America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on

TownHall ^ | Tuesday, November 28, 2006 | Dennis Prager

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Unless you're giving big odds, I'll pass.

[conservative in nyc]

A few years ago, I couldn't see it being allowed. Now, with the PC crap towards Islam and the Koran, it wouldn't surprise me if the dems tried to enact some new law or rule that allowed it.

There is absolutely no law requiring Congressmen swear their oath of office with one hand on the Bible. Any such law would likely be unconstitutional. In fact, it's not even modern tradition for House members to swear their oath with one hand on the Bible. Usually, they simply raise their right hand and put their left hand down at their side.

There is nothing to be allowed or not be allowed. Constitutionally, if Ellison wants to take his oath of office with one hand on the Koran, nothing can be done about it. Ellison's ultimate fate for this act will be judged by his constituents in Minnesota. This is what the Framers intended.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

I have very carefully read the Constitution: I see no requirement for an oath of office to be sworn on a Bible. Perhaps someone can point out where that requirement is stated.

[MACVSOG68]

I suggest that somehow, most Americans couldn't give a hoot about this "issue". It's the oath that is important, not what book is used.

[Digger]

I am so glad the democraps are showing their true colors

This is bad press for the dems. Add it to the list at the next election. Let's ask The Hildabeast what she thought of this when she in election mode.

[Retired Chemist]

Thanks for posting the facts on the swearing-in ceremony.

[Prokopton]

"America is interested in only one book, the Bible."

I don't think so.

[steve-b]

LOL -- the way 99% of Congresscritters behave, they should swear them in on a copy of Police Gazette.

[Junior]

You do realize the Constitution does not mention the Bible when it talks about the oath of office, don't you?

[txhurl]

bttt need to keep this alive

[Cicero]

Thanks for the details. I was pretty sure this was the case, because all the way back in the seventeenth century there were Quakers and other Protestants who believed that it was sinful to swear on the Bible. So the custom of allowing some other form of oath, or even excusing the oath for those who could not in good conscience swear by anything, is an old one.

[Kirkwood]

Hmmm... If he takes an oath on something he doesn't even believe in, then is not an oath at all. Why hold him to what he considers a meaningless act?

[depressed in 06]

It is entirely appropriate that a Bolshecrat take the oath on the Koran. It is a book upon which lying to an infidel is not a sin. In fact, it is not clear who it is that cannot be lied to. What do you expect of a religion founded by a used camel salesman and fornicator. All Bolshecrats should use the Koran, thereby, not violating their oath of office.

[Jim Noble]

So while it might be tradition to swear on the bible, the Consititution does not require it.

In fact, the Constitution forbids requiring it.

[Jim Noble]

I have very carefully read the Constitution: I see no requirement for an oath of office to be sworn on a Bible.

As a matter of fact, Article VI, para 3 would appear to forbid such a requirement: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

[Coldwater Creek]

I think that the Congressmen just stand on the Capitol steps and raise their hands en mass, no Bibles are used!

[Radix]

If the voters are stupid enough to elect a muslim then that is their prerogative.

You cannot compel someone to take an oath on the Bible.

We may not care for this fact, but the man should be able to swear as he sees fit.

It is an awful thing what is going on in our culture, and our chilren will suffer the consequences for it.

Ordinarily, I'd not address this from this side, but muslims are clearly an enemy of our culture.

There has been virtually no outcry by islamics anywhere worthy of merit concerning the antics of terrorists organizations.

Muslims have dough in many cases, and the collective silence on their part is deafening concerning the jihadists.

Clearly, the terrorist factions have philosophical support in the mainstream muslim communities.

[Always Independent]

What did Senator Shumer put his hand on?

[chiefqc]

Great going voters, this is just the beginning of the trouble you started.