POL/REL: Taking the Oath of Office on the Koran
 

And it goes on like this . . .
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/D...es_his_oath_on


Two quick points. First, nothing in the laws of the United States nor the rules of Congress indicates what, if anything, someone should do with their hands when they take the oath of office.

Second, sometimes I like to pronounce hyperbole "HYPER-BOWL" in order to shake things up.

I think we should pronounce "Super Bowl" as "Su-PER-bol-lee".

Let's start doing it and see if we can get it to catch on.

Wow. That guy's got his head so far up his ass he's about to turn inside out.

I'm assuming the oath has been taken on the Torah a number of times?

According to the article/rant, no. But I wouldn't exactly look to that guy for actual facts.

I think some people don't understand what Freedom of Religion means.

Just in case anybody wonders (like I did) exactly what the Cong. Oath of Office says:

http://clerk.house.gov/members/oathoffice.html
Source: Congressional Record (House) - Updated March 10, 2005

OATH OF OFFICE MEMBERS, RESIDENT COMMISSIONER, AND DELEGATES

The oath of office required by the sixth article of the Constitution of the United States, and as provided by section 2 of the act of May 13, 1884 (23 Stat. 22), to be administered to members, Resident Commissioner, and Delegates of the House of Representatives, the text of which is carried in 5 U.S.C. 3331:

"I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

has been subscribed to in person and filed in duplicate with the Clerk of the House of Representatives by the following Members of the 109th Congress, pursuant to the provisions of 2 U.S.C. 25

The most obvious question, I guess, is that if this is required as indicated, what does/would an atheist do?

Laugh as he or she says it?

I believe that atheists have sworn on the Bible before. From my perspective, I don't know why you would want someone who doesn't believe in Christianity to swear on the Bible - if the book is seen as a symbol of something that's important to the person, doesn't a Bible defeat the purpose for an atheist or a Jewish/Muslim person? Hell, do Christians really want non-believers swearing on it if it means nothing to the latter?

I like to pronounce epitome as "Ep-ih-tome". I think it was sounds more like the meaning of the word.

For me, this is just another example of how Islam is being forced upon the U.S., much the way it has been in France and England. While I realize this nation has freedom of religion, it also was "one nation found under god" and has always traditionally been a judeo-christian society. My biggest problem with what is happening here is the America has been losing it's identity little by little each day...namingly it's borders, language, and culture.

I'm going to try and tread very softly here and keep this discussion under as much control as I can.

What harm does it do to the American identity and/or culture for a Muslim to say the oath on the Koran?

Is your issue that he's saying his oath on the Koran or that he's Muslim in the first place?

He's not asking you to do it -he's asking that if he's supposed to swear on a symbol of faith, it ought to be his faith - it means nothing if he's swearing on a religion he doesn't believe in. Seriously - you'd prefer a fake promise on something he doesn't believe in?

I'd just say the words. The last sentence wouldn't have any meaning to me, but if it's required, so be it. I mean, at Thanksgiving dinner last week and made the "sign of the cross" and said grace before dinner with my family. The gesture and words were meaningless to me personally, but easy enough to do and say and made my grandma happy.

It doesn't appear as if the bible is required, so I might ask to do without that aspect of it.

No Muslim, Jew, or Atheist should swear on the Bible. Pointless.

A good point indeed, I for one however see it as another step away from "the way things have always been". I fully admit I am an American traditionalist. I also beleive that part of the plan of Islam is take over democracies little at a time through cultural, and law changes over a long peroid of time. Islamic clerics know they cannot defeat us militarily, so this is what we are getting. What is happening in this instance is one small example of what I am talking about. Ask yourself this: Is this being applauded by our enemies in the liddle east?

I seem to recall phrases like "pains and penalties of perjury" being used for courtroom swearings-in of those requesting a non-biblical method. I always thought that was a real leap of faith... that the pains and penalties of perjury were equally foreboding to a non-religious person as the almighty would be to a believer.

An "American Traditionalist"? What does that mean? How traditional are we talking? What values does an "American Traditionalist" adhere to?

