Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Muslim Rep. Ellison: No Oath on Bible
Newsmax ^ | Tuesday, Nov. 28, 2006 12:08 a.m. EST | NewsMax Staff

Posted on 11/28/2006 3:17:38 PM PST by mmanager

Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the Quran instead.

The 43-year-old Minnesota Democrat, who converted to Islam as a 19-year-old college student, won the midterm election after a campaign calling for an immediate American pullout from Iraq. And his decision to forsake the Bible at his January 3 swearing-in troubles some.

"He should not be allowed to do so,” Townhall.com contributing columnist Dennis Prager writes on the Web site.

"Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Quran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in . . .

"Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress.

"In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.”

Prager, a radio talk show host and author, concludes: "When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9/11.

"It is hard to believe that this is the legacy most Muslim Americans want to bequeath to America.”


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Minnesota
KEYWORDS: antiamerican; bible; defiesgod; dhimmi; keithellison; koran; muslim; quran
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-149 next last
To: mmanager
Democrat, muslim, al taqiyyah. It fits.
101 posted on 11/28/2006 4:56:09 PM PST by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exit82
So then what is Ellison's problem with using the Bible? It is precisely because the God of the bible is NOT the God of the Koran.

Bingo!

102 posted on 11/28/2006 5:00:17 PM PST by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: exit82
Well, lessee....... The Muslims say we all worship the same God.... Jesus is one of their revered prophets...... The Bible is acknowledged even by non Christians as being a holy book...... The Bible has historically been used for swearing in ceremonies nationwide since the founding of America. So then what is Ellison's problem with using the Bible? It is precisely because the God of the bible is NOT the God of the Koran. His refusal to use the Bible is an indicator of where his heart really lies. And it lies not with preserving America and its freedoms.

As a Jew, I believe that Jews and Christians worship the same God, but I would never swear an oath on a New Testament (or even on a Christian translation of the Hebrew Bible).

103 posted on 11/28/2006 5:02:36 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: RGSpincich

"Good. Don't let this guy touch a Bible".

That is exactly how I feel about it. I don't want his hand
on a Bible.


104 posted on 11/28/2006 5:10:31 PM PST by BlueAngel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mmanager
Quandary, this is (at least so far) NOT a muslim nation, so, it's the Bible or go home and continue with your knitting (or plotting, whatever) but he would be happy to tell you that an oath on the Bible was meaningless to a 'good' muslim...

(NO, I do not have a solution....but I'd love to see him booted from congress, from the neighborhood, and from the continent; but none of those will happen.)

105 posted on 11/28/2006 5:54:09 PM PST by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mmanager

It is mostly not really important what book is used so long as it is understood to be a binding oath. Therein lies the problem with the Koran. It specifically sanctions lying and dishonesty when dealing with infidels. An oath on that book is explicitly worth nothing at all because, by the contents of the Koran, the oath, itself, can be presumed a lie.


106 posted on 11/28/2006 5:56:32 PM PST by arthurus (Better to fight them over THERE than over HERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

LL, I am intrigued by your answer.

We agree on the first part, but I do not fully understand the second part of your reply.

I don't want to assume anything, and my intent is to learn more. Can you enlighten me on what you meant?


107 posted on 11/28/2006 5:57:51 PM PST by exit82 (Clinton didn't try. He just failed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Nascar Dad

THAT'S GREAT!!!!!!!!!


108 posted on 11/28/2006 6:19:02 PM PST by ZULU (Non nobis, non nobis, Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: aShepard

And, when, you are called to the stand:

And you are told to raise your right hand; and you are sworn in; with the invocation:

"I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God"

And you intone: "I do"

And that is not a vow of truth?? Those words have no standing in our legal system?

You would be able to swear on a bag of McDonald fries?
I don't think so.

Now, what dispensation should we make for the rag-heads?? To be able to swear on their book of lies?? I don't think so.

Screw 'em!


109 posted on 11/28/2006 6:30:53 PM PST by aShepard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: veronica

That completely goes against a primary reason for this country's founding.


110 posted on 11/28/2006 6:40:32 PM PST by zendari
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: mmanager
Take an oath on a Quran?... What a concept..
The Quran has no problem with lieing..

Those in Washington D.C. should look into this concept..

111 posted on 11/28/2006 6:45:01 PM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mmanager

What a worthless POS. The only thing more worthless are his constituents who el3cted him.


112 posted on 11/28/2006 6:45:39 PM PST by BnBlFlag (Deo Vindice/Semper Fidelis "Ya gotta saddle up your boys; Ya gotta draw a hard line")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Interesting! Jesus said this, "NO ONE comes to God the Father unless he comes through Me." Genuine Christians believe it's impossible for anyone to worship God unless they believe in Jesus Christ. Judaism rejected Jesus Christ as the Messiah; hence, how can we be worshipping the same God?


