"Freedom of religion"?
2006-12-01 12:41:31 · 17 answers · asked by thehiddenangle 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
That's freedom of religion. There's nothing wrong with that.
Speaking of religion and oaths. . .Why didn't they have George W. Bush take oath on a case of cash. Maybe then he wouldn't be such a failiure as president.
2006-12-01 12:51:28 · answer #1 · answered by LaissezFaire 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
All talk of "freedom of religion" aside, I'm afraid that, deep down, EVERYONE is really Christian or Jewish. This is how the universe has always worked, and any sensible democracy understands this. That's why the Sixth Amendment to the constitution reads, "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."
Wait, did I just write "no" religious test? I mean, um, "a Christian." That was probably the original meaning.
2006-12-01 13:00:48 · answer #2 · answered by lenoxus 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Muslim officals take their oath with hand on the Koran just like the Christian politicians putting their hands on the Bible when assuming office. It is freedom of religion but must concur with the same government.
2006-12-01 12:45:40 · answer #3 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Freedom of religion. (I'm a Christian.) Besides, what would be the point of having him put his hand on the Christian Bible to take an oath if it's not the book he follows?
2006-12-01 12:48:17 · answer #4 · answered by Jess H 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since the objective of an Oath is to ensure the person will be honest not do anything illegal while discharging his duties, any book/object that serves the purpose should be ok.
2006-12-01 12:52:58 · answer #5 · answered by ramshi 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
sounds like a theory from somebody of Buddhist mysticism or some jap appropriate philosophical device. The you maximum probable correlated to the ego, the "I" that we parade around in our each and daily lives. yet our actual selves, what's left after the ego has dissolved, exists in a sort of infinity. it quite is a eye-catching theory, it speaks to the grandeur of existence, the indoors-connectedness of all issues. you're right here, yet you're additionally everywhere at as quickly as.
2016-12-14 10:49:08 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think good for him, maybe he will take the oath he took more seriously since he did on the Quran.
2006-12-01 12:44:34 · answer #7 · answered by Perplexed 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Would it mean anything if a Muslim official put their hand on the Bible? I'd rather them put it on their article of faith.
2006-12-01 12:47:21 · answer #8 · answered by billy d 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it makes sense since swearing on a biblie wouldn't have meant anything to him and the purpose of that protocol is making a commitment,right?
hopefully he is intelligent enough not to take that as leeway to follow shariah instead of US rules.
2006-12-01 14:23:11 · answer #9 · answered by G 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In what country?
In the US I'd say that's fine.
The idea is that they are supposed to be vowing before God, based on their beliefs. He might not feel as bound if he vowed on the Bible.
2006-12-01 12:45:06 · answer #10 · answered by DAR 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