"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
"Keith Ellison can decide between Islam and his loyalty to America."
Absolutely! Besides, the majority dictates, not the one. Betcha there is "buyers remorse" setting in already.
+
If you want on (or off) this Catholic and Pro-Life ping list, let me know!
I'd like to see this go to the Supreme Court. Jefferson and Adams, if alive today, would declare Islam unconstitutional.
All BS aside, what is the legal basis pro and con for this?
Can an elected representative sit if he refuses the oath?
bttt
Is this being reported on other than Mr. Prager? I kinda doubt it. And the dumbs---s that elected this guy should all gather round when he swears his oath to Allah. Good God help us.
I believe this to be wrong. However, after reading the following the people who elected this muskie get what they asked for.
At the start of each new Congress, in January of every odd-numbered year, the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate performs a solemn and festive constitutional rite that is as old as the Republic. While the oath-taking dates back to the First Congress in 1789, the current oath is a product of the 1860s, drafted by Civil War-era members of Congress intent on ensnaring traitors.
The Constitution contains an oath of office only for the president. For other officials, including members of Congress, that document specifies only that they "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution." In 1789, the First Congress reworked this requirement into a simple fourteen-word oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."
I believe this to be wrong. However, after reading the following the people who elected this muskie get what they asked for.
At the start of each new Congress, in January of every odd-numbered year, the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate performs a solemn and festive constitutional rite that is as old as the Republic. While the oath-taking dates back to the First Congress in 1789, the current oath is a product of the 1860s, drafted by Civil War-era members of Congress intent on ensnaring traitors.
The Constitution contains an oath of office only for the president. For other officials, including members of Congress, that document specifies only that they "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution." In 1789, the First Congress reworked this requirement into a simple fourteen-word oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."
I believe this to be wrong. However, after reading the following the people who elected this muskie get what they asked for.
At the start of each new Congress, in January of every odd-numbered year, the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate performs a solemn and festive constitutional rite that is as old as the Republic. While the oath-taking dates back to the First Congress in 1789, the current oath is a product of the 1860s, drafted by Civil War-era members of Congress intent on ensnaring traitors.
The Constitution contains an oath of office only for the president. For other officials, including members of Congress, that document specifies only that they "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution." In 1789, the First Congress reworked this requirement into a simple fourteen-word oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."
unbeleivable! Yet sadly- we'll probably coddle to him for fear of reprisals should we force him to show some actual patriotism and pledge his allegience to the Christian nation of the U.S.- Burkas and prayer rugs for everyone can't be far behind. http://sacredscoop.com
bump
Yuck. I can't stand the thought of a the Koran being in the halls of Congress . . .
What if a member of Congress was an atheist? Would they also be obligated to be sworn in on the Bible?
Someone should just slip the cover of the Koran on a copy of the Constitution. Highly unlikely he's read either or could tell the difference.
'Fraid I've gotta ask... Will an Infidel be holding that Koran upon which el-Ellison places his hand to take the oath, or will it be the on-call Iman?
this is factually incorrect---no one has to swear an oath on the Bible. It is a tradition among most, but it is not required. They just have to swear to uphold the Constitution
To force an officeholder to swear an oath on the Bible is prohibited in the constitution, as that could be construed as a religious litmus test as to someone's eligibility for office.
The logical extension of your position is that only Christians should be elected to office. I don't buy that.
After thinking this over, it seems more appropriate for someone elected to federal office to put their hand on the Constitution and swear allegiance to it. That is what they are supposed to abide by, enforce and safeguard, isn't it? Not the Bible, the Koran, the Buddhist scrolls, or the flame of Zoroaster.
I looked at this topic because the headline did not make sense. It is missing a comma and the word "decides."
I agree with Dennis. In fact, I love Dennis when he is on the subjects of faith and patriotism. His heart is in the right place.
If Keith Ellison swears on the Koran, he is swearing fidelity to jihad, ergo, he is not needed or wanted in the U.S. Congress. Buh-bye.