113 posted on 11/28/2006 7:02:01 PM PST by evangmlw ("God Is Definitely Conservative")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: CAluvdubya
Celebrating diversity is celebrating divisiveness and is to celebrate our own destruction! Neither the Bible, nor the constitution (the second most inspired by God document on the earth) are a suicide pact for the descendants of WASPs! (White Anglo Saxon Protestants, or ANY other Americans for that matter)

How much "toleration" is enough for these tyrants of the minority??? I refuse to buy into this insulting behavior toward our traditions and culture of Judeo-Christianity!!!

Screw this "in our face," disrespect and the horse it rode in on!!!

Jesus drove the disrespectful and ill-mannered money changers out of the temple with a WHIP!!! It's not always "turn the other cheek" with even HIM!!!

114 posted on 11/28/2006 7:04:45 PM PST by SierraWasp (Onward christian soldiers, marching as to war... With the cross of Jesus, going on before!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan

An oath is an oath, regardless if one's hand is on a book or not. When a man gives his word, he's bound by it. The oath says:

" I, Loyal Citizen of the Republic, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

The oath of office doesn't say anything about defending our values or morals. It says that one will support and defend the Constitution. Let our officials raise their hand and swear by the Constitution or the flag. That would suit me fine and would be more appropriate.

The Constitution specifies in Article VI, clause 3:

"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."

As for that batch of crooks, liars, adulterers and con men who fill the halls of Congress, swearing on the Bible doesn't seem to be a "value-added" proposition. It surely doesn't ensure faithful service or devotion to God or their public duty.


115 posted on 11/28/2006 7:04:53 PM PST by gregwest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MplsSteve

My apologies if you've seen this. Your Minnesota ping list is needed her.

I think I'm going to be ill. I'm only a few miles away from having this guy as my Rep. My sympathies to you!


116 posted on 11/28/2006 7:05:42 PM PST by terilyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mmanager

An oath on the koran is no oath at all.


117 posted on 11/28/2006 7:07:27 PM PST by Petronski (I just love that woman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exit82

The Koran is a terrorist handbook. It teaches hate and terrorism. Moslems are scum.


118 posted on 11/28/2006 7:08:43 PM PST by BlackjackPershing ("The great object is that every man be armed." Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: zendari

You're not alone on that. This forum often displays woeful Christian intolerance and hostility towards faiths they know little about. There are many who would swear on a Bible who never read a word of it and whose knowledge of it comes by some hireling preacher who gets paid to preach what people want to hear.

The earlier statement that the Koran was a book that teaches terrorism is a good example. That same person is probably ignorant of Bible passages where God commanded Joshua to kill ever man, woman, and beast of the field that inhabited some cities in their promised land. It teaches that people who commit adultery should be stoned to death. It includes sabbath-breaking as a capital offense. One Bible passage tells of Abraham telling lies to Pharoah, that his wife was his sister, so he woudn't be killed. Even Jesus taught that people who hurt little children should commit suicide by hanging a millstone around their neck and casting themselves into the sea. Jesus once told his disciples to "make friends" with the Mammon of unrighteousness.

You see, Christians and Jews tend to take these things figuratively, yet even we have our fundamentalists. Radical, fundamentalist Islamists take the figurative passages from the Koran and interpret them literally. If it were not for the restraints placed upon fundamentalist Christians by secular society and the more moderate denominations, we'd have our own Christian jihadists in the United States. Thankfully, the pluralistic environment we enjoy precludes that from happening for the time being.


119 posted on 11/28/2006 7:27:08 PM PST by gregwest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: EdJay
At least two Presidents "affirmed" rather than taking an oath: Herbert Hoover and Franklin Pierce. Hoover was a Quaker and Quakers traditionally do not take oaths. Franklin Pierce also had religious scruples against swearing and "affirmed."

Thanks. According to some sources (but not the Architect of the Capitol's inaugural fact sheet), Franklin Pierce made his affirmation on a law book, not the Bible. Some sources say Franklin Pierce was the only person to affirm instead of swearing an oath. Wikipedia and other sources say that in addition to President Hoover, John Tyler also affirmed instead of taking an oath of office.

By the way, Franklin Pierce's son died in front of his and his wife's eyes in a train derailment a few months before the inauguration. Some historians think this is one of the reasons Franklin Pierce didn't want to swear on the Bible - his wife thought the accident was a sign that God didn't want him to be President. His wife never did.
120 posted on 11/28/2006 8:36:36 PM PST by conservative in nyc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-149 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson