Personally I think it would be a violation of religious freedom, and therefore un-American, to require officials to use only the Bible.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2006/11/28/america,_not_keith_ellison,_decides_what_book_a_congressman_takes_his_oath_on
2006-12-08 09:51:57 · 18 answers · asked by rollo_tomassi423 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Why don't they get sworn into office with their hands on the Constitution of the United States?
They are supposed to be sworn to uphold the CONSTITUTION, not the Bible, nor the Koran - nor any other religious book.
american wrote:
"I think that he should be free to worship whatever religion he wants to AFTER HE SWEARS HIS OATH TO OFFICE ON THE BIBLE."
so, you're in favor of somebody taking an oath of office by swearing on a book which holds absolutely no meaning for them?
then what's the point?
2006-12-08 10:08:00 · answer #1 · answered by tristanrobin 4 · 7⤊ 0⤋
You are correct sir. America is a place where pwoplw of all religions come together. Throught history, the elected officials have been sworn in my placing their hand on the bible. That was only for the presdency. But in the case of a Muslim who is an eletcted official, they dont have to place their hand on the bible. They are allowed to use the Qur'an. This therefore should promte religious openness in america.
2006-12-08 18:05:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Consider trials. Is anyone allowed to not swear in on a Bible? They are allowed to affirm instead of swearing, but I know of no exception to the use of a Bible. It might be considered tradition as much as anything else. Also consider that Muslims believe it is acceptable to lie to infidels. Guess who an infidel is....anyone not Muslim. A Koran would mean nothing in the sense of an oath if you are an "infidel". In that case, why not use a Bible. If it was another religion, it might mean something.
2006-12-08 18:10:18 · answer #3 · answered by Jack 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If he said the oath on a Bible it wouldn't mean anything to him.
He believes in the Koran. The oath is supposed to matter to the person making it.
2006-12-08 17:56:17 · answer #4 · answered by dakota29575 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋
No, I don't think it's unamerican to take the oath on the Qur'an.
What's unamerican is even having the practice of taking an oath on a religious book at all, since there is supposed to be separation of church and state!
2006-12-08 18:16:12 · answer #5 · answered by Squirrley Temple 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
> Personally I think it would be a violation of religious freedom, and therefore un-American, to require officials to use only the Bible <
Well, that's because you are a Godless communist heathen.
I take a crap on the Koran as a show of patriotism.
2006-12-08 17:59:21 · answer #6 · answered by robertbdiver 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
If the politician is a muslim sure why not. Long as they take the oath on something. Not that it means anything over 90% of politicians are corrupt and selfish as is.
2006-12-08 17:57:51 · answer #7 · answered by archkarat 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it would better support what America is SUPPOSED to stand for. The problem is that the majority Christians seem to believe that the only religious freedom you have is to be Christian.
THE NEXT TIME WE GET IN A WAR WITH A PREDOMINATELY CHRISTIAN NATION, I WANT TO CHRISTIANITY NAMED THE "RELIGION OF THE ENEMY" THE SAME WAY THE IGNORANT ARE DOING TO ISLAM. I WANT TO SEE CHRISTIANITY BECOME A RACE; I WANT TO SEE IT BECOME A BAD THING! Racist, Religist bastards!
2006-12-08 18:01:46 · answer #8 · answered by CAUTION:Truth may hurt! 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No. I've got no problem with it.
I was had to take an oath using the Koran, I wouldn't take the oath seriously as I'd just as soon wipe my *** with the book.
2006-12-08 17:56:26 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
No, since our Constitution allows religious freedom, no one religious text should be forced on anyone.
2006-12-08 18:00:05 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