Ellison Taking Oath On Koran. What's The Problem?

[RestoreGore]

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2006/12/an_oath_on_kora.html

Per the Constitution of our country:


Article VI. - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No where in our Constitution does it even state that one must place their hand on any religious book to uphold their oath of office. As someone who believes in a supreme being and the teachings of Jesus Christ, I would go so far as to state that those taking oaths should instead have to place their hand on the Constitution itself since that is what they are swearing the oath to! It sure would alleviate these sniping sessions started by RW religious fanatics who can't get it through their heads that the United States of America is not a Christian nation but a nation that respects RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND DIVERSITY.

I see nothing wrong with Mr. Ellison choosing to take the oath of office on his religious book if he so chooses or holding it in a photo op. And if people weren't so ignorant they would know that Islam, Christianity, and the Jewish faith all worship the same God, they just have different names. Imagine... with all the problems we have in this country i.e. poverty, crime, our environment, our civil liberties, the war, and criminals running our government who should be impeached because they didn't UPHOLD THEIR OATHS even though they placed their bloody oily hands on the Bible, this is what people are now getting all in uproar about.

I don't think our forefathers would condemn him for speaking his conscience. To force everyone to conform to one religious code regarding ANY oath is not what our Constitution speaks of. Afterall, Bush put his hand on the Bible to take an oath he had no intention of respecting. Isn't the point of our government to have elected officials who actually RESPECT the oath they take regardless of what religious book they believe in?

[Captain Hilts]

1. Why don't people hold a copy of the Constitution? Why a Bible? nt

[northofdenali]

4. That's something I've always wondered, too.

Of course, logical politics is an oxymoron. Or is that oxymoran? :P

[Eric J in MN]

5. You're right. It would make more sense to hold the document...

...they're swearing to uphold.

[question everything]

16. Excellent point.

But then, we are a "Christian country" didn't you know?

:sarcasm:

[Eric J in MN]

2. Congress members DO NOT swear on books for official ceremony.

They hold up their right hands, with their left hands at their sides.

Later, for a posed photograph to symbolize the swearing-in, some of them hold Bibles.

[RestoreGore]

11. I don't think any oath should have to be on a Bible or really any religious book

So then to correct, he should then be allowed to hold the Koran for his photo op if he so chooses.

[Not Me]

3. Would people expect him to be married at a Christian church?

He is calling on what he believes to be the highest power.

[Warpy]

6. Members of Congress don't take an oath on anything

they just swear to uphold the Constitution, blah blah blah.

This is a tempest in a teapot born out of (what else?) ignorance on the religious lunatic right.

[Redstone]

7. Just another meaningless hoo-ha for the pinheaded rightwingers to get all

fucking lathered up over.

You have to remember, they can't stand it if they don't have something to be "outraged" over.

What a bunch of pitiful, pathetic losers.


Redstone

[jumpoffdaplanet]

8. Bogus story, he just doing a photo op later

The real swearing in is just on the constitution.

There have been tons of threads on this lie. How many times will people keep spreading this smear?

[RestoreGore]

10. And?

I'm simply stating my opinion that I have religious tolerance and DON'T see the problem with any of it. Don't read it if you don't like it.

[Erika]

9. Just another attempt by the rightwing to divide Americans

They haven't yet got the message from the election.

[Doctor_J]

14. That's it

Last year: war on Christmas. This year: Koran=Mein Kampf

[radfringe]

19. right-wing blather heads have nothing better to blather about

It's the wars of the season

War 1: War on Christmas
War 2: War on Penguins
War 3: War on Religious books
War 4: (fill in the blank)
and feel free to add to the stoooopid blather war list

[Captain Hilts]

12. Do they still make you swear on a Bible in court? etc. ? nt

[snowbear]

13. Wonder if Romney, Hatch & Reid were sworn in on the Book of Mormon?

...

[Catch22Dem]

17. No

I served on 4 juries this year, it's simply "raise your right hand...."

[Captain Hilts]

18. Interesting. Do they do the 'so help me God' line? nt

[Solon]

21. Depends on a person's choice...

The "So help me God" line isn't necessary or required, but many add it in, and being that most people in the country are Theists of one sort or another, the popular depiction of oaths is with the line added in.

[Marnieworld]

25. George Washington adlibbed "So help me God"

in his original oath of office and it's been traditionally repeated. Check the COnstitution though, the words are not part of the oath. I don't think we'll live to see the day when someone would have the courage or the lack of consequences to omit the phrase to reflect their own belief system.

[Catch22Dem]

22. Yes (n/t)

[Marnieworld]

24. My understanding is no

You have an option of a separate oath that says "under penalty of perjury" instead. Though depending on the circumstances of a witness being sworn in would it be chosen. I am an atheist so it would actually be dishonest of me to swear on a bible and since it's an oath about honesty that would be an important consideration no? Yet, I know that if I were in a circumstance where there could be a predjudice against me for not taking the bible oath, such as dependence on a jury's impression of me I would probably would just go along to get along. That's what non-believers do everyday.

As for this original story about Ellison, it's a manufactured bigoted controversy based on an assumption not fact. Congress members do not swear with any religious text, Bible or otherwise and they never have. Complete ignorance easily checked.

[leesa]

15. They don't take the oath on a religious book. They just raise their hand.

[eppur_se_muova]

20. Not what, WHO. One guess. nt

[beaconess]

23. SNL: he needs to take his oath on the Bible - just like Foley and DeLay and Ney did

:-)