Congressman Wants To Take His Oath On The Quran

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1133472' date='Dec 2 2006, 12:38 AM']
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 ([b]what party is he from?[/b]), 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...
[/quote]


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

We were asked.... so I answered.

[Didymus]

yes, thank you btw

[Resurrexi]

He's as apostate... so he should be forced to be sworn in on a Vulgate after being told to make an Act of Faith and Act of Obedience to the Holy Roman Pontiff. If he refuses to do all the aforementioned things, he must resign.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1133775' date='Dec 2 2006, 02:53 PM']
He's as apostate... so he should be forced to be sworn in on a Vulgate after being told to make an Act of Faith and Act of Obedience to the Holy Roman Pontiff. If he refuses to do all the aforementioned things, he must resign.
[/quote]
um

well if this were a church-related position, sure ... but it's a political office

[musturde]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1133775' date='Dec 2 2006, 03:53 PM']
He's as apostate... so he should be forced to be sworn in on a Vulgate after being told to make an Act of Faith and Act of Obedience to the Holy Roman Pontiff. If he refuses to do all the aforementioned things, he must resign.
[/quote]


hehe it's too bad we don't live in a country run by Bishops...

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1133775' date='Dec 2 2006, 03:53 PM']
He's as apostate... so he should be forced to be sworn in on a Vulgate after being told to make an Act of Faith and Act of Obedience to the Holy Roman Pontiff. If he refuses to do all the aforementioned things, he must resign.
[/quote]

[pcabibi]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1133604' date='Dec 2 2006, 12:13 PM']
Christians: 2.1 Billion
Muslims: 1.3 Billion

Are you using some new kind of math?
[/quote]

you're right that was my fault. i was thinking muslim because of the thread's topic. What I meant to say is that the majority of the world is not christian, although it is the biggest religion out of all of them.

[SanctitasDeo]

I suppose at this point, I am only reiterating what has already been said:

If this country does not have a religious test to hold a public office, then it does not matter that he doesn't place his hand on the Bible. The tradition of placing a hand on the Bible is merely tradition; it is not enshrined in law, and if it were, it would be unconstitutional.

Swearing on the Bible is a meaningless gesture as far as the law is concerned; it is only meaningful to the one taking the oath (and, of course, to anyone of the faith that holds the book sacred. And I suppose that some may see something significant in a man swearing an oath on a book he believes to be sacred, rather than a book he may see as anywhere from sort of sacred to helpful to full of lies).

On top of this, this is all nothing new. Other people have sworn the same oath on different books before (such as the Tanakh). The only reason this is significant is that someone who wants to play up the fact that this guy is a Muslim is making a big deal out of it all. I expect that this would all go unnoticed if we weren't at war with a lot of Islamic extremist groups.

And since someone noted that they seemed to be the only Republican with this position, I will say that although I am not currently old enough to vote (just two weeks), if I were able to vote, it would be Republican.

[kujo]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1133730' date='Dec 2 2006, 03:35 PM']
We were asked.... so I answered.
[/quote]

Sorry....missed that post.

[Hascal]

i'd have to agree with sanctitas. There is an explicit separation of church and state in the constitution (take that katherine harris), and the swearing in over a bible is simply ceremonial. The bible is symbolic for giving your highest oath, and you can't really give such an oath over a book you don't believe is truth. As a jew, if i were ever to be elected to public office, i would ask to be sworn in over the Torah (maybe not a scroll, but you get the idea). He should have the choice to be sworn in over the Koran, the bible, or even the dictionary.

[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.