Are you upset about emancipation? Do you miss the Three-Fifths Compromise? What about women's right to vote? Segregation? Do Amendments 11-27 offend you?

It means I am more likely to adhere to the status quo, rather than be an agent for change. It doesn't mean I am against change, it just means I am more likely to be very careful about change, and watch how is progresses on a day to day level, and even be mindful of it's potential consequences/benefits.

Ah, I think what you really mean is "conservative."

Check it out:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservative

No, he means he doesn't recognize hip hop as part of American culture.

Yes, I am a conservative...great now that we've established that. Jeeezsh.

Article VI

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.

would anyone have even noticed if the representative hadn't chosen to "announce" his intent?

Wait until a Hindu gets elected to office.. or a shintoist, or buddhist, etc...

Can i swear on a statue of Ganesh, Kali, Shiva, Sita, etc?

Maybe this should be another discussion, but what is American culture really? Isn't it a melting pot of other cultures?

You still have not said what is harmful about this specific change.

And I'm still curious as to whether it is the swearing on the Koran that bothers your, or if it is that a Muslim is going into office.

Right... and christianity being forced upon the U.S. is better?
You don't think that Allah isn't the same God as YHWH, Yahweh, Jehovah, etc? Muslims revere Abraham, Mary, and other biblical figures.

That is a terribly untraditionally American Article!!! It has no place in our Constitution!

Thats what I was thinking as well. Let's remember that this guy was voted in by the American public. Are you suggesting he duped the voters?

Apparently so long as that culture does not include hip hop, yes.

Hey, don't blame me for this. I'm not the one who started throwing around that "American Traditionalist" nonsense.

It seems to me the point of having your hand on the Bible when taking the oath is that you are swearing to your god as represented by the Bible. So if that isn't your god, it makes sense to do something else. And since it's not specified in law that you have to swear on the Bible, what difference does it make?

Considering the oath and Article VI seem to be at conflict, I doubt an atheist would be denied office if the left So Help Me God off the end of the oath.

You should hear the Masonic oaths. If they don't scare the bejeezus out of you, nothing ever will.

dola...

I'd tell you what those oaths are, of course, but then I'd have to kill you. Or kill myself. I don't remember exactly.

I'm curious - I'm a non-practicing Hindu. If I'm elected, my faith (if it was practiced) is less deserving in some way?

I'm a non-practicing guitarist.

I also beleive that part of the plan of Islam is take over democracies little at a time through cultural, and law changes over a long peroid of time. Islamic clerics know they cannot defeat us militarily, so this is what we are getting. What is happening in this instance is one small example of what I am talking about. Ask yourself this: Is this being applauded by our enemies in the middle east? In other words, I beleive our enemies are using our own freedoms against us, and that we are sitting there on the sidelines saying "good for you".

I for one am still pissed they stopped burning witches and putting scarlet A's on slutty women.

I guess I'll ask again... You realize he was elected by the American public, right? Are you suggesting he duped everybody into believing he was a Christian?

I don't know whay so many of you sit there and make light of this when history has clearly told us what many of the Islamic leaders in the world want to do to western society.

He will not be denied entry to his position, and I would be dissapointed if the atheist did say any allegiance towards God. I would think it's in an atheist's best interest to remain mute at that point or change what he says to better reflect his faith than to get through a swearing in by lying.

I totally agree, especially now that Drive-Ins are starting to disappear. It's like the fabric of our society is unraveling before our eyes.

I'm really pissed about that - the slutty women were easier to find back then.

No doubt. Now you have to drive all the way down to the skating rink to find the slutty women.

Seriously - and that whole owning people bit - why not, I say?

I'm trying my best to subscribe to your newsletter here, so just confirm for me please. Are you saying that this guys thinking is in line with Islamic clerics and that he wants to destroy the US, but if we make him swear on the Bible we'll all be ok?

Pfft. My wife has owned me for 13 years. I don't know what gave you the impression that this ever went away.

So if he swears on the Bible, you're ok with him being in Congress? All of your other concerns go away right?

You're trying to drive to the same point as me here that I don't think PSU has answered yet, he's danced around the question here.

