NationStates Jolt Archive

His Religion his choice is what I have to say on this issue but apparently some of my fellow christians and conservatives do not see it that way as they maintain that if you do not want to swear an oath on the Bible then you do not deserve to be in Congress.

WASHINGTON (Dec. 1) -- The first Muslim elected to Congress hasn't been sworn into office yet, but his act of allegiance has already been criticized by a conservative commentator. In a column posted Tuesday on the conservative website Townhall.com, Dennis Prager blasted Minnesota Democrat Keith Ellison's decision to take the oath of office Jan. 4 with his hand on a Quran, the Muslim holy book.

The rest of the article can be found here.

Newly Elected Muslim Lawmaker Under Fire (http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/newly-elected-muslim-lawmaker-under/20061201093309990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001)

What is your take on this?

A Minnesota democrat is under fire from those on the right, mostly the religious right, for wanting to take his oath on the Koran and not on the Bible.

A conservative talk show host took a swipe at this upstanding gentleman and now there are calls from several on the right for this gentleman to resign for refusing to "swear on the book of our nation" (paraphrased but you get the idea).

What do you all think?

I think expecting one to swear on any "holy" book is a violation of the establishment clause.

Why does a nation claiming separation of church and state have something as barbaric as the bible as part of initiation rites? Disgusting.

I know in Commonwealth nations you can make an oath without religious affiliations, even for positions such as Members of Parliament. Why can't we make that compulsory here in the US; they swear loyalty to the Union and not to a figure of their choice.

It only makes sense to make people swear on something that has value to them, rather than to yourself..
Quite odd why that should be a problem.

Why does a nation claiming separation of church and state have something as barbaric as the bible as part of initiation rites? Disgusting.

You don't actually have to use any religious text, you can either swear (religiously) or simply "affirm." I do believe that the President's Oath in the Constitution says "swear or affirm." This is part and parcel of people believing "under God" was in the Pledge of Allegiance when it was first written.

"The book of our nation?" The Congressman should say he'd be happy to swear on the Constitution. I would.

I think expecting one to swear on any "holy" book is a violation of the establishment clause.Silly custom.
When I asked for an alternate oath (for jury duty) they were suprised and confused. The bailiff had to go consult with the judge. They did it, though.

Perhaps they should just ask you to swear on whatever book means the most to you. I could see swearing on some Mark Twain.

I know in Commonwealth nations you can make an oath without religious affiliations, even for positions such as Members of Parliament. Why can't we make that compulsory here in the US; they swear loyalty to the Union and not to a figure of their choice.

They swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States here in this country. And besides, it is tradition. I think that is where this debate is stemming from since he is the first Muslim elected to Congress.

Why does a nation claiming separation of church and state have something as barbaric as the bible as part of initiation rites? Disgusting.


It just goes to show that you misunderstand what they meant when they said seperation of church and state. Obviously you think it means something different then they thought it meant when they made up both rules.

Silly custom.
When I asked for an alternate oath (for jury duty) they were suprised and confused. The bailiff had to go consult with the judge. They did it, though.

Perhaps they should just ask you to swear on whatever book means the most to you. I could see swearing on some Mark Twain.

I would love to swear on something like Principia Discordia or the DaVinci Code. Just for the sheer ridiculousness of it.

It only makes sense to make people swear on something that has value to them, rather than to yourself..
Quite odd why that should be a problem.

The problem is that he won and they can't stand it. On the other hand, I know one person that voted for him and is now mad about this and says they wished they were told he intended to force this issue because then they wouldn't have voted for him.

The problem is that he won and they can't stand it. On the other hand, I know one person that voted for him and is now mad about this and says they wished they were told he intended to force this issue because then they wouldn't have voted for him.

It didn't become an issue till some num nut conservative talk show host (Prager) turned it into an issue.

Here's the article:

Newly Elected Muslim Lawmaker Under Fire (http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/newly-elected-muslim-lawmaker-under/20061201093309990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001)

The problem is that he won and they can't stand it. How immature.. I wish I could say I expected better of politicians..

It didn't become an issue till some num nut conservative talk show host (Prager) turned it into an issue.

Here's the article:

Newly Elected Muslim Lawmaker Under Fire (http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/newly-elected-muslim-lawmaker-under/20061201093309990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001)

Anybody notice the poll on that page? Most people are offended by him swearing on the koran and most people think that oaths should be sworn on the bible. And those people have a right to vote. Hopefully they're too lazy to make it out to the polls.

They're missing the point. The problem isn't that he swore his oath on the Koran, it's that a Muslim got elected in America. That's what's really fucked up. I think if more muslims get elected we'll soon see laws restricting freedom of speech. You know what that means, no more Muhammad cartoons. If I can't make fun of a prophet what the hell will I do with my free time?

