I Swear... sort of...

A Book by Any Other Name?

December 12th 2006 18:06

Keith Ellison (D-Minn)was recently elected to the US Congress. He is the first Muslim to be voted into office. As his first act, he is insisting on taking his oath of office by placing his hand on the Koran, not the Bible. Boy, you can tell he loves his country and wants to work with others, can't you? I don't care what religion he is, the oath of office has always been taken on the Bible and he shouldn't be allowed to change it. Jews are sworn in on the Bible even though they don't subscribe to the New Testament. Christian fundamentalists are sworn in with the whole Bible, even though the are dedicated to the New Testament and not the Old. Name a Mormon who insisted on being sworn in with the Book of Mormon? There isn't one. What I'm saying here, folks, is that being voted into any high office means that your personal beliefs are still yours, but you swear your allegiance on the Bible because it is the Holy Book of the USA. You can't change that. Personal religious views have no bearing on the swearing in ceremony. It has always been done with the Bible and should not be stopped, ever. The Bible adds a solemnity to the occasion that can't be found in any other book. Mr. Ellison will undoubtedly distinguish himself as a good Muslim in spite of the country he is supposed to serve. Allowing him to use the Koran will serve no purpose other than backing down to a Muslim and giving him free rein to hold his "religion" above the best interests of the country.

Vote

subscribe to this blog

follow this blog on Orble

start your own blog

[ Link ]

Posted By: S.L. - Category: No Category

Related Posts:

Relate This Post

[ Previous - In the Ukraine ]

[ Next - Nancy Pelosi, One More Time ]

Comments

29 Comments. [ Add A Comment ]

Comment by Devil's Advocate

December 12th 2006 19:40

You've missed the purpose of the tradition...and even why we allow relgious books into our political observance. We allow such a thing because we want men and women who take office to swear an oath on that in which their faith rests. I applaud the Congressman elect for understanding that his oath means more when he swears that oath on something that matters to him as opposed to on an item of trasition which owuld have no meaning if it were not the religious book of his choosing.

Comment by S.L.Bradish

December 12th 2006 21:54

Hello D.A. How about if someone wants to swear on the Hobbit books? Would that be acceptable to you? They have a very serious following as I understand it. Maybe the Harry Potter books? NO. The rule is to swear on the Bible and it's wrong to Muslimize our country that way. Hell, he was elected as a Democrat for goodness sakes. Do you really expect him to honor any vow he makes, anyway?

Comment by Devil's Advocate

December 12th 2006 23:06

Let a man swear by that which is important to him, not by that which he percieves as important to others, for what is important to him is no doubt more important in his mind than what is important in the minds of others. it is no more wrong to mulsimize our country than to Christianize it. We cannot claim a value of separating church and state while simultaneously doing all in our power to maintain an adherence to relic traditions to a certain theocratic order. I would rather that our leader swore to no article of allegiance, save that of the flag, but barring that, it is in order that a man swear his allegiance according to the faith that he believes.... and not the ne we might wish him to believe.

Comment by S.L.Bradish

December 13th 2006 00:19

Sorry, D.A. I can't agree at all. If he's so set on being a good Muslim before being a good American, he can always move and go to a perfectly Muslim country. Iran leaps to mind. But, sadly he wasn't elected there. He was elected (unfortunately) in America and he can swear his oath according to American traditions. I'm sure he won't turn into a pillar of salt if he does. On the other hand...

Comment by Devil's Advocate

December 13th 2006 00:57

You just want him to be a good Christian. Let's face it Mrs. Bradish. There is NOTHING remotely American about the Bible.

Comment by Devil's Advocate

December 13th 2006 00:59

Stop trying to turn my Democratic Republic into a Theocracy.

Comment by S.L.Bradish

December 13th 2006 01:08

No theocracy here D.A. It's a long-standing American tradition to swear on the Bible. This country, while not in any way a theocracy, was founded on the beliefs and principles in the Bible, not the Koran. The Ten Commandments (not the 10 suggestions) are the basis of most of our laws. Since the senators and congressman (and women) are swearing to uphold those laws, and defend the Constitution, it is only reasonable for them to swear on the book behind most of those laws. They aren't swearing to blow up civilians and kill innocent people at every opportunity. For that, they can use the Koran.

