Koran Replaces the Bible at Swearing-in Oath

[Chancellor]

Quote by: G. Adams 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.

But it's the government that is using the book as part of the oath ceremony. It isn't the individual going to the government saying "I want to place my hand on a book when I swear my oath." In a court room, for example, a witness is often asked to place his or her hand on a Bible that the court provides. When the President is sworn into office, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court asks him to place his hand on the Bible.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: The Decider 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).

But when the oath contains a phrase like "So help me, God" then doesn't it have religious content and is it not, therefore, a violation of the establishment clause?

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.

That's exactly the point: if one is going to insist on violating the establishment clause by using a Bible as the "authority" on which an oath is sworn, then one must violate the establishment clause and give others the right to use other religious texts as the "authority" on which they take their oaths. It's only fair.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Chancellor But it's the government that is using the book as part of the oath ceremony. It isn't the individual going to the government saying "I want to place my hand on a book when I swear my oath." In a court room, for example, a witness is often asked to place his or her hand on a Bible that the court provides. When the President is sworn into office, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court asks him to place his hand on the Bible.

Are you forced to swear that oath upon the Bible? Could you ask for any book, or to reject the use of books? As long as it isn't obligatory that you must swear upon the bible/religious text, then it isn't an endorsement for Christianity/religion.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: G. Adams Are you forced to swear that oath upon the Bible? Could you ask for any book, or to reject the use of books? As long as it isn't obligatory that you must swear upon the bible/religious text, then it isn't an endorsement for Christianity/religion.

I don't think refusing to swear an oath on a book has been tested. The fact that the government even engages in such "ceremonial piety," is establishing an official state religion (though SCOTUS has wrongly said it's okay for the government to engage in such ceremonial piety).

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Chancellor But when the oath contains a phrase like "So help me, God" then doesn't it have religious content and is it not, therefore, a violation of the establishment clause?

Technically, the "So help me, God" bit isn't officially part of the oath of office. Per the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 8:

"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:
'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'"

- Rob

[brien]

The oath of office should be sworn on a copy of the Constitution. religious creeds and books have no room in the government.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Autolykos Technically, the "So help me, God" bit isn't officially part of the oath of office. Per the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 8: "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: 'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'" - Rob

Not OFFICIALLY part of the oath of office but it seems to have become part of the oath by tradition and, thus, would be a violation of the establishment clause.

[Apokalupsis]

Quote by: G. Adams Are you forced to swear that oath upon the Bible? Could you ask for any book, or to reject the use of books? As long as it isn't obligatory that you must swear upon the bible/religious text, then it isn't an endorsement for Christianity/religion.

Taking an oath on the Bible is not a requirement. In our country's history, four presidents have been inaugurated without swearing an oath on the Bible. Franklin Pierce was affirmed, and swore no oath, Rutherford Hayes initially had a private ceremony with no Bible before his public ceremony, Theodore Roosevelt had no Bible at his first ceremony, and Lyndon Johnson used a missal during his first term.

As far as Jews swearing on the Bible, while most may have done so, it certainly is not the case that all have done so. Linda Lingle, Governor of Hawaii, took the oath of office on a Torah in 2001. Madeleine Kunin, a Jewish Immigrant and Governor of Vermont "rested her left hand on a stack of old prayer books that had belonged to her mother, grandparents, and great grandfather" as "a physical expression of the weight of Jewish history."
Minnesota Monitor

It makes little sense to me, to have an individual swear on a book that they do not have the highest respect for, or believe is true. If the oath was on X book, and X book is of little value in the eyes of the oath taker, the oath being broken isn't all that of a big deal. It would be like the difference between swearing on one's kid vs swearing on a pack of Grape Bubblicious. While the latter is definitely more tasty, it hardly compels one to keep one's promise as the former object of oath does.

Objects of value should be used in an oath (even though it is purely ceremonial and symbolic). The oath is as strong as the object being sworn on. A non-value object being sworn on is a non-value oath. Values will differ from person to person. I'd much rather have someone who is sincere in their oath than someone going through the motions, which is exactly what many Christians seem to want -- a most absurd objection to say the least.

[angeldust]

Why is it that Yanks know the least about their founding fathers' intentions than the rest of the world?

The separation of state & religion was to prevent the Gov't. from endorsing one particular Sect/Faith over another as was done in England by various Monarchs. It does not prevent citizens from professing their religion as long as they do not try to impose it on other citizens, although somebody should tell your Ultra Religious Right of this.
The fact that a religious oath is not required to take office does not prevent someone from taking it nor wanting to reaffirm to their GOD that they plan to take this position & do their best in His name.
As for using The Bible, The Q'uan, The Torah or any other religious tome should matter to no one but the person taking the oath. After all that is what Freedom of Religion is about.

[The Decider]

Quote by: angeldust Why is it that Yanks know the least about their founding fathers' intentions than the rest of the world?

Some of us Yanks do have a clue, angeldust. But this isn't about the US Constitution at all. It's about intolerance of any expression of Islam after 911. The constitutional arguments are but a quaint sideshow.

Thanks for the history lecture all the same.

