Google news on Keith Ellison, in case you don't know much about the controversy: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&hs=Z57&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=N&resnum=0&q=keith%20Ellison&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&tab=wn
2006-11-28 06:16:28 · 25 answers · asked by 99 ways to smile 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
He swears or affirms, the oath is the same.
2006-11-28 08:15:07 · update #1
Absolutely. Being forced to swear on a Bible would violate the Constitution, which forbids religious tests as qualifications for public office.
Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America reads, in part:
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.
2006-11-29 07:28:56 · answer #1 · answered by hugemistake2003 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
There should be no controversy, not in a nation dedicated to freedom of religion. The oath is the important thing. It's binding. If the Congressman-elect chooses to take his oath on the Qur'an, that's for him to decide.
Those who would insist that all public servants must take their oaths with one hand on the Christian Bible are just showing how selfish they can be, and proving at long last that they have no respect for freedom of religion, unless the freedom being referenced is theirs and the religion is theirs alone.
2006-11-28 06:26:46 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
OK, this irks me. Why can it not be enough that the man believes in God (and, presumably, is pious. . . yeah, yeah, a stretch for a politician, I know)? It is his right to swear his oath on the Koran. To bar him from doing so would be to show bias towards Islam. Anyone that thinks that is a good idea needs to re-read the Bill of Rights. Yes, the 1st Amendment refers specifically towards favoritism and establishment of an official religion, but it would be a narrow interpretation indeed (not to mention misguided) to construe this as permissive of an attempt to persecute/disallow a religion and its practices.
2016-05-22 22:44:37 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yah, whats the point if a person doesnt believe in the bible, why would he need to swear by it. if im not christian and im forced to swear on the bible, i have absolutely no reason to lie or do what im swearing not to. the bible has no influence over me, so its not like im breaking an oath to something of importance to me. lol. he should swear by what will keep him right.
seeing as the country was NOT founded on christianity but on FREE RELIGION,... however i agree with John S, in saying, swearing on holy books, for political purposes should be abolished all together, or allow any kind there is. this is a free country not a christian one. if u cant handle that then get out.
2006-11-28 06:20:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I think Keith Ellison should be allowed to take his oath on the Qur'an. Not just because he's muslim, but because his belief make the Qur'an sacred. He may respect the Christian bible, but he has no faith in it's pages. Just as Christians feel about the Qur'an.
If I was made to take an oath on something I didn't really care about, I wouldn't care to keep that oath as much as if it was on something I felt strongly for. That in itself would keep me to my oath.
2006-11-28 06:28:33 · answer #5 · answered by David H 1 · 5⤊ 0⤋
The only controversy is in the mind of anti muslim bigots. Mr ellison will be allowed to swear in as he chooses as is every other member of the house and senate.
2006-11-28 06:26:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Um...Oaths on holy books should be abolished altogether in government. This is not a country with a religious government of any kind. That said, if everyone else gets to use a bible, let the man use what he believes in.
2006-11-28 06:20:53 · answer #7 · answered by John S 2 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Yes. What would be the value for either him or his district's constituents to make an oath sworn on a book he considers spurious? I imagine for him it would be no different than swearing on Oprah's book of the month....
2006-11-28 06:22:15 · answer #8 · answered by evolver 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
It should be just like taking an oath in court. Whatever book you revere as holy should be used. Anything else would be a little ludicrous.
2006-11-28 06:21:43 · answer #9 · answered by Radagast97 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
We are told that the Bible has no scientific errors and is utterly perfect/protected, yet it says the bat is a bird (Leviticus 11:13 & 19), hares chew the cud (Leviticus 11:5-6), and some fowl (Leviticus 11:20-21) and insects (Leviticus 11:22-23) have four legs.
Yet Jesus says i am not sent but to the lordship of Israel ,
i am asking you Americans are you the lordship of Israel ?No
In the quran God says this is the guidence for the human kind.
ask the athiest which book would he prefer the one with thousands of errors or the pure errorless..........
2006-11-28 06:35:04 · answer #10 · answered by boshhhhhhhhhh 2 · 0⤊ 4⤋