Comment by Devil's Advocate

December 13th 2006 01:33

The Bible is not the basis for our Republic. In fact, a disagreement over the Bible was the basis for the colonization that led to our Republic. There is a reason we have a separation between Church and State. If it were me, no one would swear upon any "holy book", as the Bible clearly states that we should not swear on anything, but that we should simply let our yes be yes and our no be no. IF, however our public servants in this land of the FREE feel they must swear and oath, I would rather that that oath give at least the appearance of meaning something more than that a ritualistic tradition has taken place. The man is not a Christian. he is a Muslim. To expect a Muslim to swear an oath on a book in which he does not believe rings hollow, untrue, and smacks of establishiment of a State Religion.

Comment by S.L.Bradish

December 13th 2006 01:52

Honestly, D.A.... You amaze me. The Pilgrims came here for the purpose of having freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM it. If you think that the Bible played no part in the founding of this country, you should really learn a little about history. Seperation of Church and state was to prevent new rulers from forcing the religion of the month on the population. All religions were accepted and permitted. The standards upon which the laws were based were the Ten Commandments. You know, Don't kill, don't steal, ect. On our currency it says "In God We Trust". All the founding fathers were church goers and wrote extensively on the subject of religion and it's place in a free society. The Bible is basically a book of peace (with some notable exceptions) while the Koran, regardless of its original intent, is now used as an excuse for wholesale slaughter of innocents. The Bible is the book that Americans have always used and swapping it out for the Koran or any other book is just plain wrong.

Comment by Devil's Advocate

December 13th 2006 02:02

Have you ever read the Koran? I have. It's amazingly more peaceful than the Bible. I have read that too. I don't buy as much of the Koran as I do the Bible, but it certainly is more peaceful. Furthermore, you certainly do not want to compare the Bible to the Koran in terms of the wholesale slaughter of Innocents. The Bible will lose that one hands down in multiples. Drawing a conclusion that the Bible is America's Holy book flies inthe face of the principals on which this country was founded, and if the country were to try to enforce the Bible as the Nation's Holy book, I would be the first one to join the opposition... with WEAPONRY. It's not that am against the Bible. It is that I am PRO-America... I am PRO-Freedom. A muslim man swearing on the Bible may as well simply take a piss on the constitution and the principles on which this nation was founded. I find it hard to believe any patriotic American could be so blind as to the see value in the freedom afforded to all Relgions. You want freedom from Islam, and you thinkg the solution for finding that freedom is the Bible. Sorry. It doesn't work that way. A nation that prtests your right to be a Christian and to swear the oaths of your life based on your given faith is the same nation that protects the Congressman elect's right to swear out the oaths of his life based on the deep seated faith of his life. If you don't like it, run against him.

Comment by S.L.Bradish

December 13th 2006 02:51

If the Koran is "peaceful" then I guess all the homicide and suicide bombings were acts of friendship, right? It sure seemed "peaceful" when those planes crashed into the Towers, Pentagon and the field in Penn. Boy, that's one seriously "peaceful" religion, isn't it? If he's taking office in the United States, he can damn well swear the oath like everyone else does. If he wants to swear on his precious Koran, he can move to Iran and swear on it while he blows himself to bits. (Preferrably alone.)

Comment by Devil's Advocate

December 13th 2006 06:25

Have you ever READ the Koran???? Just because a few thousand of the hundreds of millions of people who practice Islam misinterpret the Koran and go apeshit doesn't mean the religion is violent any more than Fred Phelps and his gang of people who angrily protest at the funerals of fallen sodiers in the name of Jesus are indicitive of the heart of Christianity. The Koran didn't tell people who happen to be Muslims that they should fly planes into buildings any more than the Bible told Christians to run the Crusades of old or the inquistion, or any other number of comapaigns in the name of Jesus that have resulted in millions of deaths of innocents throughout history. I suspect that you have not read the Koran... that you will instantly call it garbage, because it's easier than ever finding out that maybe you misjudged someone... and harder still to admit that you may be issueing a book report on a book you have not read. For that matter, have you ever read the WHOLE Bible? Most haven't. It's easy to spit out angry opinions against horrible injustice based on your ability to piece together soundbited that fall in line with the party line. It takes a true intellectual to actually do the full research. Have you done that research?

