Senator wants to be sworn in on the Quran. Unamarican?

1970RR

How does Prager balance his "requirement" of swearing on the bible w/ the Constitutions prohibition of religious "tests"?

Article VI clearly states "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.

trappedinmyradio

since there is a separation of church and state...why is he being sworn in on anything other than his word? why is he being sworn in at all? he was elected. it's done. but, since they are intermingling the two things then he should be sworn in on the koran...because, another thing is this - there is NO discrimination based on religion in this free country.

soulsinging

cutback wrote:

That is the most unAmerican thing I think I've ever heard.

i second that. if we have to swear on something, why not use the constitution from now on? we can avoid this religious bickering and maybe it would encourage some of our reps to actually read that document they're supposed to be upholding... i can dream cant i?

soulsinging

miller8966 wrote:

Completely wrong. They were hardliners wanting more strict of an interpretation of the bible.

The bible is american tradition....keep it

you're a hypocrite. i bet you'd be screaming bloody murder if we removed under god from the pledge. but guess what? it was added in 1950... it was not in the original "tradition." but im guessing you didnt have a problem with that change of american tradition. you dont give a damn about tradition, you care about making sure your religion runs the government.

norm

Abuskedti wrote:

whew.. I was scared people would think there was something wrong with this.. so far I am encouraged

I told you so.

miller8966 wrote:

The bible is american tradition....keep it

norm

hippiemom wrote:

Oh, how I wish it were so. A sampling of the many supportive responses to his article:

"So you would not mind a Satan worshiper swearing by the Satanic Bible or a what if a politician wants to swear on JRR Tolkins Lords of the Rings or Mao's little red book ~ no ? why not ? and despite the wish of the first two liberals who think that it is outdated and provicial I say "so what" who cares what you want ! I want it the way it is and will lobby to have it stay ~ by the way if they had asked O.J. to swear to tell the truth the whole so help him L. Ron Hubbard would you have said "hey thats not right"? or would you have said its his right to swear on any ol book he like its none of my business how he shows that he will follow the rules laid down to assertain someones sincerity?"

"You said everything I wanted to say. I had this suspicion that when Ellis got elected soon after we would hear something about his trying to change something more to his Muslim liking. I worried when he was running that this was the Muslims first step inside the Big door. Now they have one of their own within our government. His campaign was also financed by Islamic terrorist organizations."

"Pledging an oath to elected office by swearing to it with your hand on the bible is one of the traditions of this country. If you can't find it in yourself to complete this simple symbolic act, don't run for office. I too am tired of the bs multicultural hubris exemplified by Ellison's intentions. I live in California and I am frankly tired of my election ballots being printed in 6 different languages."

"IT'S STARTING!!!! I've been saying this over and over but hear goes again: Louis "Calypso Boy" Farakhan said and I quote: "A Muslim is a Muslim, there is no such thing and there never will be American Muslims or Muslim Americans, just as there are no French Muslims or Muslim French just as there are no British or German Muslims, it's either you're a Muslim or you're not".
So Mr. Ellison being a Muslim living in America will not conform-What we do next and how this needs to be dealt with is extremely critical."

"Karl, I read that Ellison was involved with Gangs. Whether his wife claims to be a Christian or not, that does not make him moderate or saved. If he is a Muslim, then she is unequally yoked as the Bible warns against. Ellison must not be allowed to change the book of swearing in or we open a door. Lets See, Larry Flynt gets elected swearing in on Hustler, or one of the Enron Executives get elected and swears in on the SEC Rules book. This is absolute Horse Poop!"

"I don't care if he swears on a Bible or not, (its traditional only, and not a law) but he should not swear on the Koran, a book that advocates the violent spreading of Islam."

"If, Keith Ellison, the muslim, little "m", refuses to take an oath on the Bible, large "B", then he should be refused a seat in the United States House of Representatives, large "U,S,H,and R". This country was not founded on the god, little "g", of islam, little "i", but on the one and only true God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that is the God of Judaism, the precursor to Chritianity ushered in by Christ, Himself. To permit Mr. Ellison to do anything other than take the oath on the Bible, would be a mockery to this nation, it's government and everything it stands for, just a further slide down the slippery slope."

