the first Muslim elected to Congress, found himself under attack last month when he announced he'd take his oath of office on the Koran
2007-01-03 13:10:00 · 15 answers · asked by m c 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
i dont have happy thoughts on this but i guess im old fashioned
2007-01-03 13:16:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
they do no longer take oaths on holy books. this may be a non starter. " whilst he's sworn in as a member of the a hundred and 10th U.S. Congress on Jan. 4, 2007, Congressman-choose Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) won't take the oath of workplace together with his hand on a replica of the Koran - or the different e book, in accordance to a spokesman for Ellison, the 1st Muslim ever elected to the homestead of Representatives. Ellison won't use any e book in the process the ceremony, Dave Colling, who served because of the fact the Minnesota Democrat’s marketing campaign supervisor, advised Cybercast information provider. “Neither will the different member of the homestead,” Colling further, considering the fact that “no person has ever taken the oath of workplace in Congress with a Bible, a Koran, a Torah or the rest.” somewhat, the individuals of the chamber are sworn into workplace as a set, Colling spoke of. “all of them enhance their maximum appropriate palms and repeat the oath that’s prescribed in the form.”
2016-10-29 22:46:08 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is the United States - absolutely founded upon the freedom of religion as a bedrock - I have a much bigger problem with the narrow minded slugs who find it bothersome that a Muslim would choose to swear upon the Koran rather than the Bible.
If you were to become a citizen and was elected to an office in Iraq, how would you feel about swearing into office on the Koran? Wouldn't the average Christian prefer the Bible?
Does that put all of this nonsense into perspective?
2007-01-03 13:19:43 · answer #3 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
As long as he remembers that he took an oath to defend the Constitution I do not have a problem with it. Besides, I thought that we had freedom of religion and the government could not establish a religion. Which means they have no right trying to tell him he cannot swear on the Koran.
2007-01-03 13:21:31 · answer #4 · answered by j 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
There is no issue, other than those that are bigoted.
In a brilliant move, he plans on taking the oath on a Koran owned by Thomas Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson owned a Koran!? Surely he must be an Al Queda sympathizer right Neo-Cons?
2007-01-03 13:18:06 · answer #5 · answered by amatukaze 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Using the Koran is the right thing to do. The oath could mean nothing if he were to use the Bible. I wish that some of the other congressmen would take their oath this seriously.
2007-01-03 13:15:28 · answer #6 · answered by Paul K 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No different than swearing an oath on a bible. Maybe even more meaningful since Muslims treat the Quran with absolute reverence, while many christians think nothing of placing bibles on the floor or other unclean places.
2007-01-03 13:14:21 · answer #7 · answered by ftapao 2 · 4⤊ 2⤋
To my knowledge , there is no law that states that it has to be the Holy Bible or the Thora .So what is all this fuss about if someone takes the oath using the Quran?
2007-01-03 13:14:38 · answer #8 · answered by pharaon82us 1 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Who cares what book he decides to desecrate by promising to be a lying politician on it??
any christian should love the idea, that it wasn't a bible he used!
2007-01-03 14:00:19 · answer #9 · answered by qncyguy21 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is an embarrassment and a disgrace to our great nation .to deny this man his freedom of religous choice. Obviously, the people who elected him were fine with it, so what gives?
2007-01-03 13:41:34 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Who cares all politicians in America are lazy despicable liars.
Go big Red Go
2007-01-03 13:12:32 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