Keith Ellison & the Quran Controvery

[Sofiyya 1,687]

There is an ongoing controvery about Keith Ellison, the first duly elected Muslim congressman, who plans to take his oath of office on the Quran. Dennis Prager, a conservative talk show host, raised his objections to the change on his show and in his columns. To his surprise, he has been receiving a barrage of dissent to his position from all quarters.

I've provided several links to his written comments because it's better that each person with an interest be able to evaluate his opinions for themselves. There are also posted responses to his colums there.

What do you think?

I almost forgot. While I respect the Bible, I believe that the Congressman has a right to take his oath on the Quran. I don't live in his state, even so, I called his office with my support. If you wish to do so, his number is 612.522.4416. They will be happy to hear from you.

Edited December 6, 2006 by szsz

[Jenn! 918]

My belief that the Bible should be present at any oath (or affirmation) of office has nothing whatsoever to do with the religion of the office holder...

I agree with the tens of thousands of office holders in American history who have honored the American tradition...

Prager's assertion is that the bible is a cultural tradition and the core of American values rather than a religious text when used in oath swearing. I have a hard time understanding how he can advocate that someone take his oath on a book he doesn't believe in. It's meaningless.

[Together4ever 1]

My belief that the Bible should be present at any oath (or affirmation) of office has nothing whatsoever to do with the religion of the office holder...

I agree with the tens of thousands of office holders in American history who have honored the American tradition...

Prager's assertion is that the bible is a cultural tradition and the core of American values rather than a religious text when used in oath swearing. I have a hard time understanding how he can advocate that someone take his oath on a book he doesn't believe in. It's meaningless.

He obviously doesn't understand the REASON the oath was taken on the Bible to begin with. It had not a damn thing to do with tradition. *grumbles*

[Sofiyya 1,687]

An interesting note: many of the Muslims calling in on the radio show support Prager's position because Muslims belieev in the prophets in the Bible.

[blueblue 0]

An interesting note: many of the Muslims calling in on the radio show support Prager's position because Muslims belieev in the prophets in the Bible.

More evidence the radio jockey is just looking for some controversy to raise his visibility. When we were in Cyprus to get married, we had to go to a government office to sign a document. After we signed it, we had to swear it was true. They asked each of us, my husband and I, which we wanted to swear on, a Bible or a Koran. If the point is to swear on a book, it looks better if you swear on one that you believe in.

[chri'stina 190]

To be completely honest, I think politicans should swear on the constitution instead of a holy book. I am a Christian, and I believe in the bible...but just because someone swears on the bible doesn't mean they are going to be non-corrupt as a leader. I'd say most politicians do not even follow what the bible says(or don't even know what it says) even though they are swearing on it. So it becomes pointless IMO. Swearing on the constitution seems to fit better IMO for that kind of job.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I think we should swear at them during their inaugaration.

[chri'stina 190]

I think we should swear at them during their inaugaration.

[LaL 418]

To be completely honest, I think politicans should swear on the constitution instead of a holy book. I am a Christian, and I believe in the bible...but just because someone swears on the bible doesn't mean they are going to be non-corrupt as a leader. I'd say most politicians do not even follow what the bible says(or don't even know what it says) even though they are swearing on it. So it becomes pointless IMO. Swearing on the constitution seems to fit better IMO for that kind of job.

i understand the logic you are using above, and in theory it sounds like a great solution, however i think many more people would be fearful of commiting purgery on a holy book than the consitution.

[peezey 0]

You don't have to swear on anything in this country, it isn't required and cannot be required. If someone swears to something and they don't uphold their office, for instance, do we say "but you swore on the Bible!"....nooooooo....this whole thing is asanine. If someone wants to swear on a holy book, you would think we'd all be happy he wants to do so on one in which he actually believes.

ETA: taking an oath is not limited or uplifted by actually speaking words over any book or document. Just like you don't swear on a bible in court anymore, it's not something that can be used against you (or for you) should you not uphold your position.

Edited December 6, 2006 by peezey

[Caladan 19]

Prager's out of his damn mind. There is explicitly no religious test required to serve in public office in the United States. None. Nada. We have a whole bill of rights about it and everything.

There have also been Presidents (I want to say Ford for some reason) in the past who have declined to be sworn in on a Bible. And suggesting that someone should swear on the Bible when he doesn't hold it as an authority is just ludicrous.

Ellison should be able to swear in on whatever he wants. If that's the dictionary, more power to him.

[Henia 11]

Esalaam and Hello. I cannot believe this has actually become an issue. While the traditional oath is done on a Bible...the man is a Muslim... the book that his religion goes by is the Qur'an... An elected official should not be criticised for choosing to swear the oath on a religious tome other than the Bible. The Quran is a recognised holy book & Keith Ellison should not come under fire for his choice. He is doing nothing wrong.

I mean an oath is bearing witness to one's determination to speak the truth, to keep a promise...so technically if he swore on the Bible, which he does not believe in (probably respects but not believe) but he would basically be lying/prejurying himself and clearly then would considered someone not to be trusted representing you? What incentive does he have to guard honesty and integrity if he's putting his hand on a book he doesnt believe in?If anything, him being forced to swear on the Bible would be a concern, just as would a Christian being forced to swear on the Qur'an.

I am amased that so many politicians donnot know much about the Constitution or the fact that Congressmen donnot sweartheir oath of office on the Bible. They raise their right hand and take the oath from the speaker of the house as prescribed in article 6 of the Constitution. Maybe the "hand upon the Bible" is strictly for photo ops?

Even some of our Presidents have NOT sworn their oath upon the bible despite a wide belief that they all have...so I donnot understand what the problem here is?

I remember a few months back when Rahma posted something about this man in her district... I remember thinking if he did elected he would have alot of problems ... and here you go...problems!

Now the American Family Association is now demanding that people take action:

AFA ActionAlert

Quote:Take Action

1. Send an email asking your U.S. Representative and Senators to pass a law making the Bible the book used in the swearing-in ceremony of Representatives and Senators.

2. Forward this email to your friends and family today!

Write your Representative and Senators Now!

Unfortunately for them, the US Constitution stands in the way of such a law ever being passed.

I donnot live in his district either, but I will be calling his office offering my support.

Closing I wonder what this Dennis Pager charachter would took his oath with if he were to ever get elected, since he is a Jew? Thanks Szsz for posting this.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I wonder what this Dennis Pager charachter would took his oath with if he were to ever get elected, since he is a Jew? Thanks Szsz for posting this.

Dennis Prager has made it clear that as a Jew, he can swear on the Bible since its first five books are the Hebrew Torah.

You're welcome!

[peezey 0]

Maybe the "hand upon the Bible" is strictly for photo ops?

Yes, this is exactly what it is.

[Karen_L 1]

Pledging an oath on a book or document that doesn't mean much to you isn't much of an oath. I think a person should be free to select whatever book holds great significance to them so that the oath actually means something lol I don't even understand why this is controversial, actually, since I can't imagine anyone actually wanting an elected official to take a solomn vow of service in a manner that isn't very significant for them.