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 11/30/2006 1:23:15 PM PST by Checkers
Keith Ellison, D-Minn., 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 bible of Islam, the Koran.
He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.
First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- my culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.
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.
Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison's right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?
Of course, Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either. Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible. Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of "Dianetics" by L. Ron Hubbard.
So why are we allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done -- choose his own most revered book for his oath?
The answer is obvious -- Ellison is a Muslim. And whoever decides these matters, not to mention virtually every editorial page in America, is not going to offend a Muslim. In fact, many of these people argue it will be a good thing because Muslims around the world will see what an open society America is and how much Americans honor Muslims and the Koran.
This argument appeals to all those who believe that one of the greatest goals of America is to be loved by the world, and especially by Muslims because then fewer Muslims will hate us (and therefore fewer will bomb us).
But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible. In fact, the opposite is more likely: Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America.
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. But if it is, it is not only Europe that is in trouble.
What sense would it make to require someone to take an oath on a Bible when the person doesn't believe the Bible is THE holy book? Its not as if the person would feel more obliged to act properly!
More importantly...the oath is a joke. Every Congressman and the President take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..."
What a laugh...how many congressmen have ever actually read the Constitution? How many are faithful to it? Answer: maybe one...Ron Paul...if there are any others, I'm not aware of it.
99.9% of today's federal government operates without any Constitutional authority.
Consider this carefully. In that the Koran instructs Muslims to practice deceit against non-Muslims, there is absolutely no way an oath on the Koran could be deemed valid.
Send an email to the Whitehouse about this. I did.
I'm ashamed that my fellow Americans put this guy in office in the first place. Don't they know better?
Stupid question, never mind.
Why Not!Spector wanted and did use Scottish law to get Clinton out of an Impeachment conviction.
Well, if you swear to uphold American laws on a book that encourages you to lie to infidels, just what are you swearing to do, exactly? ;)
They swear to kill infidels. You and me. Us.
shocking...a Mooselimb doing what Mooselimbs do.
Hey, actually reading the damn thing before hyperventilating about this issue is cheating!
If he doesn't want to swear on a bible, he shouldn't be forced to.
Thanks! Good clarification.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says any book should be used.
I am a conservative Christian, and I don't believe in forcing people into a religious expression that would be meaningless to them. I also think that the US Constitution should be strictly interpreted word-by-word. There is nothing in it about any requirement to take an oath on any book.
There is only a requirement to take an oath. I have not researched whether "taking an oath" in that day automatically meant that a bible would be used.
Ellison doesn't believe in the bible, forcing him to take an oath on a book he doesn't subscribe too makes the oath meaningless. If you don't like the idea of a Muslim serving in Congress (and I include myself as someone who doesn't like the idea), then your grievance lies with the voters. Next time, defeat him at the ballot box. The constiution does not discriminate on the basis of religion. Anyone duly elected that meets the consitutional requirements of the office can be sworn-in and seated without a bible, whether they are Christian, Jew, Muslim, Mormon, Hindu, Shinto, Druid, Atheist, Agnosistic, Jedi, worship the moon goddess Ra, are members of the cult of Vesssha, or even if they were openly Satanic.
Several U.S. presidents have NOT used a bible to take their oath (I guess some freepers would argue the Chief Justice should have thus refused to swear in Herbert Hoover), and I'm guessing several Congressmen and judges probably have as well. There are many people who have held high office without being devout Christians, or were devout Christians who simply opted not to use a bible.
This reeks of Katherine Harris' bozo statement in the GOP primary that Christians must be elected or its sinful. I guess the theocrats here think it's sinful that Norm Coleman (Jew) beat Walter Mondale (Christian)
This is factually innacurate. There is absolutely no Consitutional requirement for House members or even the President to swear on the Bible when taking his oath of office - while Presidents have traditionally done so, it's not clear that any oath needs to be with one hand on the Bible to qualify as an oath (it likely doesn't), and under the Constitution, office holders can take an affirmation of office of office instead of an oath anyway. In fact, President Teddy Roosevelt didn't swear on the Bible when he became President after McKinley's death in 1901. One simply might not have been available at the time. He still became President.
House members are traditionally sworn in en masse by the Speaker on the first day of Congress immediately after the Speaker of the House is elected and sworn in. The 2005 swearing in ceremony is available on C-SPAN's website here. The Speaker is sworn in around 2:13:30 by the Dean of the House; the rest of Congress is sworn in shortly thereafter.
All Speaker Hastert asked members to do was raise their right hands while being sworn in. As a practical matter, the House floor normally seats 448 (they somehow squeeze in more seats for the State of the Union address), and there are up to 439 other members of the House (including non-voting members from the territories and the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico) that need to be sworn in at that time. There isn't that much room on the floor for aides or family members to hold the Bible for Congressmen to swear on. So, as you can see from the video, most Congressmen appear to raise their right hand and put their left hand on nothing, at least during this ceremonial swearing in.
Now, there may be a chance for members to have a ceremonial one-on-one swearing in for photo-op purposes (or if the Member is not present at the opening of Congress or is later elected). For example, Congressman Rothman (D-NJ) has a picture of him being "sworn in" with his hand on what appears to be the Bible on his House website. This is when Ellison might swear on the Koran - for a photo-op.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1745413/posts
66 posted on 11/28/2006 5:51:13 PM CST by conservative in nyc
________________________________
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."
We now return to the rightwing fever swamp, wich of course is sooo much different than the leftwing fever swamp, where all they do is rant and rave...not like us.
This reeks of Katherine Harris' bozo statement in the GOP primary that Christians must be elected or its sinful
You mean it's not? But it says so right there in 4th Habakkuk chapter 2 verse 6 "And the Lord spake and said unto the people surely thou shall vote the straight GOP ticket. For if thou doesn't then I shall surely smite thee and maketh thou watch Oprah Winfrey until doth see the error of thy way".
Really you can look it up.
There's no law requiring students in school to stand and say the Pledge, yet look at all the legal fuss going on about it.
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.