Congressman Wants To Take His Oath On The Quran

[Jaime]

That's what makes you a resident, not a Minnesotan

Get through the winter

[Sojourner]

I have gloves, hats, scarves, coats, long johns, boots, and the ability to build a fire. And I am a can-do kind of girl. I'll be fine. Maybe I'll even build a snowman or two.

[Norseman82]

Well, technically, the Bible is one of the Muslim holy books, so I don't see how it would be offensive to Muslims.

Now, there are 2 Buddhists who were elected to Congress this past election, I wonder what book they will take their oath on?

[musturde]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1132944' date='Dec 1 2006, 01:00 PM']
Well, technically, the Bible is one of the Muslim holy books, so I don't see how it would be offensive to Muslims.

Now, there are 2 Buddhists who were elected to Congress this past election, I wonder what book they will take their oath on?
[/quote]

kind of... they respect the Bible but believe it's been messed with over time.

[kujo]

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?

[Lahecil]

I agree with Didymus and Kujo here. If he's a Muslim, would swearing on the Bible carry any actual meaning with him? Personally, I would decline swearing on the Bible too, and opt instead for no book at all, which I think should be another option for any atheists elected, or even for those who just choose not to swear on anything other than their self.

[Sojourner]

yes

maybe you should consider switching parties

[pcabibi]

I agree with this. you should swear on what you hold most dear and truthful. Lets face it... the majority of the world is Muslim. The Quran is basically the same thing with exception to the fact that it includes the forbidden books.

i personally don't agree with the Quran because it basically calls the angel Gabrial a liar.. but whatever I think you should swear in on what you hold true and dear.

[Thumper]

[quote name='Matty_boy' post='1132860' date='Dec 1 2006, 11:18 AM']
The point of swearing on the Bible, is, like it or not, that the country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. This is not speculative, it is self-evident in the texts of the founding documents. Our laws were written to reflect God's law which is illustrated in the Bible. The law of the Quran may or may not reflect the same understanding of God's law, and the Quran was not at the core of the founding principles of the country.
[/quote]


Founded on Judeo-Christian principles or not, the Constitution itself provides freedom from those principles for the law makers of country.

From Wikipedia's article on the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution"]Constitution:[/url]

Article Six . . . . validates national debt created under the Articles of Confederation and requires that all legislators, federal officers, and judges take oaths or affirmations to "support" the Constitution. This means that the states' constitutions and laws should not conflict with the laws of the federal constitution-- and that in case of a conflict, state judges are legally bound to honor the federal laws and constitution over those of any state.

Article Six also lays out that no person seeking to hold office shall be required to be a person of faith, stating that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States". At issue was that in some States the person entering office was required take an oath of office expressing belief in "one God, the creator of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked"; or to declare belief in the "divine inspiration" of the Scriptures, or "faith in God the Father and in Jesus Christ, His only Son", and so on. The effect was that those whose belief prevented them from taking such an oath were excluded from office. Consequently such a "religious test" was forbidden by this clause of the Constitution. The adoption of this clause by the Constitutional Congress was unanimous.

[Didymus]

another thing to note is that Islam is a predominantly pro-life religion (with regards to abortion at least). This may not matter cuz he's a politician anyways (what party is he from?), but from a moral American standpoint, let him be devout, so that if/when he doesn't follow the ethics held by his religion, he can be called out for it by members of his own faith...

[homeschoolmom]

He's a DFLer (Minnesota's Democratic Party). The fifth district (which includes Minneapolis and its surrounding suburbs) is one of the safest Democratic seats in the nation. They probably could have put a vampire on the ballot and he would have won. (Well, okay, maybe not... but, then again... who knows?)

From his website (regarding abortion)

[quote]I am pro choice. I am in favor of comprehensive sex education, which includes information about abstinence, but goes far beyond that. I am against legislation that would impose a waiting period on women who seek a safe and legal abortion, and I am against legislation that would restrict the information that a physician can share with a patient regarding reproductive choices.

My beliefs on this issue are rooted in my respect for fundamental rights. People must be free to make decisions affecting their own lives. How can a legislator or judge make a basic family decision such as whether or not a woman should have a child? As a father of four, my wife and I would never abdicate our right to make family decisions to a government official, and I understand that she would have the final say. I recognize the sanctity of human life, including the lives of the unborn. However, I believe more firmly that the moral, religious, cultural, and medical decision of whether or not to complete a pregnancy must be left to the woman, and the people who she wishes to consult.
[/quote]

[Winchester]

[quote name='JClives' post='1133214' date='Dec 1 2006, 05:33 PM']
Lets face it... the majority of the world is Muslim. [/quote]

Christians: 2.1 Billion
Muslims: 1.3 Billion

Are you using some new kind of math?

[Didymus]

yeah, they still have a ways to go to catch up, but it could definitely happen in the next century, with the way they're having babies and so much of the rest of the world is aborting them...

Edited December 2, 2006 by Didymus

[kujo]

[quote name='Matty_boy' post='1132860' date='Dec 1 2006, 11:18 AM']
The point of swearing on the Bible, is, like it or not, that the country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. This is not speculative, it is self-evident in the texts of the founding documents. Our laws were written to reflect God's law which is illustrated in the Bible. The law of the Quran may or may not reflect the same understanding of God's law, and the Quran was not at the core of the founding principles of the country.
[/quote]

From what I gather, the "point" of swearing on the Bible is (in theory) that you are saying that you are saying that you are telling the truth and/or being honest and you are swearing that based on the Bible which symbolizes your religious faith.

So, if you're a Christian/Catholic, the Bible is good stuff.
If you're a Muslim, the Qur'an should be sufficient.
If you're a Jew...the Hebrew Bible.
An atheist...the dictionary.

It seems logical that, in an effort to maintain consistency with tradition, one should be allowed to use whatever text they feel bound to. Or none at all!

[quote name='Era Might' post='1132829' date='Dec 1 2006, 10:15 AM']
I think they probably should keep the Bible. If you admit one exception, you'll have to admit every other exception, and it defeats the purpose of the tradition. However, maybe they should allow you to decline to make your oath on the Bible. Your word should be enough.
[/quote]

Who cares how many exceptions there are?



[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1133575' date='Dec 2 2006, 11:11 AM']
He's a DFLer (Minnesota's Democratic Party). The fifth district (which includes Minneapolis and its surrounding suburbs) is one of the safest Democratic seats in the nation. They probably could have put a vampire on the ballot and he would have won. (Well, okay, maybe not... but, then again... who knows?)

From his website (regarding abortion)
[/quote]

Homeschoolmom, what does that have to do with him swearing on a Qur'an? I mean, I disagree with his political views, too. But that shouldn't prevent him from swearing on a Qur'an.

[musturde]

[quote name='kujo' post='1133707' date='Dec 2 2006, 02:01 PM']

An atheist...the dictionary.
[/quote]