"I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped."
-Virgil Goode
Does he not realize that the values and beliefs of the United States of America involve freedom of religion? This whole debacle came from a Muslim being elected into Congress. Goode was threatened by the thought of the Muslim being sworn in with the Quran instead of the Bible. Do you think that a person should be sworn in with the Bible, or with the holy book of their choice?
2006-12-22 04:17:13 · 19 answers · asked by robtheman 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
umm ayman - while I agree with your statement, it is completely irrelevant to the question.
2006-12-22 04:26:23 · update #1
I believe it's his right to chose whatever he wishes to be sworn in with, however in my opinion they should all be sworn in on either the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights. They are taking an oath to defend the Constitution and not to defend the bible or the quran.
2006-12-22 04:25:17 · answer #1 · answered by Sailinlove 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋
I think it makes no sense that someone is sworn in with a holy book he doesn't believe in. I suppose that most Christians would refuse to be sworn in with the Quran, so why is a Muslim supposed to be sworn in with the Bible? But actually I don't like the whole idea that people have to be sworn in with holy books, because there are people who don't believe in any religion (that includes me). I thought that state and religion should be seperated, so why are holy books used for this? It should be the constitution.
2006-12-22 04:25:20 · answer #2 · answered by Elly 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It seems that most on this board are ignorant of the constitution and/or this country's historical founding fathers.
Almost all of the men who signed the Constitution were devout Christians. They believed that the rights and liberties we experience were endowed by their Creator, what we recognize as the God of the Holy Bible.
Whether you like it or not, this country was founded on Christianity. The process of being sworn in is about more than just some vain attempt at obtaining truth from those involved. Being sworn in is about pledging allegiance and becoming subject to the founding ideals of this great nation.
Yes, some oathtakers may fail to tell the truth, or live up to the promises made, regardless of the book on which they took their oath. And yes, those who reside in this country are free to personally practice the religion of their choice.
However, this country was founded on the ideal that man could experience hope, liberty and personal freedom, all the while being subject to the omnipotent power of the Bible's Almighty God.
Like it or leave it, you should NOT be taking an oath of obedience to the US Constitution if you aren't willing to do it on a Holy Bible.
If you've forgotten or never understood this, go back and educate yourself before proposing that the leaders of this nation pledge themselves to religions never recognized by the founding fathers as anything other than pagan.
2006-12-22 04:56:34 · answer #3 · answered by A Calm Voice of Reason 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Given my personal druthers, and in the interests of fostering the unity of ALL Americans, I'd prefer to see all officeholders sworn in on the Constitution of the United States-----as a sign that they ARE supposed to be working under a secular headship, and that no religious faith should have primacy. The Constitution _is_ the Great Law of the people!
But if someone really insists on being sworn in on a religious text, they should be able to choose one that is meaningful to them.
HOWEVER......what might happen in the future, if a dedicated White Power activist gets elected, and wants to be sworn in on the "White Man's Bible", claiming it as his/her religious text? It'd be awfully hard to argue against precedent, that "well, we've tolerated faiths A, B, and C, but D is marginal and E is RIGHT OUT". Be careful what you ask for; you might get it.
(That's the other reason why I'd prefer to see the Constitution used as the basic text used for any sort of oath-swearing.)
2006-12-22 04:34:15 · answer #4 · answered by samiracat 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well i call that racism .sorry to say !!! that muslim member has all the rights to take oath on his religious book.Even in our muslim country christains are given this right and also they can not only vote for their minority memeber but also can vote for the muslim majority seat.So why can't america tolerate that a muslim wanted to take oath on quran?? what i know is that in America religious freedom is given more than other european countries and they are not humiliated as they are in France and England etc so i guess Virgil Goode should get some sense, Islam is not at all any danger to America, and infact He realy can't stop American getting converted to islam that fastly..they can restrict their immigration policies but can't stop their own peoples getting converted.
2006-12-22 04:45:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hypothetical answer; A Muslim might want to "choose" to swear on the Bible because Muhammed's Quran qualifies the Bible that got here beforehand the Quran! besides the indisputable fact that that's basically Hypothetical because there are quite some contradictions interior the Quran because it did "not" come from "the most severe God"!!! with the help of ways; if you're so mesmerized with the help of the Quran and Muhammed, you need to go away this u . s . that replaced into in accordance to Judeo Christian concepts and also you need to bypass stay with the "Taliban"!
2016-12-01 02:16:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I feel an elected official should be sworn in using whatever book he or she chooses. Some Presidents chose not to use the bible at all.
But my biggest question is what happen to separation of church and state?
2006-12-22 05:27:38 · answer #7 · answered by winner1 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the swearing in on a book is not actually apart of the process of becoming a congress man. It is only for photos.
But to answer your question he should be able to swear in on any book he chooses. President John Adams used a law book, Jewish congressmen have used the Talmud. It should not matter if it is a Quran, bible, law book or the Talmud if the man is swearing on a book he believes in.
2006-12-22 08:51:26 · answer #8 · answered by Said 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Bible is meaningless to Jews and Muslims so yes a Muslim should be allowed to be sworn in on the Qur'an.
2006-12-22 04:23:51 · answer #9 · answered by robedzombiesoul 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Obviously, the Holy Book, which they Hold Sacred. I am sure that Jewish politician doesn't get sworn in over a Bible, rather a Torah!
2006-12-22 04:25:51 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