary

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Jeez, are people arguing about this? The answer is simple, you either let every religion swear on their Holy Book (accomodationalist view) or no one (seperationist view). To do otherwise is violating the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment (and in a clear cut case as well).

Listen to Imran. He is wise.


(except, of course, when he's arguing with me)

[Gatekeeper]

All or none. Simple as that. Of course, I'd like to see the uproar if a satanist wanted to use his/her holy book ...

Gatekeeper

[KrazyHorse]

edit: nm, missed followup

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
To say that the Judaism and Christianity are one and the same is contrary to what each religion teaches. Ergo, it cannot be said that the bible advances this construct labelled as the 'Judeo Christian religion'.

FYI:
- There are no hell or heaven in Judaism.
- There is no Devil in Judaism.
- Judaism is much less anti-fun than Christianity. Most of the anti-fun comes from St. Paul.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ming
It is a legitimate complaint. People should have the right to swear on any holy book they do so desire, or none if they don't believe... It should be a non issue, but I'm sure the fundies will be all over this... sigh...

I agree with you completely.


This is not about PC appeasement. Conservatives like to use that as an automatic, cliche knee-jerk reaction when minority group members express sincere offense or an important issue.

The Bible is irrelevant to Muslims -- it's the Koran that is central to their religion. So why can't Muslims in court have the Koran as an option for swearing? And Jews having the option to have the Torah on-hand for swearing?

[Ben Kenobi]

Why even argue with Ben about what is or isn't constitutional? As his stupid remark to me about "One Nation, Under God" shows, he doesn't even know what the U.S. Constitution says

Yet, I did manage to cite the correct amendment to the constitution regarding the term limitation passed after Roosevelt's 4 term presidency.

So just because I believed that the constitution of the united states did include that phrase, of one nation under God, it hardly means that I know nothing of the US Constitution.

As for the constitutionality of the establishment clause, historically, it makes sense to me what the founding fathers intended to do, when you look at the historical context. Back then, most of the states in Europe had an established religion, whether it were Islam, or Anglicanism, Lutheranism or Catholicism, or Orthodoxy. The United States was one of the innovators, regarding religious liberty, IIRC, Prussia was the very first. The idea that there was to be no established religion, was extremely radical.

What I see, is that the establishment clause intended to prevent the establishment of one religion, in the sense that Anglicanism could not become the state religion, as seen in England. To lump all of Christianity made little sense due to the disparity in beliefs across the various denominations.

Therefore, I do not see the use of a bible contradicts the establishment clause, since it fails the very first test, in the advancement of one religion over the others.

Granted, there are problems with the ritual, but these fall under the heading of freedom of conscience, rather than the establishment clause. While I agree with Imran, in how they should be changed, what I disagree with is the rationale.

[Ben Kenobi]

This is not about PC appeasement. Conservatives like to use that as an automatic, cliche knee-jerk reaction when minority group members express sincere offense or an important issue.

Strawman. I do not see the accusation of PC appeasement anywhere in the thread!

The Bible is irrelevant to Muslims -- it's the Koran that is central to their religion. So why can't Muslims in court have the Koran as an option for swearing? And Jews having the option to have the Torah on-hand for swearing?

You are bringing religion into a secular court. If it is true, that the bible is irrelevant to Muslims, then it cannot be a conscience issue for them to swear upon it.

[KrazyHorse]

So bringing the Bible in is not bringing religion in?

You're a numbskull, dude...

[Ben Kenobi]

Not when the bible is apparently irrelevant to Muslims.

[KrazyHorse]

What?

Do you even try to talk sense, or are you just banging the keyboard with your forehead?

[Ben Kenobi]

I wonder why anyone still bothers with arguing with BK tbh. Done it once or twice but he's so set in his dogmatic viewpoints that you're not going to budge him, add to that a fair dose of ignorance and basically what you get is a slightly more eloquent Fez, just fundy christian instead of fascist. Might as well argue with your curtains or something for all the good it'll do.

Catholics are Fundy? Say it ain't so!

As for me not changing my opinions on issues, my confirmation thread is proof that I do change.

Change is good. Slow change is even better.