Comment by youranter

December 13th 2006 10:52

youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern

Sorry SL, but I've got to sort of go with DA on this one. Apart from all the ravings, he does make a good point. There is a religion, sorry but I forget which one, that when they are in a court of law do not swear on the Bible. Their word is taken as their bond and they are assumed believable. If the man wants to swear on a Koran, let him. He believes in it at least. Over here, our elected officials, both provincial and federal, don't have to swear any oath of allegiance to queen or country. How sorry is that?
Didn't see that one coming, didya, DA?

Comment by S.L.Bradish

December 13th 2006 13:43

I see your point, Youranter. But my main concern is that electing a Muslim during the War on Terror (most of the terrorists are Muslim extremists, after all) and holding up the Koran instead of the Bible for the Oath of Office... It just makes me wonder what he's really swearing to or by... The whole thing creeps me out. We didn't elect nazis during WW2 and have them swear on "Mein Kampf" or communists during the Cold War and let them swear on their "Manifesto". Maybe it's a kind of prejudice. I consider it self (and country) preservation.

Comment by youranter

December 13th 2006 17:02

youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern

True enough SL. The leader of our federal Liberal party holds both French (as in France) citizenship along with Canadian citizenship. If he gets elected and Jacques Chirac comes by for a visit, where will his loyalties lie? With France or Canada. There is a great hue and cry about abolishing dual-citizenship, and rightly so, I believe. Swearing on the Koran doesn't pose a great problem for me. You'll know his true colours soon enough. Muslims are a growing force world wide and we can't just ignore them. Out of their total population, I would hesitate to call the majority of them terrorists. Like teenagers, the rotten eggs get the headlines. Can't you impeach your reps like you can the prez? If so, there shouldn't be lot to worry about. If this guy turns out to be a jerk, turf him.

Comment by Devil's Advocate

December 13th 2006 18:09

While most Terrorists are Muslim, it cannot be argued that most Muslims are terrorists, any more than it can be argued that most Christians believe as Fred Phelps does. The best way to win the war on terror is to make a clear distinction that let's Muslims know we don't have a problem with them... just the people who want us killed that also claim Allah as their God. The more we try to make this a religious war, or get sucked into allowing it to be a religious war, the bigger the war will get. This is not a war on Islam, and nor should it be.

Comment by youranter

December 13th 2006 19:29

youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern

Granted DA, but when you get through all the political BS, what war was not fought over religion?

Comment by Devil's Advocate

December 13th 2006 21:58

The Vietnam war.... fought over idealsim... Capitalism vs. Communism. Same in North Korea. Just Becasue God's name gets mentioned alot doesn't mean it's a relgious war.

Comment by youranter

December 13th 2006 23:15

youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern

Sorry DA but if you go back a bit farther you'll see the French were in Viet Nam before the USA. And doesn't fighting godless communism, as in both Viet Nam and Korea, with capitalistic God fearing sodiers qualify as a war of religion? One side seems to have it, the other doesn't.

Comment by S.L.Bradish

December 14th 2006 00:02

Bingo, Youranter! Most wars are either fought for real estate or religion. Sometimes you can't tell the difference. In the end, they all break things and kill people. Sometimes, however, a war is fought for freedom. Like the Revolutionary War for example. Or the war to free Kuwait from Sadam. Or our War on Terror, it was fought for freedom from terrorists.