Just more signs of Bushe... er Real Americans trying to stand up for God and Country and fight off the 3b1l |\/|0zl3|\/| 80rg ⌐0ll3⌐71\/3 and its attempt to Allah-similate the country into the CaliphateÖ.

That congressman is an idiot. He should shut up and swear on the Bible like a good American. I don't care if he's atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or what have you. It is a time-honored tradition in our Christian nation, and it should be continued.

It is a time-honored tradition in our Christian nation, and it should be continued.

Why?

That congressman is an idiot. He should shut up and swear on the Bible like a good American. I don't care if he's atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or what have you. It is a time-honored tradition in our Christian nation, and it should be continued.

Why are traditions important?

That congressman is an idiot. He should shut up and swear on the Bible like a good American. I don't care if he's atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or what have you. It is a time-honored tradition in our Christian nation, and it should be continued.

We're not a christian nation. Never were. That's why trying to enforce several of the ten commandments would violate the constitution. Neither the bible nor the koran belong in government.

That congressman is an idiot. He should shut up and swear on the Bible like a good American. I don't care if he's atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or what have you. It is a time-honored tradition in our Christian nation, and it should be continued.

False.

That congressman is an idiot. He should shut up and swear on the Bible like a good American. I don't care if he's atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or what have you. It is a time-honored tradition in our Christian nation, and it should be continued.I thought it was also a time-honoured tradition to have opinions of your own, and not getting stuck in traditions for the sake of them..

That congressman is an idiot. He should shut up and swear on the Bible like a good American. I don't care if he's atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or what have you. It is a time-honored tradition in our Christian nation, and it should be continued.

How come he can't swear his oath on the Koran. He is a Muslim and is thus entitled to do so. Anyone have any idea if Joseph Lieberman swears his oath on the Bible or not?

How come he can't swear his oath on the Koran. He is a Muslim and is thus entitled to do so. Anyone have any idea if Joseph Lieberman swears his oath on the Bible or not?

Again, this issue is only a big deal because the Congressman happens to be a Muslim i.e. everyone assumes he's an Al Qaeda Operative waiting for Osama's signal to strike.

Five and a fraction quotes on a four sentence post.

Why?

Because we should not seek to pointlessly cause conflicts where there are none. Traditions, as long as they are not detrimental to the health of the nation, should be continued as long as a majority of people favor them or are indifferent towards them.

Because we should not seek to pointlessly cause conflicts where there are none. Traditions, as long as they are not detrimental to the health of the nation, should be continued as long as a majority of people favor them or are indifferent towards them.Do they and are they?

as long as they are not detrimental to the health of the nation

This one is. It interferes with the freedom of conscience of politicians and stifles diversity.

Remember when everyone was afraid of Kennedy being elected because then America would become the New Holy Roman Empire taking orders from the Pope?

Because we should not seek to pointlessly cause conflicts where there are none. Traditions, as long as they are not detrimental to the health of the nation, should be continued as long as a majority of people favor them or are indifferent towards them.

But by your method no-one should voice their dislike of a tradition so how would it ever be changed?

Because we should not seek to pointlessly cause conflicts where there are none. Traditions, as long as they are not detrimental to the health of the nation, should be continued as long as a majority of people favor them or are indifferent towards them.

So establishing a state religion is not detrimental to the health of the nation?

Because we should not seek to pointlessly cause conflicts where there are none. Traditions, as long as they are not detrimental to the health of the nation, should be continued as long as a majority of people favor them or are indifferent towards them.

Clearly this congressman isn't in favour of or indifferent to swearing on the Bible.

Remember when everyone was afraid of Kennedy being elected because then America would become the New Holy Roman Empire taking orders from the Pope?

And then went against the Pope. Classic move. Kinda blew that theory out of the water.

Remember when everyone was afraid of Kennedy being elected because then America would become the New Holy Roman Empire taking orders from the Pope?

Yeah. It's a good god damn thing he got shot.

Because we should not seek to pointlessly cause conflicts where there are none. Traditions, as long as they are not detrimental to the health of the nation, should be continued as long as a majority of people favor them or are indifferent towards them.

How about this nice little tradition.

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

He should shut up and swear on the Bible like a good American.
So you're saying only Christians can be good Americans?

This one is. It interferes with the freedom of conscience of politicians and stifles diversity.

Politicians have no conscience, and it's extremely far-fetched, if not outrageous, to claim that it stifles diversity. Nobody is coerced into conforming with the accepted Christian standards in their life; they simply have to say two words with their hand on the Bible. It's not like they are being assimilated when they are doing that; you can do what others expect of you for five seconds in your life without suffering a heart attack. A congressman cannot run naked in the House of Representatives and later claim that he was exercising his freedom of conscience -- there are limits.

How about this nice little tradition.

I love that little tradition.

So you're saying only Christians can be good Americans?

