A Religious Controversy?
I just heard this snippet of news on the radio. It seems that the first
Muslim has been elected to Congress, and has made the decision to be
sworn in on the Koran. What struck me was that this decision was said
to be "controversial". Why? I suppose there's a faction that believes
that if YOU don't swear on the book that I believe to be The Only True Compilation
of the Word of God, then your oath is non-binding upon YOU even
though you don't believe my book. Damn. That's an awfully
medieval attitude. In Freemasonry, the candidate swears on the book that
is meaningful to him, otherwise, how can his promises be considered
sincere? I kinda take that for granted. Is there any logical defense for the
opposite? (Logical, not theological.)
I'm just continually amazed at my fellow citizens' capacity to Not Get It....
Muslim has been elected to Congress, and has made the decision to be
sworn in on the Koran. What struck me was that this decision was said
to be "controversial". Why? I suppose there's a faction that believes
that if YOU don't swear on the book that I believe to be The Only True Compilation
of the Word of God, then your oath is non-binding upon YOU even
though you don't believe my book. Damn. That's an awfully
medieval attitude. In Freemasonry, the candidate swears on the book that
is meaningful to him, otherwise, how can his promises be considered
sincere? I kinda take that for granted. Is there any logical defense for the
opposite? (Logical, not theological.)
I'm just continually amazed at my fellow citizens' capacity to Not Get It....