Comment by youranter

December 14th 2006 11:13

youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern

The Revolutionary war was fought under the guise of taxation without representation. But go back a few years and see what brought the Pilgrims over in the first place. They didn't necessarily want to be held under the Church of England's iron fist. After that war, the Americans thought separartion of church and state was a good idea and allowed everyone the freedom to practice whatever religion they wanted. The war in Kuwait was a war against Saddam. The Kuwaitis were pretty much helpless and the USA went over to help them out. Although both Iraq and Kuwait are Muslim countries, I think Kuwait is more tolerant of differing religions than Iraq was or is. The War on Terror is Christians vs Muslims, just like during the crusades. In fact, we have been called Crusaders by them for a reason. The Muslims started the whole thing on 9/11 by wanting the USA to submit to them and become Islamic. By trying to do what his father didn't, GWB is saving Israel from getting bazooka'd off the face of the planet. Jews vs Muslims. Again, a religious thing.

Comment by S.L.Bradish

December 14th 2006 11:21

You said it better than I did!

Comment by Black_Warrior

January 22nd 2007 10:19

well you have put forward your argument quite well by giving the example of the Jews and the Mormons! My point is.. its not necessary that what has been going on for a long time is what is correct!! If the custom has been that all people have to swear on the Bible regardless of their religious faith..then thats wrong and UNdemocratic and people from other faiths should be allowed to swear on the their religious books, which includes Jews should be allowed to swear on their Old Testament and Muslims should be allowed to swear on their Koran! America claims to be a secular country with equal rights for every citizen regardless of their religious faith, hence non Christians should NOT be forced to swear on the Bible. Thats democracy or rather thats what democracy SHOULD be!!

Comment by S.L. Bradish

January 22nd 2007 10:33

People can swear on or at whatever they like on their own time, Black Warrior. My point is that the tradition of using the Bible for swearing in ceremonies should be honored. If a newly elected official can't respect the position he has been elected to by following the rules, he shouldn't be in office in the first place.

Comment by youranter

January 22nd 2007 10:42

youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern

Strange how Jews or Mormons have no trouble swearing an oath on the Bible. Let's see, the Torah follows most of the Old Testament anyway, so why shouldn't a Jew swear on it? The Book of Mormon was derived from writings in the Bible, so why should a Mormon object to swearing on it? The Koran twisted the whole Old Testament/New Testament thing by having a loving society turn into an eye for an eye crowd. There should still be no objection from a Muslim to swear on it. Just turn it over, upside down so he can be closer to the Old Testament laws of what your brother does to me, I will do to you, rather than the New Testament laws of love your neighbour and forgive him his trespasses.

Comment by Black_Warrior

January 22nd 2007 23:52

If Jews or Mormons dont have an issue swearing on The Bible then good for them! Just because the Jews dont have an issue does not mean the Muslims shouldnt have any issues either! SL Bradish..I understand that swearing on the Bible is a tradition but what I am saying is if it is forced on people regardless of their religious beliefs, then its not a very good tradition and something that needs to be looked at carefully!!

Comment by S.L. Bradish

January 23rd 2007 01:59

Hello Black Warrior... O.K. Let's try this again. The formal swearing in ceremony is with the BIBLE, whether the swearee is a believer or not. In their private ceremonies they can swear on a Superman Comic for all I care. It's a matter of respect that you uphold the traditions in the formal ceremony. Everyone has managed to do it so far, and I don't see why a Muslim should be excluded from the tradition. Unless, of course, they are some sort of "sacred cows" who don't have to abide by any other laws, either.

Comment by youranter

January 23rd 2007 10:03

youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern

Muslims want to be seen as being different I suppose. They want their own schools, paid by the general tax fund. They want teachers to teach their children in their native tongue, rather than English, again paid by the general tax fund. Muslim cab drivers don't want to drive clients who have had too much alcohol or who might have a dog with them. They want Christmas trees hidden and Nativity scenes removed, because it offends them. The list goes on. Why can't they begin to assimilate a bit instead of making sure they stand out from the crowd at every turn? This swearing in ceremony just goes to keeping us apart longer.

Comment by S.L. Bradish

January 23rd 2007 10:16

Right again, Youranter. They refuse to become part of society, try to make the host country bow to their will, and then pitch a fit when nobody likes them. It seems sometimes like they even have to invent things to be offended by and imagine "hate mongers" every where they look to justify their bad attitudes.

[ Previous - In the Ukraine ]

[ Next - Nancy Pelosi, One More Time ]