Would you be happy if this same Muslim electee swore on the Bible? Would you only be happy if he was a non-Muslim swearing on the Bible? Maybe a Christian swearing on the Koran?

I'm not sure that I understand what would make you ok with this situation.

That, to some extent, is why Prager's column had me scratching my head.

On the one hand, I think I see what he's getting at -- basically trivializing the general tradition of swearing on a Bible by replacing it with another book (under the current circumstances, the Koran just adds insult to injury, but I don't get the impression that his overall point is meant to be specific to the Koran either).

But on the other hand, since having him use a Bible (or having an atheist use a Bible, or whatever) wouldn't really carry the traditional meaning, then I'm not sure why it would be a point for discussion.

Although if I'm right in my interpretation of what he's really getting at, then this isn't about the one guy & this one case, rather it's just a symptom of a larger & more serious issue.

Then again, there's also a possibility that the guy cut Prager off for a parking space or something.

So let's examine our freedoms and see which one's are dangerous.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Well obviously religion, speech, assembly and petition are tools for the terrorists to undermine us.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Terrorists use guns. Gotta go.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

We'll put our soldiers wherever its needed to protect us.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If you can't conduct unreasonable searches the terrorists win.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

There's so many words here that I'm sure a fancy pants lawyer could use it to free terrorists. Should be condensed to "the ATF can't take my land"

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Complete bullshit. Its like they were trying to give the country to the Ottoman Turks.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

We'll keep this, but write it in invisible ink just in case.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

If torture is good enough for Pol Pot its good enough for us.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You don't have any rights if terrorists kill you.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

See amendment to Amendment IX.


So to really protect our freedoms we should get rid of the Bill of Rights except for a condensed Amendment V and an invisible ink version of Amendment VII. The new Bill of Patriot Rights reads:


The ATF can't take my land

not at all. What I am saying is that this is another example of how everybody has to go out of their way to accomadate the muslim who is not happy with the way things we have pretty much always been here. It is also a way (and this is what I really think is happening) for this man to get media attention and draw attention to the fact he is the first muslim congressman to be elected to office. That is what I think he is doing. I think he's feeding the entire muslim vs. Western world propaganda machine. What is says to muslim clerics and followers who are hell bend on our distruction is: see we are winning, allah is taking the U.S. This very same thing is happening in England and in France. Believe it or not the muslims who blew up the subway system in London, were either born there as Brits, or had been living there the better part of thier lives. That kind of propaganda is what is feeding much of the fires we fight. It seems like this guy is going out of his way to get it, yet I bet he said in his campaign he would vow to fight terrorism.

Yeah, that's why I don't see this as a left-right issue. If I was a devout Christian, I would think I wouldn't want the guy to swear on the Bible, because it almost trivializes the intended meaning.

I "believer" that "their" kind can spell "propaganda" or "accommodate" - so that's already a head start on you.

agreed, but I am typing very quickly, and I don't have time to spell check through mistakes. I have work to do. I know how to spell, trust me, but I need to respond very quickly.

So if in 50 or 100 years, if the Muslims are the majority of a population in a county where they weren't previously, would you then say that a new form of apartheid should be implemented? Or are you saying that they should be kept out of countries because even if they are moderate Muslims, the radical fringe wants to do harm? Just as the KKK wasn't indicative of mainstream Christian thought 60 to 100 years ago, Al-Qaeda isn't indicative of mainstream Muslim thought now.

this is a total non issue and anyone who thinks it has real merit should get some therapy.

Are you talking about all the people who have posted in this thread?

No, only those who believe swearing inon the koran or at all truly means anything in this day and age. its a ceremony, nothing more.

I don't know how much attention to this Ellison is actually trying to draw or where he 'announced' this. It certainly hasn't been in the newspapers or received any attention here in Minnesota.

We aren't at war with Islam. There are plenty of peaceful, non-violent followers of Islam - just like there are plenty of Christian terrorists. If this guy was a Buddhist or a Sikh or a Hindu, I wonder if we would be having the same decibel of debate...

What really matters here is that asking a person of one religion to swear an oath on the holy book of another religion is completely disgraceful and demeaning to that person.