No, only those who follow American traditions without undue complaint. A good American must accept how things work in this country, even if he doesn't like it. He can protest against perceived injustices with his vote, sure. He can rally against unfair measures. He cannot create an issue where there is none because he's a prick.

No, only those who follow American traditions without undue complaint. A good American must accept how things work in this country, even if he doesn't like it. He can protest against perceived injustices with his vote, sure. He can rally against unfair measures. He cannot create an issue where there is none because he's a prick.

In other words, he's saying a "Good American" is a Bushevik. Surprise.

No, only those who follow American traditions without undue complaint. A good American must accept how things work in this country, even if he doesn't like it. He can protest against perceived injustices with his vote, sure. He can rally against unfair measures. He cannot create an issue where there is none because he's a prick.

So the commentator is a prick by making this an issue. Good, glad you agree.

Silly custom.
When I asked for an alternate oath (for jury duty) they were suprised and confused. The bailiff had to go consult with the judge. They did it, though.

Perhaps they should just ask you to swear on whatever book means the most to you. I could see swearing on some Mark Twain.

Nice. This officially makes you my new favorite poster... Which, I'm pretty sure is worth at least a cookie. :)

No, only those who follow American traditions without undue complaint. A good American must accept how things work in this country, even if he doesn't like it. He can protest against perceived injustices with his vote, sure. He can rally against unfair measures. He cannot create an issue where there is none because he's a prick.

The Constitution says nothing about what the oath is to be sworn on. And it allows affirmation instead swearing. Since we have never had a Muslim Congressman before, tradition doesn't apply. He gets to set the tradition.

I love that little tradition.

Congress cannot establish a national religion nor prevent the free exercise of a reasonable one. However, there is no law which says that you are free to not swear an oath before taking the stand, for example. There are no exceptions -- if you are Christian but don't want to lie to God, tough luck -- you still have to swear on the Bible. The same applies to everybody.

Politicians have no conscience, and it's extremely far-fetched, if not outrageous, to claim that it stifles diversity. Nobody is coerced into conforming with the accepted Christian standards in their life; they simply have to say two words with their hand on the Bible. It's not like they are being assimilated when they are doing that; you can do what others expect of you for five seconds in your life without suffering a heart attack. A congressman cannot run naked in the House of Representatives and later claim that he was exercising his freedom of conscience -- there are limits.

Would you swear an oath on the Koran if Islam was the dominat religion? I'd bet you wouldn't. It's religious people like you that make me want to burn down houses of worship while the faithful are inside. Then I realize that most religious aren't like you and I'm forced to calm down.

Politicians have no conscience,
:rolleyes:
and it's extremely far-fetched, if not outrageous, to claim that it stifles diversity.
Bible or GTFO doesn't sound all that diverse to me.
Nobody is coerced into conforming with the accepted Christian standards in their life; they simply have to say two words with their hand on the Bible. It's not like they are being assimilated when they are doing that; you can do what others expect of you for five seconds in your life without suffering a heart attack.
It seems this congressman takes his religion rather seriously and has a problem with committing blasphemy. As I dare say many Christian congressmen would if they were expected to swear on the Koran.
A congressman cannot run naked in the House of Representatives and later claim that he was exercising his freedom of conscience -- there are limits.

That would be awesome....

No, only those who follow American traditions without undue complaint. A good American must accept how things work in this country, even if he doesn't like it. He can protest against perceived injustices with his vote, sure. He can rally against unfair measures. He cannot create an issue where there is none because he's a prick.

No. He must not. A good American must constantly seek to improve the nation and it's laws.

Would you swear an oath on the Koran if Islam was the dominat religion? I'd bet you wouldn't. It's religious people like you that make me want to burn down houses of worship while the faithful are inside. Then I realize that most religious aren't like you and I'm forced to calm down.

Of course he would, DCD, because he'd be in whichever camp he thought held the reins.

Congress cannot establish a national religion nor prevent the free exercise of a reasonable one. However, there is no law which says that you are free to not swear an oath before taking the stand, for example. There are no exceptions -- if you are Christian but don't want to lie to God, tough luck -- you still have to swear on the Bible. The same applies to everybody.

Show me where it says that in law, please.

One of the principles this nation was founded on was freedom of religion. As long as this Congressman swears to uphold The Constitution of the USA, why does it matter what he swears on? As long as he doesn't try to force HIS religion down my throat, I don't care what he believes.

Congress cannot establish a national religion nor prevent the free exercise of a reasonable one. However, there is no law which says that you are free to not swear an oath before taking the stand, for example. There are no exceptions -- if you are Christian but don't want to lie to God, tough luck -- you still have to swear on the Bible. The same applies to everybody.
There is also no law specifying what you must swear an oath on, or indeed that you have to swear on anything at all. If there is, I'd love for you to point it out for us.

