Congressman Wants To Take His Oath On The Quran

[avemaria40]

[quote name='kujo' post='1133130' date='Dec 1 2006, 04:58 PM']
Some Democratic congressman from Minnesota wants to be sworn in with [url="http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/newly-elected-muslim-lawmaker-under/20061201093309990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001"]his hand on the Qur'an[/url]. He is a practicing Muslim (who actually converted FROM Catholicism, interestingly enough) and says that he'd like to place his hand on a copy of the Qur'an, bucking the tradition of one placing their hand on the Bible during their swearing in.

Predictably, a number of conservative (i.e.- Republican) bloggers are up in arms (no pun intended) about this, saying the man should resign his office if he cannot swear on the Bible, citing the fact that this country was founded by Christians, and on Christian principles. On the other end of the spectrum, bloggers and interest groups are saying that forcing this congressman to swear on a religious text that he doesn't believe in is unconstitutional.

(My opinion)

Who cares? I mean, it seems logical that if this man wants to swear on the religious text he holds true that we should let him. I mean, if the situation were reversed, would you want to swear on a Qur'an?

Am I the only Republican who doesn't care about things like this?
[/quote]

I agree with you. And I intend to register Republican, so no, you aren't the only one who doesn't care about things like this.

[xTrishaxLynnx]

Can't they just swear on the Constitution?.. or at least the Bill of Rights?... the thing they are suppose to be preserving and basing their decisions on within the government?

[SanctitasDeo]

Yes, they can. But they can also swear on the Bible, the Koran, the dictionary, or the Da Vinci code if they so choose.

[SanctitasDeo]

This is a response to criticism by the man who first objected to the whole swearing-in-on-the-Koran thing, Dennis Prager. What he says is interesting and much better than what I heard about what he said. I still don't agree with him, but I am a lot more sympathetic to his position now. He believes that Keith Ellison should just swear in on the Bible and the Koran. Also, he doesn't think we should stop him as some have said (not on this forum, but on others), but he just objects that the statement the man is making. I think there is some sense in what he says.

Edited December 9, 2006 by SanctitasDeo

[White Knight]

No, and this is my reason why. For the most part even though America and been very much a Protestant Christian influeanced nation over its 231 years of history, it still stands at that, yes maybe not so much now, but This Nation couldn't and souldn't abandon its Christian roots. Yes theres Freedom of Religion that is written down in the First Admendment to the US Consitution, but to embrace another faith even though this Government claims not to endorse any particular religion, it cannot denine its hertiege, which is profoundly a [b]"Highly Protestant Christian Influeanced Nation."[/b] if a election victory goes to a nominee that doesn't believe in the Christian ways inparticular, then he or she sould not be sworn in using the Bible or the Koran seperately, but rather together. The Nominee sould be able to swear an oath using the Koran for his or her personal beliefs, but this same person sould also swear on the Bible, for his or her promise, defend the hertiege, to defend Christian America, and all Religion America. that way, both fields of folk are happy, its kind of like two people fighting over one pie, there both equally hungry and so the wisest thing to do here is to split the pie into two halfs, Its a compremize yes, but its better than throwing out both Major books out entirally.

[Lounge Daddy]

ugh
it begins

The deterioration of America as we know it

[Lounge Daddy]

for sure - I agree with White Knight
did JFK insist on a Catholic Bible only? no

our leaders need to be held to the legacy of our Republic

[Resurrexi]

[quote] did JFK insist on a Catholic Bible only? no [/quote]

Gasp! He swore on a Protestant bible which should be burned instead of the Sacred, Infallable, Free From All Errors in Regards to Faith or Morals, To Be Held as Authentic Clementine Vulgate!!!!!! How Horrid!!!!!

[cmotherofpirl]

If his swearing on the Koran keeps him honest then I am all for it.

[SanctitasDeo]

"Gasp! He swore on a Protestant bible which should be burned instead of the Sacred, Infallable, Free From All Errors in Regards to Faith or Morals, To Be Held as Authentic Clementine Vulgate!!!!!! How Horrid!!!!!"


While I don't really agree with the sentiment expressed, that does bring up a fairly good point. Which Bible should Keith Ellison use, if he should use the Bible? The Clementine Vulgate (Latin or English)? The King James? The New King James? The NIV? The Septuagint, perhaps? Which one counts as the bible,or does it matter?

