Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.
Should the Bible be replaced during the swearing in ceremonies of elected officials who are not Christians and have the Bible be replaced with the book or teachings (scriptures) of the elected/appointed officials own personal religion.
Is the Bible an American tradition for swearing in ceremonies and can/should it be replaced and reflect the true intent/sincerity of anyone taking an oath of allegiance to the United States Constitution?
And, what about the ranks of members of the military...Would swearing in on the Koran or any other book/scripture pertaining to ones own religion in any way jeopardize the status/performance of a serviceman?
2006-11-29 03:45:21 · 16 answers · asked by marnefirstinfantry 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
As you said it is a tradition not apart of law.
Did you know that Adams the 2nd president of the United States took his oath on a Law book not the bible.
Did you know that some Jewish congressmen have used the Tanakh.
But because this man is Muslim there is a problem with him using the Quran.
The only thing these men and women have to do is uphold our Constitution.
Being a Muslim does not change how this man will do his job for his country that is why he was elected.
2006-11-30 16:08:10 · answer #1 · answered by Layla 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Yes, he should be allowed and the reason is the very document he's swearing to uphold.
The First Amendment says that we're all guaranteed the right to believe(or not believe) as we choose and the government cannot tell us otherwise. It can't tell us to be religious, tell us NOT to be religious, nor can it tell us what religion we must be. Period. Therefore, the government can NOT force him to swear upon the Bible instead of the Koran.
To do so violates his rights and frankly cheapens both the Bible as an oath by a non-Christian really makes no sense and the oath as he's swearing to uphold the Constitution, but at the cost of his own First Amendment rights.
A Muslim person swearing to uphold this oath of office by the Koran is no different than a Christian person swearing to do the same by the Bible. Both are the holiest books in their respective faiths, so what's the big deal?
Also, you might want to take a peek in your encyclopedias at the Constituion under Article II, Section 1, #8. This is where it talks about entering the oath of office and it says NOTHING, absolutel NOTHING, about having to swear that oath on ANYTHING. The Bible is not mentioned in the least, only the oath to swear to uphold the Constitution.
The idea of swearing on the Bible, if I remember right, was an on-the-fly sort of thing done when Washington was sworn in. The only thing they happened to have close at hand was a Bible and it stuck. Same for "so help me God". That was something ad-libbed by Washington as a quick statement that he wanted God to help him, a single person, to protect what was so precious and they had worked so hard for. It wasn't required then, but stuck after Washington's ad-libbing and became a tradition, but isn't a requirement.
It's not even in the oath as required by the Constitution.
Presidents Pierce and Hoover(of what faith they were, I don't know, I'd be apt to assume Christian given the time of their Presidencies, but I could be wrong) both did not swear their oath, but affirmed it.
This protects atheists and agnostics, who need only affirm the oath, not swear by a holy book they don't believe in. Besides, isn't it the OATH and what a person's upholding with it what matters, not which religious book they're swearing it by?
As far as the military goes, I don't know about that, but I would imagine that swearing to protect the country is more important than what religion they're swearing that oath by. To swear such an oath by the Bible or Koran has zero impact on how well a serviceman serves his or her country. Swearing on a religious text doesn't make you a better soldier. Intent and determination and loyalty does.
2006-12-02 04:12:02 · answer #2 · answered by Ophelia 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Article VI of the U.S. 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.
The bible is not used to swear in new member to congress, they gather on the House floor, raise their right hands and follow as the speaker leads them through the oath.
The reason bibles are not used is made clear. The Constitution specifically prohibits any religious test for members of Congress. Requiring someone to put their hand on a Bible would seem to fill the "religious test" bill quite well.
2006-12-02 02:37:58 · answer #3 · answered by Always 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is allowed and provided for that he can be sworn in on the book of his choice. The same should go for the military - there are members from all religion in the service. Even in court they no longer swear on a bible.
For the one poster - We are NOT founded as One nation under God. That has only been around for about 60 years. We were founded with freedom of any religion and freedom from oppression. There might be some Christian tradition because the majority of citizens have been and are still Christians, but that does not make this a Christian country. Our very wise forefathers, some of who were Christian, some not, made sure to try and provide anyone can practice their beliefs without oppression from the government, or anyone else. Too bad some fight against that basic principle.
2006-11-29 03:59:30 · answer #4 · answered by Sage Bluestorm 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
From 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."
Oath OR affirmation, NO RELIGIOUS TEST - why don't you people know this? It is right there!
2006-12-01 16:50:54 · answer #5 · answered by riverN 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I say he should have that privilege to reinforce the fact that, although founded by very religious men, this government cannot dictate the religious terms of any citizen, especially concerning something as public as a swearing-in ceremony.
I feel the same should hold true in the military.
By the way, in the Freemasons they allow a member to take the degrees and be sworn in on the Holy Book of his faith even though it should be obvious that most of the members were Christian upon initiation due to the demographics involved and would be sworn in on Bibles.
Let's show our magnanimous, freedom-loving side here.
2006-11-29 04:44:13 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, especially when the Bible is being under attack. The American Founders were Bible believers, not Koran believers. It is surprising that the tradition has still survived that one must swear on the Bible, considering all the activities going on by various groups to take religion out of the public and government. So, if on traditional grounds alone, no. We were not founded on the Koran, and our laws did not come from the Sharia, but it had Judeo-Christian beginnings.
2006-11-30 16:34:44 · answer #7 · answered by Tet 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Heard a narrative on the instant on NPR related to this situation. The Koran they are using for swearing in belonged to Thomas Jefferson and the e book has historic value via its provenance. additionally, the swearing in whilst he's using the Koran is a extra casual affair because of the fact he's re-elected. Jefferson had obtained the e book as a foundation for interpreting regulation. needless to say the Koran brings up assorted emotional themes for our usa (attributable to GWB) yet all instructed, he's swearing to uphold the form of usa no longer Muslim regulation or ideals. Its in basic terms a holy e book. you may infrequently learn comedian books or television handbook to the Koran or Bible.
2016-10-13 08:45:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The constitution says he can REFUSE the bible and REFUSE to say SO HELP ME GOD.
Aside from that I know of no other loopholes constitutionally allowed.
You're point is interesting. When enough of Islamics get into congress will they change the pledge from One Nation Under God to One Nation Under Allah!
I've been warning the fundamentalists about that for a long time now!
Best to SEPARATE church and state, least a CHURCH come to power that many people don't want!
2006-11-29 03:56:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
By all means, he should be allowed. First, it's respectful of other people's beliefs and religion - a first ammendment right we hold dear. Second, if a person is made to swear on a book that he doesn't believe it, how would he see it as having any special binding force? Isn't that the purpose of having someone swear on a religious book to begin with?
2006-11-29 03:54:21 · answer #10 · answered by Caritas 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