As long as there is no law stating that everyone must swear on the Bible, there is no justifiable reason to force him to do so.

Would you swear an oath on the Koran if Islam was the dominat religion?

Yes, I would swear on any religious text if the tradition in a certain country so demanded.

Yes, I would swear on any religious text if the tradition in a certain country so demanded.

So you're too spineless to stand up for what you believe in?

No. He must not. A good American must constantly seek to improve the nation and it's laws.And its language.

Yes, I would swear on any religious text if the tradition in a certain country so demanded.

Would it have the same meaning to you if you did? It seems the gentleman in question is trying to be a better American by swearing an oath on something that is important to him.

As long as there is no law stating that everyone must swear on the Bible, there is no justifiable reason to force him to do so.

No, he cannot be legally forced to do so. However, he should do so in order to conform with the time-honored traditions of this country. He doesn't have to hang an American flag next to his house, but he should do so because it's patriotic. He shouldn't say that America sucks. Would saying that be illegal? No, of course not. Would it give people the right to be irritated with him? Most assuredly so.

Yes, I would swear on any religious text if the tradition in a certain country so demanded.

What about a mallard duck?

Congress cannot establish a national religion nor prevent the free exercise of a reasonable one. However, there is no law which says that you are free to not swear an oath before taking the stand, for example. There are no exceptions -- if you are Christian but don't want to lie to God, tough luck -- you still have to swear on the Bible. The same applies to everybody.
No you dont.You can ask for an alternative oath.. Duh!!!

So you're too spineless to stand up for what you believe in?

No, I am respectful enough to do as mandated.

No, he cannot be legally forced to do so. However, he should do so in order to conform with the time-honored traditions of this country. He doesn't have to hang an American flag next to his house, but he should do so because it's patriotic. He shouldn't say that America sucks. Would saying that be illegal? No, of course not. Would it give people the right to be irritated with him? Most assuredly so.How is it patriotic to swear on the Bible? Does the US not claim to be a land of the free?

No, he cannot be legally forced to do so. However, he should do so in order to conform with the time-honored traditions of this country. He doesn't have to hang an American flag next to his house, but he should do so because it's patriotic. He shouldn't say that America sucks. Would saying that be illegal? No, of course not. Would it give people the right to be irritated with him? Most assuredly so.

So you've gone from he "has" to to he "should" do so because it's "tradition". Even though our founding fathers specifically stated things like that were against the principles of the nation.

No, I am respectful enough to do as mandated.

Show me where it's "mandated".

No, I am respectful enough to do as mandated.

How far would you maintain that thought?

No, I am respectful enough to do as mandated.

Asking that your beliefs and customs be respected is not disrespectful, especially in a country that values freedom of religion highly.

And its language.

My bad. Would you please accept my apology? Can you ever find it in your heart to forgive me? Please, I beg you. Don't hold my apostrophe against me. I know I have shamed myself and disgraced my nation and its language. I only want a second chance to do better. Can you forgive and forget?

No, only those who follow American traditions without undue complaint.

And what if traditions need to be changed?

A good American must accept how things work in this country, even if he doesn't like it. He can protest against perceived injustices with his vote, sure. He can rally against unfair measures. He cannot create an issue where there is none because he's a prick.

So what do you think of the commentator then. Prick or not since he is making an issue out of something that should not be an issue?

The Constitution says nothing about what the oath is to be sworn on. And it allows affirmation instead swearing. Since we have never had a Muslim Congressman before, tradition doesn't apply. He gets to set the tradition.

Well said.

My bad. Would you please accept my apology? Can you ever find it in your heart to forgive me? Please, I beg you. Don't hold my apostrophe against me. I know I have shamed myself and disgraced my nation and its language. I only want a second chance to do better. Can you forgive and forget?I accept your apology but as a non-Christian I do not forgive. However I will forget. ;)

There is also no law specifying what you must swear an oath on, or indeed that you have to swear on anything at all. If there is, I'd love for you to point it out for us.

As long as there is no law stating that everyone must swear on the Bible, there is no justifiable reason to force him to do so.

Not to mention that it simply wouldn't mean the same thing. The idea of swearing on the Bible was that a Christian person would not swear to something on the Bible that they did not intend to uphold - that a Christian Senator would not swear to uphold the Constitution on the Bible unless he really meant it.

The Bible is not going to mean the same thing to a Muslim man as to a Christian one. To truly uphold tradition and the purpose of the tradition, this man should swear on something that he values, so that he isn't lying. It could be the Koran, the Torah, or even a copy of the Constitution itself, but it should be something he personally values.

Well said.

Just let him swear on the damn koran and let's get on with life. Seriously, who cares?

Congress cannot establish a national religion nor prevent the free exercise of a reasonable one.

BINGO! By that amendment, he can swear his oath on the Koran. You sir, have been duly served. (I hate that cliche but in this case, I make an exception.)

