Gov. Linda Lingle (R-HI) takes the oath of office upon a Jewish Torah on December 2, 2002, at the Hawaii State Capitol rotunda by Hawaii State Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald Moon.
Posted on 11/28/2006 3:17:38 PM PST by mmanager
Are you REALLY certain, or is it just your conjectural opinion?
I'm not saying your statements aren't true, in fact, but there's a difference between saying, "I think x", and "Records of the event show x".
As for Pierce and Roosevelt, Ellison would do well to emulate their example in deference to the country. The option is Constitutionally provided that one may simply affirm that they will uphold the Constitution, and Ellison should man up and do just that.
If we allow every Tom, Dick, and Harry to swear oath on whatever book they choose, we'll eventually have some nutbar up there taking the oath on Ayn Rand, or perhaps Mark Twain; a complete lampoon of the due solemnity and gravity of the event of assuming office.
And from what you have written, it is perfectly clear that you consider the website of a guy in Camperdown, SA to be more binding than the US Constitution. Some company you keep...
From what I've heard people can swear an oath on a dictionary if they want; I'd be more concerned about a politician breaking that oath. We must remember that we have freedom
of religion, expression, and speech.
Though certainly "the freedom to swing one's fist ends at
my nose."
I wonder if Ellison might conclude his speeches with
"Allahu Akbar", "God is great". Many Muslims say that every day. Sadly it was the last thing heard by the passengers
on 9/11. In this case, some Muslims twisted their
"religion of peace" and killed innocents. (I tolerate
any religion, but when they use that religion to
justify the killing of thousands of innocents, then
that goes too far.)
But an interesting what if:
America is primarily a Muslim country and the first Christian elected to Congress wants to swear the Oath on
a Christian Bible rather than a Muslim Koran...
The Rutherford Institute, an organization dedicated to
preserving 'religious liberties', runs some radio public
service announcements--one of them defended the right of a little girl to share jellybeans with her classmates. Jelly beans that had Bible verses on them. She has that right:
free expression, freedom of religion.
We have freedom to practice whatever faith we choose, or
no faith. The government cannot establish an official
religion. (Consider if you lived in the Middle East and
Muslim fanatics want to kill you because you're a Christian! Come to think of it, they want to do that over here too...
again, Muslim fanatics--those who twist the religion...)
Though certainly we are predominantly a Christian nation,
something we can point out the next time someone wants
Christmas decorations taken off public lands. (Thousands
in a city don't mind them, but one person does mind them...)
Sure, put up Christmas decorations. Hannukah, too, and
Ramadan, and so on. Tolerate all religions.
An interesting situation, though. But we do have to also
acknowledge than many Muslims hate us and our way of
life and they use their faith to justify it.
What if Christians were to have suicide bombers go into
Muslim cities in the Middle East, blowing up Muslims
in the name of Jesus? Would that be a perversion of
Christianity?
>>Tolerate all religions.
Again, up until the point they use their religion to try
and kill us.
While the TV and radio conservatives count on the loyalty of the rest of us to tune in, and while we expected to read the articles of conservative journalists, the great majority of them just TALK.
They inform us of what we have to fear, which is ultimately the take-over of our beloved country by Muslims.
THEY are the ones in a position to mobilize the rest of us to fight against the evil intent of those who desire to turn America into a country we never knew and don't want, for ourselves, our children, our grandchildren, and beyond.
We don't have access to the whole country...they do. Why can't at least some of them initiate a nation-wide protest or rally where we can come together to make our voices heard by the White House, Congress, and the court system?
These folks in the media have the mikes, so to speak. The rest of us don't.
Why did I immediately see a connection between what you can foresee and how legitimizing gay "marriage" could open the door to demands for acceptance of polygamy or any other union one could conjure up?
It's vitally important to look beyond the issue at hand. We have to look further down the road to where it could lead, in every situation.
While Ellison has the legal right to be sworn in using the Q'uran, as an American citizen who is about to become a member of one of the three branches of the American government, I would expect him to honor the long-held tradition of this country. Added to that, and from what I've read, the contents of the Q'uran do not preach a love and tolerance for all men, no matter their religious or non-religious beliefs.
The powers that be in the USA see profiling as a "not nice" practice. Guess that applies to Keith Ellison, also.
"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."
Well, that wasn't addressed to me, but since I also mentioned the "no religious tests" clause I thought it would be OK if I responded to this comment.
Of course, it is not a violation of the "no religious tests" clause for an office-holder to swear on a Bible -- IF THAT IS HIS CHOICE. It would, in fact, be a violation of another constitutional clause -- freedom of religion -- to say he COULDN'T swear on a book that is sacred to him.
It would, however, be a violation of both the "no religious tests" clause and the freedom of religion clause, to REQUIRE a person to either swear on a Bible, or renounce holding public office in the US -- as Mr. Praeger misguidedly suggested in his article.
You make excellent points. My direction, in this -- and I also do not agree with Mr. Prager -- is that Kieth Ellison SHOULD (as opposed to "MUST") rise above his own personal desires and do that which is both Constitutionally allowed AND supplemental (as opposed to detremental) to the country, which I conted would be to simply make an affirmation instead of swearing an oath upon ANY book.
Others, in the past, who have found their own views in controversy with the notion of swearing upon the Bible, have simply made an affirmation, as the Cosntitution allows, so there is ample precedent for it. And, whereas it is true, and Constitutional, that Mr. Ellison has the right to elect to take his oath of office upon a Q'ran, it seems to me to be something of a proof of his fitness for service to this country whether he will do that or simply make an affirmation.
Obviously, these are highly sensetive times, and the symbolism of taking the oath upon a Q'ran is not something that would reasonably be foisted upon the public by one claiming a personal desire to set himself aside and serve that same public. Rather, even though he has the right guaranteed in the Constitution to do so, Mr. Ellison may BEST assure his countrymen of his heart of service to this country by recognizing the gravity of the situation and taking the course that most assures the American public that he has the national interest in mind.
It has been pointed out that there are some of Jewish faith who have elected to swear upon the Torah, and this has been put up as a supposed precedent that would allow Mr. Ellison to swear upon the Q'ran with equal ease. But, while that is certainly his option under the Constitution, and I will not disallow it, I will strongly urge aginst electing that option by reason of the (hopefully) strong and obvious symbolism it would raise.
In sum: Ellison ertainly MAY swear upon a Q'ran, but present conditions dictate that it would be a more wise course for him to simply make an affirmation.
Of course, if he did the entirely unexpected and elected to take his oath upon a Bible as a means of affirming his endorsement and support for our American heritage and traditions, my estimation of his potential as a leader would grow by leaps and bounds. THAT would be "shock and awe".
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.