![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Dec. 20th, 2006
pizza is like sex.
Dec. 20th, 2006 11:14 amthere's an old adage, "pizza is like sex: even when it's bad, it's still pretty good."
now, pizza and sex are two of my favourite things on earth. they both make me really, really happy. but, i can't shake the feeling that the person who came up with this observation never had either of two things:
and, once it hits that point...no thanks.
now, pizza and sex are two of my favourite things on earth. they both make me really, really happy. but, i can't shake the feeling that the person who came up with this observation never had either of two things:
- saint louis style pizza.
- absolutely terrible sex.
and, once it hits that point...no thanks.
oath of office
Dec. 20th, 2006 02:55 pmever since election day, the "religious right" has been raising a huge stink about incoming representative keith ellison (d-mn), and the fact that he is planning on taking his oath of office on a koran and not on a bible.1
of course he's taking his oath of office on a koran. he's muslim.
the whole point of an oath of office, at least in my mind, is that the elected official is making a meaningful affirmation that they will do a good job in office, and uphold the principles of the government the best way that they can. if an elected official is going to take that oath in a way that means something to them, i think it's a natural extension for them to take it on something that does have a deep meaning to them. for a christian, it would make sense to swear on a bible. for a jew, the torah. for a muslim, the koran.2
it cheapens the idea of an oath of office to raise such a big stink about what book he swears it on. it's as if the right wing is saying to representative-elect ellison that the oath of office is not an oath to be a good congressperson, to represent the interests of his constituents and the ideals of the country, so much as it is an oath to uphold the book under his hand at the time he swears the oath--as long as that book underneath his hand is the bible, and as long as he understands that book under his hand to mean the same thing that the "religious right" claims that it means. that sentiment profoundly bothers me.
representative-elect ellison is not assuming a seat as a cleric in a specific religious denomination that he happens not to belong to. he's not assuming a seat as a statesman in a theocracy run by a religion to which he does not belong.3 he's an elected congressman in a country where a person does not have to subscribe to a specific religious faith to become an elected official, or to have the full spectrum of rights guaranteed by its laws. he should be able to swear to uphold the nation's principles upon anything that underscores to him the solemnity of the oath.
***
1 for a particularly egregious and sickening example of this sentiment, read representative virgil goode's letter.
2 for my part, if i were to ever run for political office, or otherwise have to swear an oath upon a book, i would swear it upon part one of age of reason by thomas paine. it's the one text i've found that comes closest to encapsulating my thoughts and ideas about religion.
3 yes, i know, people like virgil goode may beg to differ with my opinion here. but, allow me to wax idealistic about the separation of church and state for just a moment, please.
of course he's taking his oath of office on a koran. he's muslim.
the whole point of an oath of office, at least in my mind, is that the elected official is making a meaningful affirmation that they will do a good job in office, and uphold the principles of the government the best way that they can. if an elected official is going to take that oath in a way that means something to them, i think it's a natural extension for them to take it on something that does have a deep meaning to them. for a christian, it would make sense to swear on a bible. for a jew, the torah. for a muslim, the koran.2
it cheapens the idea of an oath of office to raise such a big stink about what book he swears it on. it's as if the right wing is saying to representative-elect ellison that the oath of office is not an oath to be a good congressperson, to represent the interests of his constituents and the ideals of the country, so much as it is an oath to uphold the book under his hand at the time he swears the oath--as long as that book underneath his hand is the bible, and as long as he understands that book under his hand to mean the same thing that the "religious right" claims that it means. that sentiment profoundly bothers me.
representative-elect ellison is not assuming a seat as a cleric in a specific religious denomination that he happens not to belong to. he's not assuming a seat as a statesman in a theocracy run by a religion to which he does not belong.3 he's an elected congressman in a country where a person does not have to subscribe to a specific religious faith to become an elected official, or to have the full spectrum of rights guaranteed by its laws. he should be able to swear to uphold the nation's principles upon anything that underscores to him the solemnity of the oath.
***
1 for a particularly egregious and sickening example of this sentiment, read representative virgil goode's letter.
2 for my part, if i were to ever run for political office, or otherwise have to swear an oath upon a book, i would swear it upon part one of age of reason by thomas paine. it's the one text i've found that comes closest to encapsulating my thoughts and ideas about religion.
3 yes, i know, people like virgil goode may beg to differ with my opinion here. but, allow me to wax idealistic about the separation of church and state for just a moment, please.
