Should not the majority of the country be able to decide upon which format oaths shall be made?

Question

As the majority of the country are the ones being affected most by this oath, should they not decide the case? America is known for allowing INDIVIDUALIST freedoms, as much as possible, but
the representation of We The People is another matter, entirely.
The God of this country is a Judeo-Christian one, historically,
even though we have had Deists, Atheists, and others in office.
As the South (and many Northern Conservatives) found out during the Civil War, THE VOTE can change the founding fathers
view of the Constitution into a meaningless States Rights argument.
Yet, THE VOTE keeps it that way, to this day. So why should the majority have to bend to any minority opinion if they don't have THE VOTE? WE THE PEOPLE are not any more willing to give up our majority culture than any other nations are willing to part with their's. Why should we? We speak English. We
are Anglicized. Christianized. Civilized. Mr. Goode speaks for
a majority. Are we ashamed of our culture? Absolutely not

Answer 1

Mr. Goode doesn't speak for the majority. He may think he does, and a few people might buy into that, but he, and they, are wrong. The majority haven't forgotten that this nation was founded on religious freedom and that this right can be destroyed from within by short-sighted men like Congressman Goode and Dennis Prager.

The important thing is that Representative-elect Ellison was duly elected by the people of his state; that he take an oath to (or affirm that he will) "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic," "bear true faith and allegiance to the same," and "well and faithfully discharge the duties" of his office; and that he does so. The oath is the important thing. Period. Swearing that oath on a book is not required and relevant only to the individual. It doesn't make sense for a non-Christian to be required to take an oath on a Christian Bible any more than it would for a Baptist to take an oath on The Book of Mormon. That a Muslim-American should want to take his oath with one hand on the Qur'an makes perfect sense. It doesn't change the oath he is taking or the obligations that go with the office.

Freedom of conscience, people. Don't forget that. Innumerable patriots have given their lives that we might believe and worship as our consciences dictate. It's a valuable liberty. And like all valuable things, they must be protected. There's always someone ready to take them away.

> The God of this country is a Judeo-Christian one.

There is no "God of this country." There are many Americans who believe in the Judeo-Christian God, but that doesn't make such an entity the "official God" of the nation. Certainly the founders never meant it to be so. One's faith or moral philosophy is a personal matter.

Answer 2

Without a constitutional amendment or a radical departure from long settled constitutional law, it can't be just for the states. While family law has traditionally been the realm of the states, the full faith and credit clause of the constitution requires every state to give full faith and credit to the judicial decisions of every other state. Hence, if a court in New York rules that a marriage is valid, Alabama has to give full faith and credit to that judgment. This doesn't mean that Alabama has to solemnize gay marriages, but they must recognize the gay marriage of a couple that New York ruled as valid. (The same is true of divorce, the reason people always went to Reno to get divorced was that it didn't matter how restrictive their state was, that state was still required to recognize the Nevada divorce.) This creates a problem for the states rights people ( that most republicans used to pretend to be) in so far as if they argue for a federal ban on gay marriage they are interfering with states rights ( though they have proved they don't actually care about this though their interference with medical MJ and assisted suicide). The way around it is to ask for a constitutional amendment that creates a narrow exception to the full faith and credit clause. This won't get you passed the equal protection thing, but it will keep Alabama from being forced to recognize New York marriages.

Answer 3

Uh, sorry, you're wrong. Our Founders were mostly Deists. The Creator referred to in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is Jefferson's Deist God.

Besides, the Constitution does not allow for swearing of an oath on a religious text. If our elected representatives wanted to truly uphold and defend our Constitution, they would affirm their Oath of Office on a copy of the Constitution. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or preventing the free exercise thereof.

Answer 4

Mr. Goode does not speak for me, fortunately. And I hope that a majority of Congress -- the overwhelming majority, a very high percentage of it -- remember that the Constitution says that there shall be no religious test for holding public office in the United States and that we guarantee freedom of religion.

Mr. Ellison of Minnesota is a Muslim BY CHOICE. That is his right. We do not punish him for that choice, and we do not treat him worse than others because of the choice he made. Furthermore, Muslims in general are not our enemy -- terrorists are. Terrorists like Timothy McVeigh.

Are we ashamed of our culture if we allow Keith Ellison of Minnesota to take the oath of office by placing his hand on the Koran? No, not at all. You've got it backwards. We should be ashamed of ourselves if we don't obey our Constitution.

Answer 5

Oaths are personal. It would be pointless to have an atheist swear on a bible, because they don't consider it a holy book. Similarly, a muslim could care less about a copy of the bible, but takes seriously the swearing of an oath on the Quran.

Answer 6

Hate to burst your bubble but most of the founding fathers werent christian, and what good does it do to have one swear upon something they dont believe in. I am not a christian and resent your imposing your belief system upon me, espically since mine was here before yours, As an American Indian I have the right to practice my religion. Intolerance to others is not the way to convert people

Answer 7

With all respect to your argument, I think if a politician needs to use the oath which means the most to him/her, thats the way they should take it.

Answer 8

The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the MINORITY against the tyranny of the MAJORITY.

There's no reason to mess with it right now.