Many different ways this comes up, but recently elected House of Representatives elect Keith Ellison (D-MN) who is Muslim is requesting to be sworn in, while holding the Quran. Do you agree, think he should be allowed to choose that? Would an atheist be required to swear no the Bible, or a Jewish person?
2006-12-01 06:27:38 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I guess why do Republicans have a problem with it. Sean Hannity and Oreilly both last night blasted him, saying we will be sworn under a pentagram instead.
2006-12-01 06:35:43 · update #1
He should be allowed to swear upon the Koran for his oath. What's the point of electing the first Muslim to Congress if he has to swear upon a book that belongs to a faith he doesn't believe in? Contrary to popular belief, America is a free nation, not a Christian theocracy. We don't have the right to force him to swear by the Bible.
Same goes for a Jewish person. Let them swear by the Torah rather than the Bible. If they're swearing to uphold the Constitution, then let's protect their constitutional right to choose their own faith by letting them swear upon the religious text of their choosing if swearing upon the Bible is against their faith.
As far as atheists and agnostics go, I wasn't sure how to weigh in on this issue until I saw an article in one of the local papers having to do with this. The Constitution apparently authorizes people not to swear their oath at all, protecting people who are atheist or agnostic.
Also, two Presidents have apparently affirmed, rather than sworn, their oath: Franklin Pierce and Herbert Hoover. Not sure what their religion was, though given the time they held the office, I imagine they were some sort of Christian denomination, so if they can affirm rather than swear their oath, why not others?
There's no law requiring that you have to swear upon the Bible to take office. Just took a quick glance in my encyclopedia and found where the Constitution requires to affirm or swear an oath, but it says NOTHING about doing so upon a Bible or any other religious text. I believe that was something done on the fly with Washington(along with the words "so help me God") that happened to stick.
To require anyone to swear upon a Bible if they are of a different faith or of no faith at all violates their constitutional First Amendment rights to hold a faith of their choosing with a governmental favoring of the Christian faith, which simply cannot be done in accordance with the very Constitution this person is swearing to uphold. I say if Ellison wishes to swear upon the Koran for his oath, that's HIS choice, and the government can NOT stop him, nor tell him to swear upon the Bible.
2006-12-02 03:53:47 · answer #1 · answered by Ophelia 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Jewish people have a Bible, its just the Old Testament. An atheist would not. If, as is apparent, Ellison is a Muslim, why would it make sense to have him swear on a book he wouldn't consider holy?
I think the whole swear on a Holy Book thing is nonsense any way. If it meant anything at all at one time it doesn't now. If God were going to strike down all those who swore with false testimony, there would be an uptick in deaths immediately.
Its done for form more than function.
And maybe a nice photo op.
2006-12-01 06:33:51 · answer #2 · answered by justa 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You won't be.
The bible and other books are 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.
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 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 03:01:00 · answer #3 · answered by Always 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually, he's not requesting that. It was a throwaway assertion from a reporter in Minneapolis with no basis. Here's why:
There is no use of a bible, Quran or anything when they swear in members to the House. Sometimes they will pose with one for a photo op, but there is nothing like that involved in the ceremony.
Also, if there was, it would be completely his option what to use because the Consitution explicitly states there will be no religious test for holding office, and making someone swear on a bible certainly would qualify.
As usual, this is much bluster and ado over nothing by the rigid and intolerant Right.
2006-12-01 06:31:58 · answer #4 · answered by ? 7 · 3⤊ 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 16:53:08 · answer #5 · answered by riverN 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Until now everyone has accpeted this as the custom according to the laws of the USA, which is based on rules that evolved out of the morality in the Bible. This is not forcing anyone to believe what is in the book, but an act of accepting our laws, that all politicians must swear to uphold and protect. The substitution of the Qu-ran is likewise symbolic or a desire to replace our laws with the Qu-ran inspired Sharia law, which those taking sides in this issue need to consider. Myself, as a male virgin that is neither gay nor female nor thief nor a Bible thumper trying to convert anyone, sharia law would harm me less than all the liberals embracing anything counter-Christian. For them the "morning after" is going to be a *****. I hope that things can be worked out peacefully, without surrender, but the world seems drifting further apart culturally with every act of violence in the name of "peace".
2006-12-01 06:37:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
A muslim would swear on the Quran, a Jew would swear on the Torah, And Christians on the Bible. Atheist don't get elected because they have no one to swear to. Atheist think they are as good as it gets and most of the US knows that isn't true.
2006-12-01 06:35:00 · answer #7 · answered by namsaev 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
That is one of several reasons why religion does not belong in government. Let him swear on what HE believes in for cryin out loud....even though the radical Muslims want us to convert to ISLAM, we should not force him to swear on a Christian Bible
2006-12-01 06:32:10 · answer #8 · answered by bconehead 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
i think it may have something to do with the fact that most north american laws actually come from christian natural law. (Which are laws of god) And since Christianity was the dominating religion in North America, when the constitutions and most laws were written, i'm going to assume that it is tradition to swear on the christian bible that you're answering all of your questions in good faith. (ie. fear of god)
That's just my guess.
2006-12-01 06:34:35 · answer #9 · answered by flycreature 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no, he should not swear on the bible, and he should no swear on the Koran. The bible is used as tradition, and should be kept as such. If people do not want to swear in on a bible, they have the option ot affirm....but they do not have the right to demand of the majority to provide them with a book that is not the choice of the majority to use in the ceremony.
2006-12-01 06:30:51 · answer #10 · answered by lundstroms2004 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