swearing oath of congressional office

So Keith Ellison, a muslim, has been elected to serve in the 110th congress. Already there are complaints.

It seems he wants to put his hand on the Quran when he swears his oath of office and apparently this is highly offensive in a nation where freedom of religion is a fundamental right.

As I understand it there is no need to place ones hand on the bible, one can simply affirm. But why should the bible be the only religious book allowed and what value is placing ones hand on a book one doesn't believe in when swearing an oath?

I am a strong believer in the right of religious freedom, It must extend to all religions. Not just one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I am a strong believer in the right of religious freedom, It must extend to all religions. Not just one.

---

Except scientologists and the ones with tinfoil on their heads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ava Estelle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I am a strong believer in the right of religious freedom, It must extend to all religions. Not just one.

---

Except scientologists and the ones with tinfoil on their heads.

---

The tinfoil religion is a new one on me but as an atheist I think the scientologist are just as likely to have found the "true faith" as any of the others.

Quote:

---

Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison's right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?

---

To his credit, he managed four paragraphs before bringing up the Nazis.

:shuriken:

I am a strong believer that religion should not be involved any part of a Government. Members of all religions have a vote and can make representation through their MP like any other person.

Why not use a book of the Constitution to swear an oath on. If they refuse to do that then you have a good excuse to remove them from Government. It would mean that all Governments would require a Constitution. It is about time that they all made a Constitution.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagicNakor

To his credit, he managed four paragraphs before bringing up the Nazis.

:shuriken:

---

When the kind of guy who would want to affirm on a copy of Mein Kampf gets elected we have a bigger problem than just the book to worry about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dennis Prager

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible.

---

Sorry Dennis but I will not "forgive you".
Asshole.
The only time most politicians (and most Americans in general) pay any attention whatsoever to the Bible- much less the general precepts it espouses- is during meaningless ceremonies like this.
The rest of time The Prince would be a more appropriate choice.

Or maybe The Art of War, with the stipulation that they've actually read and reflected on it. ;)

:shuriken:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dennis Prager

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible.

---

---

I thought the very next sentence was even more unforgivable

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dennis Prager

Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress.

---

He is basically saying "if you are not a christian and your religious beliefs are strong enough to make swearing on the christian bible unpalatable, or even if you just want to affirm rather than swear on the bible, then you have no right to serve in as a representative in the united states. Democratic elections be damned. Those that would elect such a person don't deserve representation"

I wonder if he would approve of all non christians being tax exempt?....Only tax christians.:naughty:

I didn't know this but apparently prager along with other misinformation has made a big error (which I admit I wouldn't have known about)

Quote:

---

the swearing-in ceremony for the House of Representatives never includes a religious book. The swearing-in ceremony consists only of the Members raising their right hands and swearing to uphold the Constitution. Neither the Christian Bible, nor any other religious text, had ever been used in an official capacity during the ceremony. Occassionally, Members pose for symbolic photo-ops with their hand on a Bible

---

.
I just read this so I will look it up to see if it is correct.

So his complaint may be unfounded anyway and just a racist rant

Perhaps Prager would be best benefited if he spent less time writing columns, and more re-reading;

Quote:

---

Article VI of the 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.

---

I dont know if the above is correct or not. I have read that no less than 4 President were were affirmed without the use of a bible. One actually used the Torah.