Posted on 11/28/2006 3:17:38 PM PST by mmanager
I believe Nixon was also a Quaker and thus chose to "affirm" rather than "swear."
it is not legal in our culture. The sweet aroma of multiculturalism is sweeping up again.
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.
This whole thing reminds me of an old joke:
The first Jewish President is elected.
He calls his Mother: "Mama, I've won the elections, you've got to come to the swearing-in ceremony."
"I don't know, what would I wear?"
"Don't worry, I'll send you a dressmaker."
"But I only eat kosher food."
"Mama, I am going to be the President, I can get you kosher food."
"But how will I get there?"
"I'll send a limo;just come Mama"
"Oy vey, if it makes you happy.
The great day comes and Mama is seated between the Supreme Court Justices and the Future Cabinet members, she nudges the gentleman on her right. "You see that boy, the one with his hand on the Bible? His brother's a doctor!"
Yep, that was the tone I was going for.
Jews will not swear on the New Testament, because it is not a holy book to us. Most Jews (or at least the ones educated about Judaism) also object (although certainly not to the same degree) to non-Jewish translations of the Hebrew Bible (which Christians call the "Old Testament") because those translations embody interpretations of the Hebrew text which reflect Christian, rather than Jewish, theological views. Compare, for example, the King James translation of Isaiah 7:14 with one Jewish translation of the same verse.
I hope this is helpful. Please feel free to freepmail me if you would like some links to more on these issues. And thanks for a courteous discussion.
He doesn't have to take his oath on the Bible. All he needs to do is a simple affirmation of loyalty to the US Constitution. My question is: can he?
"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
Which is the real reason they don't want the 10 commandments in courthouses either.
LL--thank you for the explanation. We are of similar vintage here on FR--the illustrious Class of '98!--and obviously we are of different cultural backgrounds.
Thanks for taking the time to explain this to me. I appreciate it.
DAMN RIGHT !!!
BUT, what are we or anyone else going to do about it....?
Nothing. Absolutely nothing - because we're so into pleasing them, making them feel confortable, that we LOST OUR WILL to stick up for ourselves as a Country !!!
This is just the beginning - you know it and I know it - but what are going to do about it before it's too late...???
Will a PATRIOT ever step up and say enough is enough, but that will be too late as they will have a stronghold on our Country.
Then, that PATRIOT will be seen as old school, a Racist, etc. and he'll probably be squashed.
Will it be up to us on this (formerly strong, now weakened) Website...?
When will enough be enough...? We wait that long, it will be too late.
Where's the CALL TO ACTION...?
Anybody calling to action these days would find the call falling on timid and deaf ears. Why do you think the good book talks about men's hearts failing them from fear in the last days?
Today's Americans would rather live on their knees, than die on their feet like men (and women) defending their cultural heritage and national boundaries!!!
Since when does one get an option as to what book one will swear upon when taking the oath office? Does Mr. Ellison go to Washington to serve this Nation, or to serve himself? If he will not set aside his personal preference for our National traditions, who is so insane as to think him sufficiently humble that he will readily lay aside his personal ambitions in deference to service of "We, The People"?
The Bible has been more than sufficient to this task for over 200 years; and ought by now to be considered an institutionalized component of the swearing in ceremony. It has done ample duty for the man of faith and the atheist alike. It has done equal service for the Christian, the Jew, the Humanist and the Deist. No Divine bolt of anointing so rests upon Keith Ellison that he gets to style himself any differently. His personal preference cannot be allowed to supersede all American history and tradition.
We must give priority to being AMERICAN, for it is the freedom and liberty of being American that has given rise to the broad range of diversity we treasure in our AMERICAN culture. Greeks, Jews, Italians, Japanese, Africans, Native Americans -- ALL the panoply of human cultures comprise the interwoven fabric of the American tapestry, but, at the day's end, WE REMAIN AMERICANS.
E pluribus unum. From many, ONE. This is WHO and WHAT we ARE. And it is WHO and WHAT we MUST REMAIN, else the whole shall cease to be valued, will fall into neglect, and will ultimately succumb to rot from within, and assault from without.
We cannot allow our great traditions to be impugned, eroded, or arrogantly brushed aside. We must insist that the Bible remain evermore the singular volume upon which ALL shall swear to uphold The Constitution of the United States; as an AMERICAN tradition, without either preference or prejudice to any man's personal creed.
If Mr. Keith Ellison is not a big enough man to swear his oath of office upon the Bible, then he is far too small a man to hold elected office, and I am certain that the citizenry of the great state of Minnesota can find among them a more fitting -- a more AMERICAN -- replacement.
"Nothing in the Constitution says what book you have to place your hand on when you take it."
There is nothing in the constitution that says he can't have a rock band playing in the background while he takes the oath naked and signs all documents in blood.
Since 1789, when the Constitution was ratified.
Article VI: "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.
Do you really think every officeholder in U.S. history has sworn their oath of office on the King James Bible?
Proving once again why the Constitution remains one of the most amazing documents in the history of humankind.
The use of a Bible in the swearing-in ceremony does not constitute any sort of religious test, and it certainly does not fit the language of the portion of the Constitution that you quoted.
Actually, too, the option is therein provided that one may eitehr take an oath or give an affirmation, which provides an out for ANYONE who might have a persoanl thing about swearing on a Bible. Ellison should man up and take that option instead of raising all this stink about the Koran. Do you really think every officeholder in U.S. history has sworn their oath of office on the King James Bible?
The VAST majorty have, and without so much as batting an eyelash.
But, please, name for me those who have not.
I agree with this implied statement. Let's not get reactionary here people. As was stated previously, the Bible is just a book, and (unfortunately) won't burn the hand of a liar. It's the Oath that's important.
Besides, we haven't outlawed Islam in this country, and quite frankly I hope we never do. I think we need to remember that the 1st Amendment can only protect us if we let it protect others who pose no immediate threat with their religion.
Is Islam, fundamentally, a violent religion? Yes I believe it is. However as long as it's not practiced fundamentally by all its adherents (and the proof it's not is that we haven't had any attacks here since 9/11; IOW, if it were, then we'd probably all be dead by now by the hands of the 2 million or so Muslims already in this country), then it's not something that should be outlawed.
We must choose our battles with fundamentalist Islam wisely. To literally make a federal case out of this would be giving Osama and his buddies a PR gift.
I don't think this post is flameworthy, but if one so chooses, please note I won't really care either way as my time on FR is done today. Goodnight and Godspeed, Free Republic!
I am certain Joe Lieberman and most of the other Jewish officeholders have used Jewish, rather than Protestant, Bibles. It is also likely that most Catholic officeholders have used the Douay Bible or some other Catholic Bible, rather than the Protestant KJV. In other threads on this topic (there have been at least three over the past few days), it was posted that three U.S. Presidents (Franklin Pierce, Teddy Roosevelt, and I forget the third) took the oath of office without any book at all.
Nixon -- Quaker
(Assumption here; knowing Nixon was a Quaker, I assume he would not have taken an oath at all, but rather an affirmation.)
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.