in Mr. Ellison. the muslim democrat who won a house seat? why or why not?
2006-12-21 03:22:38 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Thank you for your opinions
2006-12-21 03:22:55 · update #1
No, he is an ignorant jerk.
There is no religion test to serve as a elected official, and Ellison's district want him, a Muslim, to represent them.
What does swearing on a Bible mean, if the person does not respect the book? If I was not a Christian it would be like swearing on Plato's writings, or a history of the Jewish and early Christian people.
2006-12-21 03:31:29 · answer #1 · answered by kingstubborn 6 · 6⤊ 2⤋
Congressman Goode is way out of line here. Since the elected official is a Muslim it is only appropriate that he be sworn in on his particular book of faith. If he were Jewish I would think that a Talmud would be the book of choice and if he were an avowed atheist the some form of personal affirmation of honor would probably be acceptable.
The swearing in ceremony is really asking this person to offer their word as bond. A Christian asked to swear an oath on the Koran would not have as much symbolic meaning as it would if the Bible were used in that instance,,, and the comment about the "Fountainhead", I doubt that the writer of that oh so clever answer could even spell half the big words used in the "Fountainhead"
2006-12-21 04:43:58 · answer #2 · answered by kfc13571 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the way I see it, I wouldn't want a muslim swearing on the bible because then the oath is useless (granted its useless anyways)
the fact is, I would feel more comfortable that he would b sworn in using the Koran since he would take the oath more to heart .. the fact is this is completely unfair .. just because he was elected into congress, doesnt mean he should change his religion for god's sake! THIS IS AMERICA!!! land of the free ... does Goode remember that?
The same way muslim americans are sworn into citizenship using the koran, this guy should b sworn into government using the koran as well ... otherwise wats the point of being sworn in at all!
2006-12-21 06:59:40 · answer #3 · answered by Gahhhhhh 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
"This u . s . a . became according to non secular tolerance and freedom, so are not those people blatantly unamerican?" somewhat, they are nonetheless people (for they have each maximum surprising to assert and picture the way they do)---yet they are the risky style of people---the Nationalistic (aka uberPatriotic) team of people that singles out individuals who selection from their ideals and attack them with baseless lies and worry. maximum placed on epplets, pins (particulary lapel pins of the american Flag) and you would be able to even see some coach such nationalism by ability of advocating a "wall" being built all alongside the border of Mexico. (that's to no longer say i'm an propose of unlawful immigration however.....) we've seen many examples of this through the years. of course the Nazi's have been nationalists, the jap (throughout the time of and in basic terms until now WW2) have been nationalists---the Romans have been nationalists (for the time of the top of their empire), the French (decrease than the command and management of Napoleon on the time) have been nationalists----as have been the Cubans decrease than Fidel and the chinese language Communists decrease than Mao after China's "Cultural Revolution" interior the 1960's.
2016-12-11 13:38:16 · answer #4 · answered by vasim 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, he's not correct. Mr. Ellison is a Muslim and the Koran is the book of his faith. Him using it to be sworn in is fundamentally no different than a Christian using the bible, especially in a country that is non theocratic where everyone, supposedly, is free to worship how they see fit. The people who elected him knew he was Muslim and obviously didn't have a problem with that. Congressman Goode obviously does. Which point of view is more consistent with our traditions and constitution?
2006-12-21 03:31:21 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
Absolutely not. I believe that Mr. Goode did nothing in his letter but play down to individuals in his district who already held ignorant misconceptions about Islam. There are millions of peaceful Muslims living right here in the United States, right now. They are doctors, lawyers, educators, custodians, truck drivers, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, etc... The extreme majority of these individuals vehemently disagree with the terrorist actions either domestic or abroad and are indeed peace-loving citizens of this country. Rep. Goode's ignorant tirade has done nothing but bring to light the ignorant, but common, misconception that Islam is intrinsically violent and malevolent.
As to the individuals that argue one must be sworn in on a religious document that is simply false (reread the first amendment).
In response to the eloquent young man who stated that "we are not Iran" and that the US "was founded on Christianity" I suggest you pick up a copy of the constitution and a history book. The constitution itself explicitly prohibits state sponsored religion and a great number of our founding fathers were deists, not Christians.
2006-12-21 09:41:50 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I respect the honor of Congressman Ellison of swearing upon the Koran. What value is someone swearing upon something they do not recognise? For instance, whcih has more value; ME swearing upon my mother's grave or on taking an oath on YOUR mother's grave?
2006-12-21 03:41:40 · answer #7 · answered by mike s 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
The idea of swearing on the Bible only has meaning if the person swearing believes in Bible and Christianity...What is the purpose (other than for ceremonious reasons) of having someone that obviously does not follow Christian doctrine swear his allegiance upon that doctrine? Would it not make more sense to have him swear upon his book of faith? Wouldn't it mean more?
2006-12-21 03:58:47 · answer #8 · answered by smellyfoot ™ 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
All elected officials are now required to swear on a copy of Ayn Rand's Fountainhead before taking office.
2006-12-21 04:09:12 · answer #9 · answered by eatmorec11h17no3 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think he should be allowed to use it, ONLY because if he swore on a Bible, he may not feel convicted to uphold the duties of his post since he is swearing on a symbol of someone else's religion.
If I was in a Muslim country and won election of a public office I would want my Bible to swear me in to office. But then I'd probably have my hand chopped off afterwards.
2006-12-21 03:26:23 · answer #10 · answered by Bathroom Graffiti 5 · 9⤊ 2⤋