Why would this be controversal?

Question

Recently a American born Muslim man was elected as a member of senate (I believe it was senate). He caused a controversy because when he was sworn in he asked to place his hand on a copy of the Holy Quran, other than the Bible. Well commonly people usually swear on something they belive in. Why would this man swearing his oath on the Quran be so controversal? For him to swear on the Bible is like a Christian swearing on the Quran. Why do ppl. have to swear on the Bible in court anyways? Isn't there a separation of church and state in America??? I am confused.

Answer 1

They should swear on the Constitution. Swearing on a religious book is against the separation of Church and State just as you suggest.

The controversy was because many bigots have a problem with non-Christians in positions of power. Muslims are especially unpopular among bigots since we are at war with two Muslim nations and 9/11 was caused by Muslim terrorists.

Answer 2

It should not be controversial. They do swear (orally) to uphold the constitution. By putting his other hand on the Koran, I guess he was just trying to play up the significance of the fact that he's the first muslim. Can't fault him for that. It's about time that minority was represented in congress. And, of course, he's a politician so he always wants media attention.

As royal racer says, the Constitution does not explicitly mention "separation of church and state"; rather, it has been the courts which have ruled (at least so far!) that there is a kind of "wall separating church and state" within the Constitution, especially as a result of the first amendment.

Answer 3

Ask yourself where America's values come from?

If you are honest with yourself the answer will be the Bible--the crown of the Judeo-Christian tradition. So the whole swearing-in business is largely an affirmation (if symbolic) of America's proud value system. Obviously we are not a Christian theocracy. That's why Ellison was allowed to swear on a Quran. But it was a subtle dissention from what America stands for.

There's a charming story about Thomas Jefferson--perhaps our most famous non-believer. He was walking to church one day with a red Book of Common Prayer in his arm. A friend came up and asked him just what he was doing going to church since he was not Christian. Jefferson responded that America would fail if it wasn't a devoutly Christian country and what sort of an example would it be if Jefferson himself spurned that belief system. So go to church he did--every week! And this from a Deist!

Even liberal Jewish Barney Frank from Massachusetts swears on the Bible. It's because this country's bedrock is Biblical values and ideas. If we treat those as unimportant than America means nothing. Ellison could have affirmed those values by using the Quran. He chose not to (as our law allows). That's the controversy.

Answer 4

I listened to a talk radio station about that the other day and in fact some people have been sworn in to office with their hand on nothing. I think the main thing that show said that made sense was what their bible stood for and how that idea was not good for America. I can't remember all the stuff from that broadcast, but it made sense to me that a person should not have to put their hand on anything like that to be sworn in to an office. Why not use a law book rather than a specific religious one?

Answer 5

2 controversies:

1) Because they don't get sworn in on any book. They all stand up and take an oath, but nobody is holding any book. It was seen as if he were trying to go out of his way to make a point.It seemed odd for him to go out of his way to make this particular point because his constituents had elected him to represent them, not Muslim America. Most of them aren't Muslim.

2) It was controversial among Muslims because the Kuran he used was President Jefferson's who had used that Kuran to learn about Islam during the war against barbary pirates. He had come to the conclusion, quite publicly, that Islam was a clear and present danger to the USA.

And people do not have to swear on a bible in court. most do not anymore, nobody ever had to. If you didn't want to, they'd just administer an oath with your right hand up, and your left hand down.

You don't even have to swear. They will allow you to afirm.

Answer 6

This controversy was ignited and fanned by a theocratic talk show host and a fundamentalist congressman from southwest Virginia (Roanoke).

Honestly, it was a tempest in a media teapot.

In the ACTUAL swearing in, no one puts their hand on anything. They just raise their right hand and swear to uphold the constitution. In ceremonial swearings in, they can do whatever they like.

The congressman in question (Keith Ellison of Minnesota) borrowed Thomas Jefferson's copy of the Quran from the Library of Congress to use at his ceremonial swearing in.

.

Answer 7

It would be controversial for two reasons; one, Congress, a WASP dominated body, has enough problems accepting the PRESENCE of non-WASP people in "their" august body, and two, and here I have to confess a bit of agreement and sympathy, the Quran is the Holy book of those who perpetrated(or, "did", for the undereducated out there)9/11; what else did he think the natural response would be? It may not be fair, and it may not be politically correct, but it's understandable.

Answer 8

Separation of church and state is the ideal according to Baptist doctrine, but in practice ideals are not always realized.

Answer 9

All i can say is they have already taken prayer out of schools, and everywhere, and what is the Quran anyway??

Answer 10

I don't get it either. It only shows how insecure people are and that don't believe in the melting pot that American was created as.

~ Eric Putkonen