Keith Ellison from Minnesota whose election to the House will make him the first Muslim in Congress, plans to take his oath of office on Islam's holy book, the Koran,
He is not not be the first member of Congress to forgo a Bible. Rep. Debbie Schultz (D-Fla.) took her oath in 2005 on a Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible. In 1825, John Quincy Adams took the presidential oath using a law volume instead of a Bible, and in 1853, Franklin Pierce affirmed the oath rather than swearing it.
Congressman-elect Ellison has been criticized for his decision and some have said he should not be allowed to take his oath on the Koran.
What are your thoughts?
2006-12-09 04:04:56 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Two of the "bigots" (shell answer man's term, not mine) are conservative talk show host Dennis Prager and Tim Wildmon of The American Family Association in Tupelo, Miss.
2006-12-09 04:21:34 · update #1
i can't believe they are making a big deal of this. it's common sense if a person is a muslim he swear the oath on the Quran, otherwise you are forcing him to change his believes or give a fake oath. by swearing on the Quran it's a sign of honestly and he will really submit to the oath.
2006-12-09 04:09:43 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
They don't take oaths on holy books. This is a non starter. " When he is sworn in as a member of the 110th U.S. Congress on Jan. 4, 2007, Congressman-elect Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) will not take the oath of office with his hand on a copy of the Koran - or any other book, according to a spokesman for Ellison, the first Muslim ever elected to the House of Representatives. Ellison will not use any book during the ceremony, Dave Colling, who served as the Minnesota Democrat’s campaign manager, told Cybercast News Service. “Neither will any other member of the House,” Colling added, since “no one has ever taken the oath of office in Congress with a Bible, a Koran, a Torah or anything else.” Instead, the members of the chamber are sworn into office as a group, Colling noted. “They all raise their right hands and repeat the oath that’s prescribed in the Constitution.”
2016-05-22 22:58:02 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
OK, this irks me. Why can it not be enough that the man believes in God (and, presumably, is pious. . . yeah, yeah, a stretch for a politician, I know)? It is his right to swear his oath on the Koran. To bar him from doing so would be to show bias towards Islam. Anyone that thinks that is a good idea needs to re-read the Bill of Rights. Yes, the 1st Amendment refers specifically towards favoritism and establishment of an official religion, but it would be a narrow interpretation indeed (not to mention misguided) to construe this as permissive of an attempt to persecute/disallow a religion and its practices.
2006-12-09 04:12:15 · answer #3 · answered by DJL2 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
My opinon on this is that if a person does not believe in the Bible then an oath taken upon the Bible is useless. It is making a person swear by something they don't even believe in.
2006-12-09 04:15:38 · answer #4 · answered by tas211 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Why should he swear an oath on a text that he does not hold sacred, 100%?
Of course he should be able to swear on the text he holds closest to his heart. Doing otherwise completely misses the point in swearing on anything.
2006-12-09 04:23:47 · answer #5 · answered by CutiePie1707 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He should be allowed to take the oath on the Koran. The Bible has no meaning to him, it is not his holy book.
2006-12-09 04:06:44 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
You take an oath on the holy book of your religion.How can you take an oath on a book you do not believe in, is that not disrespecting that book?
It surprises me how supposedly intellectual people cannot see this simple point.
2006-12-09 04:12:10 · answer #7 · answered by Sherzade 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
if he swears on king James it wont mean nothing but if he swears on the Koran which is something he believes in then he will be taking a oath
2006-12-09 04:07:58 · answer #8 · answered by theessenceofrose 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
"has been criticized", "some have said", geez, what type of bigot is hiding from behind that passive voice?
The man takes the oath, not the book.
2006-12-09 04:07:59 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
A congressman should be elected in according to his/her abilities, not religions or races!
2006-12-09 04:10:01 · answer #10 · answered by Zifikos 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