This really frightens me.

miller8966

icarus wrote:

the pilgrims were separatists who wanted to practice differently than what the church of england mandated. they left england to practice their own form of worship without being ordered by the state to practice a certain way."

Than they came to america and ordered everyone else to practice christianity. This is a christian nation my friend.

He should be sworn in on the bible or not sworn in at all.

norm

miller8966 wrote:

Than they came to america and ordered everyone else to practice christianity. This is a christian nation my friend.

He should be sworn in on the bible or not sworn in at all.

Oh give me a small fucking break!

miller8966

cutback wrote:

Oh give me a small fucking break!

This is why you have to love america...because well probaly allow this to happen. Imagine if this guy was in a muslim country...they would have taken his head off.

Pacomc79

know1 wrote:

If he's Muslim, I'd rather have him swear on the Koran than the bible as it would mean more to him personally.

That being said, I'm not really sure they should be using religious documents in the swearing-in process.

Good points all around.

exhausted

this is almost as good as any given yahoo article discussion.

norm

exhausted wrote:

this is almost as good as any given yahoo article discussion.

You're right. I'm outta here.

hippiemom

miller8966 wrote:

icarus wrote:

the pilgrims were separatists who wanted to practice differently than what the church of england mandated. they left england to practice their own form of worship without being ordered by the state to practice a certain way."

Than they came to america and ordered everyone else to practice christianity. This is a christian nation my friend.

He should be sworn in on the bible or not sworn in at all.

The puritans settled the land, they did not form the country. They had nothing to do with our fight for independence, or our constitution.

1970RR

miller8966 wrote:

This is why you have to love america...because well probaly allow this to happen. Imagine if this guy was in a muslim country...they would have taken his head off.

Except the document he is swearing to uphold prohibits the use of religious tests.

hippiemom

soulsinging wrote:

i second that. if we have to swear on something, why not use the constitution from now on? we can avoid this religious bickering and maybe it would encourage some of our reps to actually read that document they're supposed to be upholding... i can dream cant i?

That's exactly what I was thinking, and what I would request if I were being sworn in.

When I was a witness in court and they swore me in, when they told me to put my hand on the bible I said "I think you should know that this means nothing to me." The bailiff asked if I had an objection to swearing on the bible and I said I didn't care, but thought it would be dishonest not to tell them it meant as much to me as swearing on a copy of "Green Eggs and Ham." He shrugged and went on with the swearing in. I testified honestly, but the bible sure had nothing to do with it.

norm

hippiemom wrote:

That's exactly what I was thinking, and what I would request if I were being sworn in.

When I was a witness in court and they swore me in, when they told me to put my hand on the bible I said "I think you should know that this means nothing to me." The bailiff asked if I had an objection to swearing on the bible and I said I didn't care, but thought it would be dishonest not to tell them it meant as much to me as swearing on a copy of "Green Eggs and Ham." He shrugged and went on with the swearing in. I testified honestly, but the bible sure had nothing to do with it.

That's it! Everybody should swear to "Green Eggs & Ham" :D

negationist

secular state that is America? I thought there was separation of religion from state in America? Why are people made to swear on holy books?

darkcrow

farfromglorified wrote:

This has to be the dumbest thing I've ever seen here. I'm going to hope that this Prager guy is the only one idiotic enough to hold these opinions.

unfortuantly not. it didnt take the religious right much time to "act"
http://www.afa.net/aa112806_2.asp

norm

darkcrow wrote:

unfortuantly not. it didnt take the religious right much time to "act"
http://www.afa.net/aa112806_2.asp

Thanks for making me more angry.

darkcrow

cutback wrote:

Thanks for making me more angry.

sorry mate. hey in my county (the uk) you still have to swear alligence to the queen if you get ellected to parliment. i am staunchly republican (anti-monarchy), im not the bad republican lol