However, there is no law which says that you are free to not swear an oath before taking the stand, for example. There are no exceptions -- if you are Christian but don't want to lie to God, tough luck -- you still have to swear on the Bible. The same applies to everybody.

You have a problem as in most federal courts, they do not swear an oath on the Bible.

No, only those who follow American traditions without undue complaint.Like lynching people instead of giving them a trial?

One of the principles this nation was founded on was freedom of religion. As long as this Congressman swears to uphold The Constitution of the USA, why does it matter what he swears on? As long as he doesn't try to force HIS religion down my throat, I don't care what he believes.

Well said Romanar.

Nice. This officially makes you my new favorite poster... Which, I'm pretty sure is worth at least a cookie. :)
Okay. Have a cookie.

Why does a nation claiming separation of church and state have something as barbaric as the bible as part of initiation rites? Disgusting.

agreed. and it sickens me even more that they do not follow their constitution.

So you're saying only Christians can be good Americans?
Of course he is. It's MTAE.

Not to mention that it simply wouldn't mean the same thing. The idea of swearing on the Bible was that a Christian person would not swear to something on the Bible that they did not intend to uphold - that a Christian Senator would not swear to uphold the Constitution on the Bible unless he really meant it.

I vaguely seem to recall that a good Christian is not allowed to swear on the Bible, making the whole ritual rather pointless.

Can anyone confirm if my memory is right ?

How is it patriotic to swear on the Bible? Does the US not claim to be a land of the free?

You are free, yes. You are free to insult the country. You are free to insult our armed forces. You are free to defecate on the American flag. You are free to swear an oath on the Qu'ran. However, none of these disrespectful activities are appreciated nor are they befitting of an elected official.

Just let him swear on the damn koran and let's get on with life. Seriously, who cares?

Apparently the Christian right cares. Me though, and speaking as a Christian myself, do not care if he swears an oath on the Koran or not. Frankly, he should swear his oath on the Koran.

I vaguely seem to recall that a good Christian is not allowed to swear on the Bible, making the whole ritual rather pointless.

Can anyone confirm if my memory is right ?

Depends on who you ask. There are those who think swearing oaths of any type is wrong, and thus obviously would not swear on a Bible. Jehovah's Witnesses, for instance, will simply affirm their honesty, rather than swearing on anything.

You are free to defecate on the American flag.
I thought this was illegal in the US.

You are free, yes. You are free to insult the country. You are free to insult our armed forces. You are free to defecate on the American flag. You are free to swear an oath on the Qu'ran. However, none of these disrespectful activities are appreciated nor are they befitting of an elected official.

How is swearing on oath on the QU'ran disrespectful?

He could swear an oath with his thumb in his butt for all I care. In fact, a little honesty from politicians would be a refreshing change. :D

You are free, yes. You are free to insult the country. You are free to insult our armed forces. You are free to defecate on the American flag. You are free to swear an oath on the Qu'ran. However, none of these disrespectful activities are appreciated nor are they befitting of an elected official.

So swearing an oath on your recognized holy book is = insult/defecation now?

You are free, yes. You are free to insult the country. You are free to insult our armed forces. You are free to defecate on the American flag. You are free to swear an oath on the Qu'ran. However, none of these disrespectful activities are appreciated nor are they befitting of an elected official.

You're comparing defecation on the american flag with swearing on the Qu'ran?

Really?

Honestly?

How is swearing on oath on the QU'ran disrespectful?

Because it shows you truly understood what the USA is supposed to be about, and we cannot have that.

How is swearing on oath on the QU'ran disrespectful?

Yes, how? The man is an American citizen, duly elected to Congress. He can swear on the Bible, the Koran, the daily racing form. Or should Muslim citizens be stripped of their rights?

As usual, the Christian right is wrong.

I just spent twenty fruitless minutes posting on the AOL message board. There are too many idiots there to ever be able to reply to them all.

The evil Muslims! How dare they not swear on the only book that makes our government work in this fine Christian nation function! Freedom of religion doesn't apply to Muslims! Idiots.

A Minnesota democrat is under fire from those on the right, mostly the religious right, for wanting to take his oath on the Koran and not on the Bible.

A conservative talk show host took a swipe at this upstanding gentleman and now there are calls from several on the right for this gentleman to resign for refusing to "swear on the book of our nation" (paraphrased but you get the idea).

What do you all think?
(I'm skipping over because I want reply directly to the OP)

If he is using the Qu'ran instead of the Bible for the same purpose and believes so strongly in the word of the Qu'ran, then why is he underfire? He's saying he wants to take his oath in a way that he feels comfortable with.

There is no one book of the nation for America.

The religious right is getting out of control.

The religious right is getting out of control.

the religious right already are out of control.

(I'm skipping over because I want reply directly to the OP)

If he is using the Qu'ran instead of the Bible for the same purpose and believes so strongly in the word of the Qu'ran, then why is he underfire? He's saying he wants to take his oath in a way that he feels comfortable with.

There is no one book of the nation for America.

The religious right is getting out of control.

For once, I will agree with you.

You are free, yes. You are free to insult the country. You are free to insult our armed forces. You are free to defecate on the American flag. You are free to swear an oath on the Qu'ran. However, none of these disrespectful activities are appreciated nor are they befitting of an elected official.
How exactly is it unfitting and inappropriate for an elected official of public office to take their oath on the Qu'ran? Perhaps they don't feel the same desire to keep their oath if they swore on the Bible...

Would you rather have someone who kept their promise and swore on the Qu'ran, or someone who swore on the Bible and broke it? (This is just a hypothetical question).

the religious right already are out of control.and the rest of the US does nothing to stop them

the religious right already are out of control.

Remember, you said it, not me.

For once, I will agree with you.

Now I'm real scared! :eek:

and the rest of the US does nothing to stop them

Well, it's not like we can round them up and throw them in jail. That's the annoying part about living in a (relatively) free country, you have to put up with twits. Not gladly, but you do have to put up with them.

How exactly is it unfitting and inappropriate for an elected official of public office to take their oath on the Qu'ran? Perhaps they don't feel the same desire to keep their oath if they swore on the Bible...

Would you rather have someone who kept their promise and swore on the Qu'ran, or someone who swore on the Bible and broke it? (This is just a hypothetical question).Why is it required for an elected official to take an oath? His mandate only depends on his electorate's vote, not his allegiance to a body he gives an oath to.

Why is it required for an elected official to take an oath? His mandate only depends on his electorate's vote, not his allegiance to a body he gives an oath to.

He still has to swear an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States.

Well, it's not like we can round them up and throw them in jail. That's the annoying part about living in a (relatively) free country, you have to put up with twits. Not gladly, but you do have to put up with them.Most unfortunate.

Why is it required for an elected official to take an oath? His mandate only depends on his electorate's vote, not his allegiance to a body he gives an oath to.

The elected one swears or affirms to uphold the constitution of the United States. In a sense he or she is promising the voters - the people - that he or she will not break the law while in office.

Why is it required for an elected official to take an oath? His mandate only depends on his electorate's vote, not his allegiance to a body he gives an oath to.

I agree. I was just posing a question to an absurd statement.

I don't care if someone stands on their hand and burps out their oath, with one hand shoved up his ass, as long as they can serve office as they promised.

He still has to swear an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States.But he wasn't elected to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States but to represent the will of those who elected him.

The elected one swears or affirms to uphold the constitution of the United States. In a sense he or she is promising the voters - the people - that he or she will not break the law while in office.I thought he promised that before he got elected in order to get elected...

But he wasn't elected to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States but to represent the will of those who elected him.

Well, but the Constitution is the foundation of the law in the US, so, regardless of the will of the people who voted for him, he cannot break the law. And they cannot require him to do so. Change it, yes. Break it, no.

But he wasn't elected to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States but to represent the will of those who elected him.

But as a congressman, he still has to do things within the Constitution of the United States. That is why they swear an oath. To uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.

But he wasn't elected to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States but to represent the will of those who elected him.

Within the boundaries of the constitution. An important limit, otherwise the US would actually have been a Christian nation by now.

I just spent twenty fruitless minutes posting on the AOL message board. There are too many idiots there to ever be able to reply to them all.
I tried the same thing in vain. The AOL message boards are some of the deepest hellholes of virulent racism and ignorance I've ever seen. And the volume of content! Seriously... you post something and within ten seconds it's off the front page.

I tried misleading the bigoted morons with this post:

Title: take THAT, mr. muslim!!!!

this is straight out of OUR constitution!!!

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Doesn't it feel good to know that the Founding Fathers support your rights?

HOW DOES THAT TASTE?!?!?
I bet there were a lot of twelve-year-old bigots that were pretty pissed at the false advertising... :p

I thought this was illegal in the US.

It is legal to burn the flag. I assume it's also legal to defecate on it. However, if you do both, the environmentalists will get you! :eek:

I tried the same thing in vain. The AOL message boards are some of the deepest hellholes of virulent racism and ignorance I've ever seen. And the volume of content! Seriously... you post something and within ten seconds it's off the front page.

I tried misleading the bigoted morons with this post:


I bet there were a lot of twelve-year-old bigots that were pretty pissed at the false advertising... :p

I just looked over in the AOL boards and OMGZ!!!!1one111one!!!! My eyes are still tearing from the smell of the crapola. Obviously there are no Mods over there. Those people make the worst troll I've ever seen here look like ... like ... words fail me.

It is legal to burn the flag. I assume it's also legal to defecate on it. However, if you do both, the environmentalists will get you! :eek:

Surely it's better to crap on a flag than to douse it in petrol before burning it? It's a green fuel. Or a brown fuel, at any rate.

Does it not make sense that someone who follows the Church of Islam affirm his oath on the holy book he follows?

No...of course not, rabid Christians could give a shit that if you swear an oath on the Bible and you don't follow the faiths that the Bible represents, then your oath is worse than useless.

Wait until a Pagan is elected, if you think this is bad...

Does it not make sense that someone who follows the Church of Islam affirm his oath on the holy book he follows?

No...of course not, rabid Christians could give a shit that if you swear an oath on the Bible and you don't follow the faiths that the Bible represents, then your oath is worse than useless.

Wait until a Pagan is elected, if you think this is bad...

ooh! That gives me an evil idea....

We get a bible and replace the cover with a metal one. Maybe with some sort of high temperature covering(silicone?) to make it appear leathery. Then we heat it to 450 degrees. When the devout catholic politician places his hand on it.... *SSZZZZZZZ!!!* "AAAAHHHH!!!" Then we stone him to death. :)

ooh! That gives me an evil idea....

We get a bible and replace the cover with a metal one. Maybe with some sort of high temperature covering(silicone?) to make it appear leathery. Then we heat it to 450 degrees. When the devout catholic politician places his hand on it.... *SSZZZZZZZ!!!* "AAAAHHHH!!!" Then we stone him to death. :)

I like it. Or we could just go with the tried-and-true joy-buzzer. Or an appropriately timed laugh-track during the swearing in ceremony?

I like it. Or we could just go with the tried-and-true joy-buzzer. Or an appropriately timed laugh-track during the swearing in ceremony?

My original plan called for 600 pies and a vibrating dildo. :eek:

My original plan called for 600 pies and a vibrating dildo. :eek:

Depends on what kind of pies and what the weather's going to be like. perishable goods, you know. To bad everyone's standing up during these things, some well-placed whoopy cushions would work wonders.

Here one of my favorite quotes from one of the US Founding Fathers:

"During almost fifteen centuries, the legal establishment of Christianity has been on trial. What have been the fruits of this trial? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; and in both, clergy and laity, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”

James Madison, Fourth President of the United States(in his Speech to the General Assembly of Virginia, 1785)

He was certainly NOT the only FF who distrusted organized religion and especially the motives of purveyors of the faith.

Thomas Jefferson

“In every country and in every age the priest [any and every clergyman] has been hostile to liberty; he is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”

John Adams

"It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service [formation of the American governments] had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven...”

American tradition indeed?

The influence of Christianity should never be underestimated for the unending series of lies, misrepresentations and outright false statements made on behalf of it by overly pious and pompous representatives who spread the bilge calling Christianity the "official" religion of the Founding Fathers, who in reality distrusted religion so intensely that they made the above statements for posterity.

I could care less what book a Congressman uses to swear or affirm his Oath of Office as long as it MEANS something to him/her.

Ben Franklin would be turning in his grave.....Ever heard of the Constituion?

"We the people" ring a bell. Its not "We the Christians" or "We the oppressor" showing that its doesn't matter about religion, it the person that matters. So excuse this guy for trying to exercise his Freedom of worship in the land of the free....

Theocracy Rising!

Somebody posted this already.

i think that he should be able to take his oath on the Koran, we do have freedom of religion after all.

I was actually looking for a link so I could post this, I'm glad you did. I think this is wonderful actually. I don't see why Christians are so upset about this. He is a Muslim, and as such it makes no sense for him to swear on a book that means little him as there would be so reason for him to keep his oath. The Qur'an is sacred to him, which is why he wants to and should take his oath on it.

Somebody posted this already.

You can NEVER have too many threads about pissed off conservatives.

Somebody posted this already.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=509257

Yeah, the same person who started this thread (and Zilam yesterday). Spammy...

Dude,don't post two threads about the same thing.Ain't cool man,ain't cool.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=509257

Yeah, the same person who started this thread (and Zilam yesterday). Spammy...
And it was debunked in that thread yesterday. Prager is a liar (which is like saying the sky is blue), but that's never stopped him before--or from people like the OP believing him.

A Minnesota democrat is under fire from those on the right, mostly the religious right, for wanting to take his oath on the Koran and not on the Bible.

A conservative talk show host took a swipe at this upstanding gentleman and now there are calls from several on the right for this gentleman to resign for refusing to "swear on the book of our nation" (paraphrased but you get the idea).

What do you all think?

I was under the impression that America was a secular state. If this is not true, then the list of things I do not hate about it is growing ever shorter.

*shrug*

What's wrong with "I solemnly swear" without any book at all? Or if he wants the Koran, why not? If he's devout surely an oath sworn on it will be one he won't break.