I suspect that most people who wish Ellison to swear on the Bible wish he would swear on the one that they use. Which is why the Koran should be perfectly fine.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='SanctitasDeo' post='1139285' date='Dec 10 2006, 03:35 PM']
"Gasp! He swore on a Protestant bible which should be burned instead of the Sacred, Infallable, Free From All Errors in Regards to Faith or Morals, To Be Held as Authentic Clementine Vulgate!!!!!! How Horrid!!!!!"
[/quote]

The Koran isn't "The Bible"
You know, we do have Mormons in public office and they did not swear on the Book of Mormon... and I don't think JFK and Santorum insisted on a Catholic Bible.

When we start picking apart the basic foundations of our country... and "we the people" only shrug at it - this is a big red flag. Something is very wrong.

This is the issue with organizations like CAIR, the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and other organizations that are claiming humanitarianism but are really seeking to undermine the fundamental ideals and practices of the U.S.A.
Way too many people simply shrug at the practices of these groups and thier people's actions.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1139594' date='Dec 11 2006, 04:04 AM']
The Koran isn't "The Bible"
You know, we do have Mormons in public office and they did not swear on the Book of Mormon... and I don't think JFK and Santorum insisted on a Catholic Bible.

When we start picking apart the basic foundations of our country... and "we the people" only shrug at it - this is a big red flag. Something is very wrong.

This is the issue with organizations like CAIR, the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and other organizations that are claiming humanitarianism but are really seeking to undermine the fundamental ideals and practices of the U.S.A.
Way too many people simply shrug at the practices of these groups and thier people's actions.
[/quote]
Why would a muslim swear on a bible? It holds him to no standard. The point is to publicly vow to uphold your office, so if a koran means somethnig to him, he might take it more seriously.

[SanctitasDeo]

I am LDS (Mormon) and if I was elected to public office I would probably use the Book of Mormon and the Bible. However, we use the Bible as much as other Christians do. Do Muslims place as much importance on the Bible as Mormons do? I don't think so.

It seems to me that there can be two reasons to swear an oath on a particular book for a public office in the United States:

1) The book is sacred to them and taking an oath on it is like swearing before God or somesuch thing. It makes the oath more binding, more important, and or more real to the person swearing the oath.

2) The book is the basic foundations of our country and swearing upon it intimates that the one swearing holds those basic foundation sacred.

These are not necessarily exclusionary, but in the case of Keith Ellison they may very well be. If reason #1 is not true for Keith Ellison, then might it be blasphemy for him to swear on a book not of his faith. I have heard some say that the Bible is held with some respect by (at least some) Muslims. Perhaps this is true. If it is not, then forcing Ellison to swear on the Bible is tantamount to a religious test, which is unconstitutional.

Keith Ellison is Muslim. However, others elected to our legislature are not. If we force Wiccans, and Hindus, etc. to blasphemy how can we complain if they turn that around on us.

Now reason number 2. I have never heard anyone explain to me how the Bible holds the basic foundations of our country. I can certainly see things in the Bible that are included in our Constitution and in the Declaration of Independence. However, I can also see things that are not, were not, and will not be. If we go through the 10 Commandments, for instance, as they became a point of contention in the last couple years, how many of them are enshrined in our Constitution, or in our laws?

I believe that the Bible contains God's words and God's law, that it is deserving of my attention and respect. I believe that same of the Book of Mormon. However, I don't see where the Constitution, which is the foundation of the way we govern in the United States, in this day and age, is contained in the Bible, nor the Bible in the Constitution. Since the argument against Ellison's action depends on this point, show me how the Bible contains the basic foundations of our country and is thus fundemental to the congressional oath.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1139160' date='Dec 10 2006, 02:59 AM']
for sure - I agree with White Knight
did JFK insist on a Catholic Bible only? no

our leaders need to be held to the legacy of our Republic
[/quote]
Are you sure about that?

