Koran Replaces the Bible at Swearing-in Oath

[gr8fuldaniel]

The Neocons death cult, The Christo-Fascist Zombie Brigade has come unhinged!

AFA ActionAlert Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran. He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

....and everyone knows all "Real Americans" are Babtists! (or should be)

right?

[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.

[Castle]

*totally agrees with Chancellor on every point*

The whole "swearing on the Bible" thing kind of violates the First Amendment, as it tends to give Christianity status as the "official" U.S. religion. And we're not supposed to have one.

[PatrickHenry]

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

I don't believe the Government and its employees should participate in the Easter and Christmas celebrations which honor that God that our government is eliminating from many facets of American life. I'd like my mail delivered on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter. After all, it's just another day. I'd like the "US Supreme Court to be in session on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter as well as Sundays." After all, it's just another day. I'd like the Senate and the House of Representatives to not have to worry about getting home for the "Christmas Break." After all it's just another day. I'm thinking that a lot of my taxpayer dollars could be saved, if all government offices & services would work on Christmas, Good Friday & Easter. It shouldn't cost any overtime since those would be just like any other day of the week to a government that is trying to be "politically correct." In fact... I think that our government should work on Sundays (initially set aside for worshipping God...) because, after all, our government says that it should be just another day....

[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.

[The Decider]

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.

Have none of you ever witnessed the swearing in of a President of the United States? He places his hand on the bible and recites an oath. It's a custom, not a requirement. The union has survived. The union would survive if the custom disappeared. It really isn't a big deal.

But as long as the Bible is used, I see no reason why a Muslim or Jew can't use their Holy Books for the ritual. Fair is fair.

[Jack]

I'm in absolute agreement, PatrickHenry. I've worked over 20 years of split-days-off, no weekends off, rotating shifts... Why shouldn't the mail be delivered 7 days a week if the mailman can expect me to be on the job on a Sunday? The government should operate in such a manner as to serve the best interests of all its citizens. They are the only reason a government exists. Without popular support, every regime eventually falls. I contend we are not being well served by servants who dictate their own days-off and even create holidays for themselves to not work on.

(Since it's off topic, I'll start another thread about it. I'd like to explore this idea further.)

[Osborn F Enready]

Chancellor said: 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.

I say:
Totally agree.

Chancellor said: Then again, I don't believe in swearing oaths anyway.

I say:
I do, and I think they should take the oath on an official government copy of the United States Constitution, since that is what they are pledging to uphold.

Religion has no place in swearing an oath.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Isherwood I'm in absolute agreement, PatrickHenry. I've worked over 20 years of split-days-off, no weekends off, rotating shifts... Why shouldn't the mail be delivered 7 days a week if the mailman can expect me to be on the job on a Sunday? The government should operate in such a manner as to serve the best interests of all its citizens. They are the only reason a government exists. Without popular support, every regime eventually falls. I contend we are not being well served by servants who dictate their own days-off and even create holidays for themselves to not work on. (Since it's off topic, I'll start another thread about it. I'd like to explore this idea further.)

...and you know, it's not like they would be reqquired to work at the same grueling pace as the slaves they drive, they could simply be on rotating shifts to ease the burden, and help the citizens gain access to goverment.


Of course, this could play Hell on the voting process. I could envision this making it even more difficult to get your elected representative to vote on the legislation that truly matters.

[xyzer]

Have you guys forgotten or are you just under informed?
The oath of office for Congress persons does not require them to swear on or place their hand on ...a Bible? It is a group thing and not at all religious! Read Article 6 of your Constitution!..All such officers, including state and Federal Legislators;"shall be bound by Oath and Affirmation, to support the Constitution; but no religious test shall be required"

Just another inflation by the press. Making a mountain out of a molehill from the standpoint of ignorance????

[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!

Decider..

But as long as the Bible is used, I see no reason why a Muslim or Jew can't use their Holy Books for the ritual. Fair is fair.

Your concern is moot! There is no religious test or accouterment in the process

[RickSp]

Quote by: xyzer Just another inflation by the press. Making a mountain out of a molehill from the standpoint of ignorance????

LOL. Blaming the press? The linked article was from Donald Wildmon, a born-again idiot who runs the "American Family Organization" notable for trying to censor televisionand stopping evils like the Teletubbies from destroying America. The Wildmon article linked to a broadcast by Dennis Prager, another rightwing talk radio lunatic. Don't blame this one on "the press".

[Osborn F Enready]

xyz'er said: Have you guys forgotten or are you just under informed?

I say:
Who is that directed at?

[The Decider]

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.

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?

[xyzer]

Ill ignore Ricks futile attempt to excuse the press from this flagrant smearing of truth..Why he wants to let those scandalmongering bozos off the hook I don't know? This nonsense appeared all over the press Rick. These 5th estate miscreants thrive on this type of deception!

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?

Durn it, read the constitution.. Decider. It says that an oath or affirmation of adherence to the Constitution is what is required and it specifically says that this is a secular event..The words are."No Religious Test shall ever be required."
It doesn't matter what I think, such oath or affirmation is not required over the Bible or any religious reference or tome!
IMNSHO nor should it be a part of such a ceremony in a government which legally eschews religious affiliation!!!!

[xyzer]

Who is that directed at?

Surely not a well informed person like you Osborn. ...as a matter of fact you posted

Religion has no place in swearing an oath.

which was right on with the requirements in the constitution. I don't think so either..After all our government is supposed to conform to the I Amendment?

[The Decider]

Quote by: xyzer Durn it, read the constitution.. Decider. It says that an oath or affirmation of adherence to the Constitution is what is required and it specifically says that this is a secular event..The words are."No Religious Test shall ever be required." It doesn't matter what I think, such oath or affirmation is not required over the Bible or any religious reference or tome! IMNSHO nor should it be a part of such a ceremony in a government which legally eschews religious affiliation!!!!

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.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: xyz "....but no religious test shall be required"

Well, this guy ...

AFA Founder
....seems to think there should be a religious test. In his words, (swearing on the Koran) "undermines American civilization". Damn our civilization must be pretty unstable if somebody elses mythology can destroy it. That must be a VERY POWERFUL religion. Maybe I should forget Spiritual Meditation, Buddism and Christianity and look into that one!

edit to add:
ooops
Not his words, he was quoting somebody he agrees with. Hes still the messenger.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Hey!!! Wheres my response to Osborn?
It was 3 hours ago.
Crap. I will have to do it again.

(I will be back later.... gotta run errands)

[rmnunez]

No Bible is required, but often those rendering the oath will swear upon one to magnify the importance they attach to their promise (the formal required oath). If Mr. Ellison wants to convey to his constituents a heightened strength to his assurances, a Bible would be a good way to do this, except he's Muslim, so the Q'ran would be appropriate. It would be ridiculous to require a Muslim to swear upon a Bible, means nothing to him and probably would offend.

Given that a Bible is not required, maybe Mr. Ellison could omit the Q'ran. It could be that Mr. Ellison would just as well not emphasize this, but now that this has suggested comment will not back-down from what ought to be a respected and accepted practice. In Court non-Christians are allowed to simply affirm or deny the official incantation without placing their hands upon the Sacred Testaments.