Why not on the Constitution, indeed. It would make as much sense if he's NOT a devout man.

*shrug*

What's wrong with "I solemnly swear" without any book at all? Or if he wants the Koran, why not? If he's devout surely an oath sworn on it will be one he won't break.

Why not on the Constitution, indeed. It would make as much sense if he's NOT a devout man.
My thoughts. (Stop reading my mind, please? ;):fluffle:)

Whats the point of swearing on a holy book at all?
Sure you can promise all you want, but you're
still going to eventually lie to a certain degree
and screw up somewhere.

Congress cannot establish a national religion nor prevent the free exercise of a reasonable one. However, there is no law which says that you are free to not swear an oath before taking the stand, for example. There are no exceptions -- if you are Christian but don't want to lie to God, tough luck -- you still have to swear on the Bible. The same applies to everybody.

No, you don't. You can affirm it without the Bible.

No, he cannot be legally forced to do so. However, he should do so in order to conform with the time-honored traditions of this country. He doesn't have to hang an American flag next to his house, but he should do so because it's patriotic. He shouldn't say that America sucks. Would saying that be illegal? No, of course not. Would it give people the right to be irritated with him? Most assuredly so.

Why should he hang a flag if he doesn't want to?
Why shouldn't he say America sucks if that's his honest opinion? At least saying it leads to a discussion of what needs changing so it won't suck.

I love all these "rules" people put together to strip the "land of the free" of the freedom of religion and freedom of the press/speech given to us in the Constitution they lamely claim to defend.

His Religion his choice is what I have to say on this issue but apparently some of my fellow christians and conservatives do not see it that way as they maintain that if you do not want to swear an oath on the Bible then you do not deserve to be in Congress.

That is idiotic. He can affirm on any religion text he wants or simply positively affirm. No higher court should uphold anything else.

What good is an oath if you swear it on something in which you don't believe?

I can't believe they still do that bible swearing anyway. Separation of church and state.

If I have to be sworn again I'm going to make them wheel in a statue of the Golden Calf.

I vaguely seem to recall that a good Christian is not allowed to swear on the Bible, making the whole ritual rather pointless.

Can anyone confirm if my memory is right ?

I believe you are not to swear in God's name, or by his throne. You're also not supposed to use God's name as part of profanity.

If I have to be sworn again I'm going to make them wheel in a statue of the Golden Calf.

But, the Invisible Pink Unicorn would obviously be a better choice. The Flying Spaghetti Monster, even!

But, the Invisible Pink Unicorn would obviously be a better choice. The Flying Spaghetti Monster, even!They're more likely to get the golden calf reference ;)

But, the Invisible Pink Unicorn would obviously be a better choice. The Flying Spaghetti Monster, even!

Mock not his noodly appendages, for his wrath is terrible!

My thoughts. (Stop reading my mind, please? ;):fluffle:)

Heeeeeeey. How do I know you're not reading my mind?

Why does a nation claiming separation of church and state have something as barbaric as the bible as part of initiation rites? Disgusting.

I would be interested, in another thread, for you to defend that view (IE of the Bible being repulsive)

Heeeeeeey. How do I know you're not reading my mind?Because he's male and you're female? :p

Why does a nation claiming separation of church and state have something as barbaric as the bible as part of initiation rites? Disgusting.

while I probably agree with you - and I think the bible is no more divinely inspired than the new york times, watch what you're calling barbaric. without knowing anything about you, if you partake in western culture, I'm pretty confident in saying this is the pot calling the kettle black. barbarism is rediculously subjective, and frankly to some people, you probably aren't any farther up the "civilisation" scale than the authors of the bible.

--

oh, and the bible actually *does* say that all oathes should be avoided. I think the anabaptists (amish, menonites) and jehovahs witnesses are the only ones who take that seriously, though.

I would be interested, in another thread, for you to defend that view (IE of the Bible being repulsive)

while I just posted about how unfair it was to call it barbaric...:

We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to one who is uncircumcised, for that would be a reproach to us. But on this condition we will consent to you: If you will become as we are, if every male of you is circumcised, then we will give our daughters to you, and we will take your daughters to us; and we will dwell with you, and we will become one people...

...And all who went out of the gate of his city heeded Hamor and Shechem his son; every male was circumcised, all who went out of the gate of his city.
Now it came to pass on the third day, when they were in pain, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brothers, each took his sword and came boldly upon the city and killed all the males.

to dismiss the entire bible as barbaic , even the poetry like Song of Songs - the proverbs, the moving and beautiful prophesy of Ezekiel, the incredible ethical teachings of the sermon on the mount - is blatently wrong. however...to wonder why people find things like this story repulsive is rather pig-headed. you don't have to be easily upset to find demanding mass genital mutilation and following it up with genocide while their dicks are still bleeding to be a bit disgusting.