I think the media and politicians go out their way to to let it be known that the are good muslims, and then there are bad muslims. Here is the fundamental problem: We know what the Koran states about the dealing with infadels, and how to "promote" Islam as a "world" religion. These same people are saying well, only the fundamenalist muslims are taking those scriptures to heart. But my problem is that I don't see a large enough uprise from within the muslim community itself to condem this way of thinking. Rather than think about telling the world what pieces of crap many muslims really are because of their beleifs, the muslim commuinty as a whole gets offened when a bunch of men on an airplane yelling about how great Bin laden is get escorted off the plane in Wisconsin. Why is that? So this is the problem. You have Muslims who claim they don't support what many of the "radicals" do, yet when given the chance to speak out the don't. But when they feel their rights have somehow been trampled on during a war on teror in which most of the suspects are middle eastern, they begin yelling bloody murder. I just find it difficult to trust those who behave in this manner.

Tell that to the Discordians.

This is where you are wrong...and so is the President, we ARE at war with Islam, no one wants to admit it though.

I say this as a devout Christian...you realize the the OT is full of the same sorts of treatment for non-Jews (or non-Christians if you're a fan of Replacement Theology) that we gripe about in the Koran, right? We know not to take those passages as current instructions to go out and kill some infidels. I'm assuming that most of your average, work-a-day Muslims know the same thing about the Koran.

Let's talk about slutty women some more, please.

I think it is dangerous to take such a monolithic viewpoint here. If you treat them all as enemies, the it becomes self-fulfilling.

Are you saying that Keith Ellison should go to therapy because he wants to use the Koran instead of the Bible for his swearing in?

Ya hear that Indonesia? You're next!

I love Wikipedia's ability to immediately dillute the power of obscure references. :D

Someone should tell Imran that PSUColonel is at war with him. :D

How would you even win a war against Islam? Keep fighting until they convert? Retreat? Submit? They're all dead? What?

Don't be too hard on the guy. Everyone knows that monoliths are just big symbols for penises. I'll admit that I'm guilty of seeing things from my penis's viewpoint way too often.

If the Islamo War against Judaism is any indicator, I think it's the "all dead" part.

I see you beat me to that one.

Ah well, I'm moving furniture all over the friggin' house right now, I suppose that is going to reduce my chances at getting first crack at the obvious.

Hello, PSU Colonel. I wanted to address your understanding of Christianity and Islam. I don't particulalrly care about what anybody's opinion is of swearing on one book or another - largely symbolic gestures that hold little weight today. However, this post by you nad triggered several thoughts for me that I wanted to briefly discuss.

By way of background, I am an ordained Baptist minister.

One of your comments is this:


In fact, if a religion does not want to convert people, or if that is what they claim, then I would be very suspicious of that. I truly believe Christ is my savior and the route to salvation and heaven. Why wouldn't I want to share that with others? Similarly, why wouldn't a Muslim who also sincerely beleives in an alterante route want to share that? This is not suspect but a foundational rock of many religions, especially Christianity:

This is a quote from Jesus to his disciples after he was raisied from the dead just before the Ascension. It is commonly referred to as The Great Commission.


"All nations...unto the ends of the world" Sounds like Christianity wants to do the exact thing you accuse Islam of wanting.


You later claim this:


To be fair, if this were true, I'd think you have a good point. I'm not sure it is true, of course, and I'd want documentation of when or if major Muslim organizations refused to denounce terrorism.

However, if you think failure to denounce radicals in your own faith is merely a Muslim thing, think again. Here's another key scripture from Christianity:





I could, of course, post another 100 scriptures that says that God is love or that God loves us all. This is a founding truth of the Christian faith.

So why do Christians just walk by when extremsists are holding up the "God Hates Fags" signs? Why do Christians turn their back and refuse to speak when other people who claim to be Christian speak a gospel of hate?

Think that's merely a facet of Islam? It's not, I assure you.

-Anxiety

Perhaps to you, but there are plenty of people that take this seriously. I, for one, don't take it seriously but I recognize that it's quite important to others. I think there are still quite a few of them out there.

On the other topic, freedom of religion shouldn't just be practiced in theory.

