Congressman wants to take oath on Quran

[kalamu]

any of you read this story in the paper today?

Keith Ellison wants to take his oath on the Quran as opposed to the bible and it has all these christians up in arms about it... it's pretty funny how they are all getting upset.

Ellison, according to the stories i've read, will be the first Muslim congressman in the U.S.

[Dionysos]

I have no problem with it.

[kalamu]

i don't know why anyone would. they all think it'll lead to other things like people wanting to take the oath on the satanic bible and other such nonsense.

[thumpcbd]

Actually, the stories are incorrect, the actual swearing in ceremony is done in a group in the house chambers without any kind of Bible/Koran/Torah to put your hand on. Its the reenactment in the representatives office that they usually decide to put their hand on something.

I think this is the media looking for a story...

Casey

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by kalamu

i don't know why anyone would.

BECAUSE JESUS IS OUR LORD & SAVIOR, Y'ALL.

Originally Posted by thumpcbd

I think this is the media looking for a story...

Casey

*touches nose*

[djetaine]

so..... the Christians are up in arms because he wants to do the ceremonial oath on the Quran. Right... Do they not realize that were he to do it on the Bible, something he doesn't fully believe in, that it means absolutely nothing to him? They should be happy hes doing it on anything at all.
Ppl are fucking dumb

[Adam D]

Originally Posted by djetaine

so..... the Christians are up in arms because he wants to do the ceremonial oath on the Quran. Right... Do they not realize that were he to do it on the Bible, something he doesn't fully believe in, that it means absolutely nothing to him? They should be happy hes doing it on anything at all.
Ppl are fucking dumb

That was my thought.

[e-brake]

I think it would be better if he decided to get sworn in with his hand on Grims' Fairy tales instead.

[PETA]

Not sure where the uproar is... excerpted from an article and referring to a National Review opinion piece.... article

Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the Constitution authorizes people not to swear oaths at all, protecting atheists and agnostics.

Volokh noted in an article in National Review Online that two former presidents — Franklin Pierce and Herbert Hoover — didn't swear their oaths but chose to affirm them.

clicky - here's a link to an article by a radio talk show host - and a social conservative that opposes the use because (as he argues) it "undermines American civilization"

but I don't think he's getting many main stream takers on his offer...

Originally Posted by Dionysos

I have no problem with it.

me either

The most important thing about the free exercise clause is: free exercise - free exercise - free exercise.

Originally Posted by kalamu

i don't know why anyone would. they all think it'll lead to other things like people wanting to take the oath on the satanic bible and other such nonsense.

Avoiding for sake or argument the remarkably unlikely event of a practising Satanist getting elected to federal or state (etc) office - so what. Free exercise free exercise free exercise.

Originally Posted by thumpcbd

Actually, the stories are incorrect, the actual swearing in ceremony is done in a group in the house chambers without any kind of Bible/Koran/Torah to put your hand on. Its the reenactment in the representatives office that they usually decide to put their hand on something.

I think this is the media looking for a story...

Casey

"I'm shocked to learn there is gambling going on in here!"

Originally Posted by djetaine

so..... the Christians are up in arms because he wants to do the ceremonial oath on the Quran. Right... Do they not realize that were he to do it on the Bible, something he doesn't fully believe in, that it means absolutely nothing to him? They should be happy hes doing it on anything at all.
Ppl are fucking dumb

Casey hit the nail on the head - media looking for a story. From a legal POV what is required is that Ellison vow to uphold his oath of office. From a procedural POV the specific book or lack thereof is not relevant. From an internally moral persective of course using the book of the oath taker's faith makes perfect sense as a method of lending solmnity to the oath.

Tempest in a tea kettle and I think the tea kettle awfully small and obscure.

[BigBallinColin]

I say fuck it and make them take their oath on the constitution that would solve any future problems with the centerist satanic liberation party that will take the house on 2012

[kalamu]

wasn't there a President or a Congressman that took their oath on the declaration or something along those lines?

i'm sure there are some atheist or at least agnostic congressmen, i wonder if they all took the oath on the bible. that would explain so much.

[Man Nub]

Originally Posted by xian

Tempest in a tea kettle and I think the tea kettle awfully small and obscure.

where did you learn this quote? i love it.

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by kalamu

i'm sure there are some atheist or at least agnostic congressmen, i wonder if they all took the oath on the bible. that would explain so much.

There aren't any atheist or even agnostic congressmen, at least openly so. Polls show that likely voters positively view atheists lower than gays. Being an open atheist is a quick way to kill your campaign.

[Keith P]

Originally Posted by kalamu

i don't know why anyone would. they all think it'll lead to other things like people wanting to take the oath on the satanic bible and other such nonsense.

I don't really see that as nonsense. If a satanist wants to be sworn in on the satanic bible then so be it. I'm not trying to become a satanic apologist but the general beliefs espoused by satanism don't necessaily encompass "evil" and anarchy. The public will always have a misconception of the religion b/c well...its satanism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism

[Keith P]

Originally Posted by BigBallinColin

I say fuck it and make them take their oath on the constitution

I think thats a novel idea.