[quote]As the first Catholic elected president, Kennedy was the first to use a Catholic (Douay) version of the Bible for his oath.[/quote]
[url="http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pinotable.html"]http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pinotable.html[/url]

[quote]The nation's only Catholic president to date, John F. Kennedy, used his family's Douay Version of the Bible. The 1850 edition was brought by his Fitzgerald ancestors from Ireland, according to the John F. Kennedy Library in Boston. That Bible, a massive tome now on display at the library, was kept current with records of family births through the time of Kennedy's presidency.[/quote]
[url="http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0500250.htm"]http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0500250.htm[/url]

[Socrates]

While the issue of what book someone swears on may seem trivial, I believe it is of symbolic importance. Swearing on a Bible is a symbolic gesture, and symbols often have powerful meaning.
While whether he swears on a Bible, Koran, or phonebook may have little importance to the secularist westerner, I'm sure swearing on the Koran rather than the Bible is of utmost significance to the devout Muslim.

While most Americans do not realize it, devout Muslims serious about their religion have no interest in simple "equality" with Christians and secularists, but have the ultimate goal taking over and ruling all society. For the Muslim, true peace is only the peace of Islam ("Submission"). That means society under Muslim rule. Outside of the Peace of Islam, there is only the "war" of the world. True peace, in their view, will only be achieved once a society accepts Islamic rule.
Muslims believe in appearing to completely assimulate into Western culture and society, and to lie to non-Muslims, if it advances the goal of Islamic domination. This is not to say all Muslims are violent terrorists, but the goal of the devout Muslim for society is complete domination, not simply living in equal tolerance.

Only a strong Christian society will ultimately be able to stand up to Islam. Atheism and secularism lead to the death of western civilization.

Radical pluralism and multiculturalism cannot last long in a civilization. Someone's ideas and set of "values" are bound to prevail in the end at the expense of others, whether they be Christian, Muslim, or pagan. The question is which it will be.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='SanctitasDeo' post='1139903' date='Dec 11 2006, 05:32 PM']
I am LDS (Mormon) and if I was elected to public office I would probably use the Book of Mormon and the Bible. However, we use the Bible as much as other Christians do. Do Muslims place as much importance on the Bible as Mormons do? I don't think so.

[/quote]

hmmmm... so why not a Bible and a Koran for this guy? Muslims do claim to be "of The Book" ... the same as Jews and Christians

It's interesting to me that now, and today [i](during a time of war)[/i] this would be an issue [i](by someone affiliated with militant-Islam elected to office.)[/i]
[b]No this issue is not a coincidence.[/b]

Catholics are elected to office, Mormons have been also, and Jews btw... and even atheists (Goldwater)
This is Our Republic and this is for "which it stands" ...so we swear on the "The Book." [b]Jew, Catholic, Athiest, or other.[/b]



This guy is CAIR's candidate... I don't trust him - and he is confirming my distrust right away.

Mark my words, this is only be the beginning with this guy .

REMEMBER:
This is a time of war - don't forget this...
Our own liberal msm has - it seems our entire world has
but there are at least 10% of the global Muslim people who are actively at war with the "west"
And even 10% of the Muslim population is equal to the entire population the entire U.S.A.
The threat is real.

CAIR is part of the[i] Militant –Islamic movement.[/i]
We have no reason to trust any candidate CAIR puts forward.

Edited December 12, 2006 by Lounge Daddy

[SanctitasDeo]

"Mark my words, this is only be the beginning with this guy."

You may be right. In fact, this could be a media stunt. If it is, I don't respect him much. Using religion to make a political statement is unecessary at best. At worst, it is what the terrorists are doing. I don't know how closely he is tied to CAIR, either.

However, if he is religious and merely wishes to swear on the book he believes to be sacred, rather than another, I'm fine with that.

It is when he is religious and wants to force me to swear on his book that I start to worry.

[Socrates]

[quote name='SanctitasDeo' post='1141007' date='Dec 12 2006, 11:41 PM']
It is when he is religious and wants to force me to swear on his book that I start to worry.
[/quote]
If the Islamists have their way, that day is coming. . . .

[SanctitasDeo]

"If the Islamists have their way, that day is coming. . . ."

Yes. I think Europe will go first. America will hold out the longest, I hope. I think there are areas of the world that won't be attacked (at least at first) such as the leftist (and Communist) countries that have sort of banded together in their criticism of the Great Satan. We'll see, I suppose.

I do think it is interesting that fanatics from the far-left and far-right are joining up with the radical Muslims.

[catholicinsd]

Jack van Impe almost bursted over this.

Jack van Impe almost bursted over this.