[Jack]

Well said, Apokalupsis. I especially agree with "Objects of value should be used in an oath". After all, the intent of an oath is to ensure that the person taking it understands the gravity of the situation and is making a promise that they won't lightly consider breaking. We want the oath taker to swear in such a way that they become nearly superstitious about the consequences of breaking their oath.

By using a book or other item that holds special significance to the oath taker, we hearken back to days when blood oaths being broken resulted in someone's death. These days, it seems our attitude towards oaths is similar to our attitude toward honor. Few value either.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Those who swear on the bible are anti-christ.

Quote by: jesus source 34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: 35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. 36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. 37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

How can so many christians screw up so often and so consistantly?

So I guess it is a religious test.
A test that Christian politicians fail and will burn in eternal hell (there shall be gnashing of teeth) for disobeying the words inside the book they swear upon. Idiots!

[Ken Carman]

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 wonder which version they use? King James? Catholic? Good News? :rolleyes: If we use the wrong one does that mean the "swearing in" is null-in-void?

It's a silly ritual, at best. But I suspect your statement...

"The use of such a book implies the government (or whoever requires the oath) accepts the authority behind such a book."

...is quite accurate.

This opens up new, fertile, ground to annoy those who worship the flag or any theological text and insist we must follow their lead. Perhaps we should start demanding that we rotate what text they use? The Book of Mormon? One of the at least two versions of The Book of the Dead? The Upanishads?

Then, when they object, ask if they only believe in religious freedom for themselves. Of course they will respond with some variation on, "But that's not what most/the majority of Americans believe in."

Then you ask where in the Constitution it states that we all have to worship as the majority demands.

Neat roach trap. If only it would actually exterminate such arrogance when it's combined with ignorance.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: brien The oath of office should be sworn on a copy of the Constitution. religious creeds and books have no room in the government.

Great idea, at least closer to the real intent... except the same people who brought you bible oaths would start insisting we worship the paper and the ink, not resepcting what it says. Then we'd go right back down the same path: putting people in jail who burn it or wear underwear with the Constitution imprinted on it...

I believe the problem here is that, as humans, we really tend to screw this up... over and over again. What Jesus actually may have said is less important than whether he actually turned water into wine, or we dip em' or sprinkle em', or whether we go to church on Saturday, Sunday or Wednesday... or go at all.

As I have stated before, humanity, when it comes to what they worship, too often reminds me of the bomb worship cult in one of the Planet of the Apes movies. (#3???) Or...

"Shoe of Brian!!!!!!!!!!"

[brien]

and Lyndon Johnson used a missal during his first term

So in the famous picture of LBJ being sworn in, with Jackie at his side, on Air Force 1 after JFK's murder, he has his hand on a missal instead of a bible? Never knew that. I always assumed it was a bible.

[Apokalupsis]

Quote by: brien So in the famous picture of LBJ being sworn in, with Jackie at his side, on Air Force 1 after JFK's murder, he has his hand on a missal instead of a bible? Never knew that. I always assumed it was a bible.

According to Jim Bishop in his 1968 book THE DAY KENNEDY WAS SHOT it wasn't actually a bible, but a missal, which is a book containing prayers and other devotional matter for celebrating Roman Catholic Mass throughout the year.

Another source is The Lyndon Johnson Story, Mooney, Booth. p. 1.

[RickSp]

As was pointed out in a previous article, the official swearing in of the new House members is done in a group in the House chambers, with the Speaker of the House administering the oath of office en masse. No new representative actually swears on any book. That being said staging a second individual swearing in for the sake of taking photographs is common, if not really necessary.

As noted by Mens News Daily:

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.

It is actually pretty funny that this wingnut talk show host is fretting that an unofficial ceremony will lead to the certain collapse of America.

[RickSp]

More bigotry from the usual suspects:

Lawmaker won't apologize for 'Islamophobic' letter

A Virginia congressman will not apologize for writing that without immigration overhaul "there will be many more Muslims elected to office demanding the use of the Koran," his spokesman said. Republican Rep. Virgil Goode's letter to constituents also warns that without immigration overhaul "we will have many more Muslims in the United States." Spokesman Linwood Duncan said Goode's letter was written in response to complaints his office received about Minnesota Rep.-elect Keith Ellison's request to be sworn in using the Koran. Ellison is the first Muslim to be elected to Congress.

[Praxius]

I give my word as an Irishman, if that's not good enough, then they can taste the broadside o' me knuckles, don'cha know?

[DTB123]

Quote by: brien The oath of office should be sworn on a copy of the Constitution. religious creeds and books have no room in the government.

I suppose that my forthcoming comment is an aside, of sorts; but I have always wondered about this kind of thing when it is said so stoically, and so often, by so many.

How can any government NOT have something to do with "religion," when most of the population does adhere to or profess to some religion? Religion is very important to people, (including the religion of Atheism), and I don't know how a government can just quietly ignore all religion???

I don't think it's right to use religous books as a thing for "swearing an oath;" but what's wrong with making a public vow to uphold your office/appointment? If I was an elected government official; I would want to take a public oth of office; but not with my Bible in hand. That is something I would do myself at home, before I went to the swearing in ceremony.:confused: