Keith Ellison, who will become the first Muslim member of Congress next month, wanted to use the Koran to swear into office instead of the bible. The decision has been made that he wont use either now but what do you think?... should he be allowed to use the Koran?... Should there be no bible or Koran being that church and state aren't suppose to have anything to do with each other?
2006-12-02 14:26:33 · 25 answers · asked by TJ815 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I don't think they should have to swear on anything, but that'll never happen.
My dad and I were discussing this tonight, and he said that Ellison should say simply, "You elected me to represent the people truthfully and honorably. But if you ask me to swear on a book that I don't believe in, you are asking me to lie to everyone, including myself. I would be dishonoring myself, my religion, and the Christian religion. So, which would you rather have me do?"
Or just get all of the religious texts and have him swear on all of them. :)
2006-12-02 14:30:31 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
swear not by heaven or earth... I don't know, dose the Quran prohibit it(the bible seems to be against taking oaths altogether) if not he has the freedom to do it if he wants. Also the the wall of separation,although prohibiting the state support of a given church i.e. a denomination, is there to protect the church(s) that would be excluded as well as the church that would come under the con troll of the state and is not in any way a banning of religion from politics & government for if it did infact mean that the artical would controdict itself becuase it also states ,the free exicise of religion may not be... well your smart you understand or you have an agenda.
2006-12-02 15:09:22 · answer #2 · answered by sean e 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The problem with this whole affair is that people don't know the Constitution. Congress people have never sworn in on the Bible. Certain right-wingers just want to make a thing about a Muslim man becoming a Congressman. They need to get over it, check their racist hats at the counter, pick up a copy of the Bill of Rights and go straight to the freedom of religion and separation of church and state parts.
2006-12-02 14:40:00 · answer #3 · answered by mirandalime 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
"This u . s . a . replace into per non secular tolerance and freedom, so are not those people blatantly unamerican?" definitely, they're nonetheless individuals (for they have each stunning to declare and picture the way they do)---yet they're the risky variety of individuals---the Nationalistic (aka uberPatriotic) group of individuals that singles out people who fluctuate from their ideals and attack them with baseless lies and concern. maximum positioned on epplets, pins (particulary lapel pins of the yank Flag) and additionally you will even see some teach such nationalism via advocating a "wall" being built all alongside the border of Mexico. (it is to no longer say i'm an advise of unlawful immigration nonetheless.....) we've seen many examples of this over the years. needless to say the Nazi's have been nationalists, the eastern (throughout and merely before WW2) have been nationalists---the Romans have been nationalists (during the top of their empire), the French (under the command and management of Napoleon on the time) have been nationalists----as have been the Cubans under Fidel and the chinese language Communists under Mao after China's "Cultural Revolution" in the 1960's.
2016-12-29 19:52:04 · answer #4 · answered by rankins 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Given the Bill of Rights ensures Freedom of Religion and he is a Muslim, he should be entitled to it. At least he isn't like some of our leaders who swear on Bibles and then go out in secret and participate in Satanic rituals.
2006-12-02 14:33:23 · answer #5 · answered by Maurice P 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't have a problem with it. Freedom of religion is one of our most precious freedoms. I wonder who decided it would be better to just not use either one? It's really a matter of choice in this country. In court, one does not have to swear on a Bible before giving testimony for instance.
2006-12-02 14:54:49 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I saw something similar to this being discussed on I think CNN a few weeks back.. What do people of different faiths or even athiests do when going to court.. Obviously they (athiests) have no feelings about swearing on a bible, or those of non christian beliefs... so they explained that there is a sort of oath they say that doesnt have God or religion in it for those of no faith.. You are sort of on your honor system to tell the truth..
2006-12-02 14:31:03 · answer #7 · answered by Mintee 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If atheists can swear on the bible he can. If he doesn't accept the precepts and traditions that this nation was founded on then he has no business being in congress.
2006-12-02 20:46:11 · answer #8 · answered by .45 Peacemaker 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Personally, I wouldn't want someone swearing on a book they don't believe in. That would seem very hypocritical to me. We have freedom of religion here and he should be able to swear on whichever book represents his beliefs the best.
2006-12-02 15:00:24 · answer #9 · answered by davega7 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it makes sense to get rid of both the bible and koran and ask all government officials to swear a non religious oath or affirmation.
2006-12-02 14:42:46 · answer #10 · answered by the wise one 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