Koran Replaces the Bible at Swearing-in Oath

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Chancellor I don't think any religious book should be used as the basis of swearing oaths. The use of such a book implies the government (or whoever requires the oath) accepts the authority behind such a book. Then again, I don't believe in swearing oaths anyway.

I disagree. The use of a religious text in an oath does not demonstrate the backing of government for religion but of the oath maker. If that particular individual would see it as highly dishonourable to break an oath made upon his book, thereby strengthening his oath, then it is to the benefit of the public also.

I do believe in swearing oaths upon taking office, and oath breakers should be tried for perjury.

[RickSp]

Iggoring xyzer's press bashing foolishness and Wildmon's bigotry, here is a far saner perspective on the topic. From MensNewsDaily

Ellison’s choice of a Koran instead of a Bible is not a sign that the Apocalypse is right around the corner. If anything it speaks of the wonderful religious diversity of our great democracy. The Constitution guarantees that, “no religious test shall ever be required” to hold public office in America. We are not a Christian nation and the Bible is not the official book for swearing-in ceremonies. The Bible does not have any talismanic properties, any holy or unholy book will do. As a freethinker, if I ever hold public office, I will choose to be sworn in using Darwin’s “Origin of the Species.” This is all a bunch of hullabaloo over nothing — no Member of Congress is officially sworn in with a Bible. The official swearing-in ceremony is done in the House chambers, with the Speaker of the House administering the oath of office in masse. After all they aren’t being ordained into the ministry, but sworn in as congresspersons. What an outrage that a bunch of Christians are clamoring for a Muslim congressman to use a Bible, instead of a Koran, for his unofficial swearing-in ceremony. How would they like it if members of the Church of Satan demanded that a Christian use the Satanic Bible for his swearing-in ceremony? This is America for God’s sake, or Allah’s sake, or the Big Bang’s sake! And a politician should be allowed to use any book, including “The Joy of Sex”, in a swearing-in ceremony.

[Jack]

“The Joy of (Gay) Sex”

Perhaps a good choice should Haggard or Foley decide to run again...

[RickSp]

Quote by: Isherwood Perhaps a good choice should Haggard or Foley decide to run again...

Works for me. After all Foley was the only Republican who got a mandate in the last election .

[Jack]

mandate

man-date?
<snicker>

[RickSp]

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

[Chaossaber314]

I think that after all these years of swearing oaths on the bible, to decide now, even if it's in the interest of correcting a constitutional wrong, it will appear as though it's just because the guy is a Muslim. In a way those that claim this would be right as well. That's the only reason why this story is really newsworthy. We wouldn't even be discussing it if it hadn't been brought up by bigots in the first place (not that I'm calling the Op a bigot because that wasn't my intention).

[Jack]

That and the fact that our country is so conflicted in our attitude toward muslims these days. Had he simply refused to swear on a bible, I doubt it would have been reported much at all.

[xyzer]

Whaaat?

An oath does not require the oathtaker to follow the Bible or the Koran or whatever. The oath is not a "religious test."

Thats what I just indicated! An oath or affirmation does not require a religious test. Thats what happens in the actual oath taking. Thats in the constitution! ..it is done as a group without the use of Bibles,,,I just said it again,,maybe it will sink in this time..

rmnunez is hitting at the right point.After the official event.Ellison or any fresh new congress person can have a media driven signing ceremony of his own using a bible or a dunce hat if he is a Demo! Maybe Rick will attend to cheer the blighter on

[xyzer]

Hey Ish..

That and the fact that our country is so conflicted in our attitude toward muslims these days. Had he simply refused to swear on a bible, I doubt it would have been reported much at all.

You may have a point! But the blighter wants to make political capital out of something that is not an issue..and a bunch of dumbasses will ignore the facts and think he is being wronged! Is not that typical political behavior? :"Feed the masses what you want them to hear and hope it helps your so called cause..sometimes an assumed victim status will help?

[The Decider]

Quote by: xyzer Thats what I just indicated! An oath or affirmation does not require a religious test. Thats what happens in the actual oath taking. Thats in the constitution! ..it is done as a group without the use of Bibles,,,I just said it again,,maybe it will sink in this time..

Using the Bible or Koran for oathtaking does NOT amount to a religious test. That was my point which you completely missed. I'll try again. You claim the US constitution prohibits any "religious test" for government service. I agree. I countered by showing that reciting the oath--an oath that contains no religious content--is the most important thing--not the text upon which the oath is recited. The US Constitution says nothing about HOW the oath is recited at the official ceremony; only that the oath itself can't be of a religious nature for the purpose of weeding out non-religious citizens. The US president and the US Supreme Court justices all take their public oaths in public ceremonies using a religious text (The Bible).

Should religious texts be used? Probably not. It wasn't an issue to me until this thread popped up. However, IF we allow oathtaking with The Bible--which we do, as I've stated--THEN we MUST allow a Muslim or Hindu or any other non-Christian the same courtesy.

Got it? Good.

[RickSp]

Interesting that the one now taking the most flak is Dennis Prager, the conservative talk show host whose column Wildmon linked to in the original post.

Quran controversy continues: Prager catching flak

Conservative radio host and blogger Dennis Prager has now been criticized by both prominent Muslim and Jewish groups for his Townhall.com column attacking incoming Rep. Keith Ellison's announcement that he will use a Quran during his ceremonial swearing-in as the first Muslim member of Congress. Today, the Council on American-Islamic Relations said Prager should lose his presidential appointment to the United States Holocaust Memorial Council because of "his intolerant views toward Islam in American Society." Friday, the Anti-Defamation League said Prager's position is "intolerant, misinformed and downright un-American." For Prager's part, at his blog this afternoon there's a link to this story in The Mercury News. Prager's blog says "can you imagine how much good Keith Ellison could do if he followed this example" -- a reference to the last paragraph of the Mercury News story, where there's mention of a U.S. ambassador's decision to take his oath "on the Bible and the Quran, with the Quran on top." Prager's blog also accuses the Star Tribune of Minneapolis of an "angry and juvenile" attack in this editorial, which calls Prager a "wingnut."

[Milton Bradley]

Well, I guess the Christians now know the pain us agnostics, and Atheists feel when they proceed to swear the oath on their book of choice.


I understand how the tradition came to be, but I have never liked the association, or the thought of dragging your particular religion out of the closet for this occasion. Who knows, if your beliefs aren't in the mainstream, they might drag it out of the closet only to find it makes you a target for ridicule.


My first thought on this subject is always the same though. If you believe in that book enough to use it to swear an oath upon, you probably shouldn't be in politics in the first place. I thought that part of the message was clear, and unambiguous. Politics is not for the righteous.

[xyzer]

Decider?

Using the Bible or Koran for oathtaking does NOT amount to a religious test. That was my point which you completely missed

I didn't miss it! Using the Bible or any religious symbolim does not meet the test that excludes religion in oath taking. Te explain again...Obviously using the bible or whatever is not a test? It doesn't meet the test! i.e it doesn't amount to a religious test..IT DOESN'T MEET THE TEST!

[The Decider]

Quote by: xyzer I didn't miss it! Using the Bible or any religious symbolim does not meet the test that excludes religion in oath taking. Te explain again...Obviously using the bible or whatever is not a test? It doesn't meet the test! i.e it doesn't amount to a religious test..IT DOESN'T MEET THE TEST!

Good. Then we agree: using the Koran in an oath-taking ceremony is OK as far as the US Constitution is concerned.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Shoot, I think the government should forego all items related to any religion whatsoever. From an e-mail I received recently.

I reject the part where it says "and its employees." Government employees are as much citizens as the general public and, thus, have the right to celebrate whatever holidays they choose to celebrate on their own time.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: another day Wow, I can't believe they even swear on the bible. That should not be allowed, its a clear violation of seperation of church and state.

Not that there is any such thing as "separation of church and state" in the Constitution. It does, however, violate the establishment clause of the first amendment.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: xyzer By the way Chancellor the reason that Constitutional Article 6 exists is because the early Quakers in what is now Pennsylvania(late 1700s) didn't believe in swearing oaths of affirmation. This caused trouble because the rest of the eastern Pennsylvanis Community(including Ben Franklin) thought that one had to swear an oath of affirmation to assume office. When a Quaker won a local election he wouldn't take the required oath? Don't run for office unless you are prepared to take an oath!

One can affirm that one will uphold the Constitution without swearing an oath.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: The Decider But religious books and oaths are used. The OP goes to the question of whether they only apply to the Christian bible, and not the Koran. What is your view on that question, assuming for the moment that your calls for completely secular oathtaking in America go unanswered?

If the person taking the oath wishes to use the Koran instead of the Bible (if one must use any religious book at all), I don't have a problem with it.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: The Decider No, I suggest that you read the Constitution...carefully this time. Note the word "test" in "there shall be no religious test." An oath does not require the oathtaker to follow the Bible or the Koran or whatever. The oath is not a "religious test." Nothing in the US Constitition bars the use of religious books as oath objects. Nothing. If the oathtaker said something to the effect that he/she would follow the Bible and not the US/State constitution, THEN you would have a test....and an argument. As things stand now, you have neither.

But swearing an oath on the Bible presumes that one accepts it as authoritative or at least of a certain value. It's no different than swearing on the grave of one's mother.