As far as I can see, the only reason this is getting media attention is from peole like you freaking out about it. I also do not see anywhere that he's "announcing" this or making a big production. Seems to me that no one would know about this if people like you just let it happen and didn't say anything, no one would know the difference unless they have binoculars at the ceremony and publish the pictures all over the internet.

I can answer that question. But you probably already know what it would be.

He pretty much gave his answer here:

To extend upon what someone else says (I'm too lazy too see who): And what if Islam is the majority in the United States in 100 years? What if they hold 90% of the elected offices in the country? So what? You (PSUColonel) have a problem with people choosing their own religion and elected officials? So that means that Islam has "won"? If it does, then who cares? That's just the flow of life. Classic civilization was "won" by christianity in Europe. Christians all but whiped out the native cultures of the United States and South America. It's how we came to be and it's how the future will come to be. The sort of talk you are spewing is what causes these wars. If someone believes in Allah and the teachings of the Koran then they have that right in the United States. If Everyone believes in Allah and the teachings of the Koran then they have that right in the United States.

Are you actually a Mason?

Just think, if those cultures had just had their own damn message board, they could have put a stop to whole thing.

I think the common fear is that if this happens, those offices wouldn't be elected, and you wouldn't be able to choose a religions. The religion will be Islam, and that's that. And in any event, folks are much more willing to be the wiper than the wipee.

I'm not so sure about the "flow of life" argument. Sure, you can argue that Islam may or may not be trying to do whatever (not meaning to do that here). But "who cares, that's the flow" wouldn't have likely been the best plan in say, dealing with the Nazis for instance.

Yes.

And yes, contrary to popular opinion, I'm allowed to tell you that. If I wasn't allowed to tell anyone, why would I drive around with a Masonic license plate? Or wear a Masonic ring?

You obviously took an extreme, but in the case of the United States, as long as it's done within the bounds of the law, as an American Traditionalist, I don't think we should bend the laws to prevent a change in the majority religion.

PSUColonel=pwned

Reminds me of a great bumpersticker I saw once (which is where all great thinking resides, on bumpers):

"I believe that when Jesus said 'Love Thy Enemy' he didn't mean kill them"

In which case you should swear on The Manic Street Preachers 3rd album

DEATH TO IMRAN!

Would a Discordian swear on a golden apple? A copy of the Illuminatus Trilogy? What about the connection between Masons and Discordians? And most importantly, why has the discussion turned away from slutty women?

They could swear on this and it'd be more amusing:



Yes, that's right, it's the accordion for Discordians... ok, I'm leaving this thread now. That was awful even for me.

SI

Hahahaha! No, stay, please!

Can I join?

Funny enough, I work at the MN Secretary of State's office and just before I left for the day we got a call from a rather irate person about this oath and whether it was required that he swear in on the Bible. Glad I wasn't the person who took that call.

Lenny: Your membership pack. {hands it to him}
Homer: {pulls out a decal} What's this?
Lenny: You put that sticker on your car so you won't get any tickets. And this other one keeps paramedics from stealing your wallet while they're working on you.
Carl: Oh, and don't bother calling 911 any more...here's the *real* number. {hands him a card with "912"}
Homer: Ooh!

SI

Hell, I hope they film the ceremony and put it on Al Jazeera for the Middle East to see. Put a big arrow pointing to the Koran and have big letters saying "The Koran" and let him say "So help me Allah."

Here's a difference between Christians and Muslims in the modern age:

We "turn our backs" when radical Christains spout hatred towards homosexuals. Muslims just kill them.

In EVERY SINGLE Islamic Middle East country, being a homosexual is a crime punishable by death.

Before anyone goes off about how "loving" and "caring" Muslims are, just remember that.

Wow, I didn't expect this from you.

I'm sure there are quite a few "Christians" who would be in favor of making homosexuality a crime punishable by death. After all, doesn't the Bible say you should kill a man who lies with another man?

That's true, but those are the exception, hense the reason why it's NOT a law like that. Apparently either the majority of muslims in that country do not disagree with the law, or they're silent about it. Either way, it's still the law there.

In other words, we don't allow the extremists to run things here, dispite what you may think. They do.