quote:Rep.-elect Keith Ellison's decision to take his oath of office on the Qur'an is stirring a debate among academics and conservatives, with some of them saying it's only appropriate to take an oath on the Bible.
...
In his weekly column, Prager said Ellison's act is "an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism." He warned that allowing Ellison to use the Qur'an could pave the way for a racist to use "his favorite book" to take the oath of office.
"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," Prager wrote. "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."
Most of Prager's little rant makes him sound pretty foolish as it makes him look like he's almost trying to sound opposed to freedom of religion. But in the midst of all that, he does have one valid point. Should they be allowed to take their oath on any book they choose? I think that's only a minor question, though, since I don't exactly see anyone taking their oath on Mein Kampf anytime soon.
The larger question that Prager never asks is, should a religious book even be used at all? If "they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization," which I think is important for them to do, then shouldn't they use a document like the Constitution and keep religion out of it altogether?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Prager is wrong. More specifically, he (and other political conservatives) are wrong about this being a first. Jewish officials have taken the oath on a Tanach on at least a few occasions, for instance.
As someone commented on a blog where this was discussed a few days ago, don't we want people taking their oaths of office on books that actually are holy to them, rather than on ones that they consider to have little significance?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can completely and totally understand why anyone who is not a Christian would not want to swear an oath using the Christian Bible. That is completely logical to me.
Personally, I don't know why swearing on a Bible is necessary. Swearing to tell the truth, swearing to uphold the law, fine, but why should it be on the Bible?
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
People should be allowed to swear by whatever they believe encompasses their values and beliefs. If I were a Muslim elected into office, I would definately prefer to swear by my own beliefs than by Christian beliefs.
Is Ellison a Muslim?
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't swear on a book at all. When I had to testify about a bank robbery in Boston, I asked them if I could affirm instead of swear, and they were fine with it. In the Israeli army, when they swear soldiers in, all the secularists call out "Ani nishba!", which means "I swear", and all the religious soldiers call out "Ani matzhir!", which means "I affirm". There's a religious issue regarding the taking of oaths.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: How did a Muslim get elected in Minnesota? I thought they all lived in Michigan.
<blink> I'm trying to decide if this is whistle-worthy. You know, General, just when I think you can't lower my estimation of you, you go ahead and prove me wrong.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whistle away Lisa, I bet you are a big fan of the five Muslim Arabs in the Knesset, or does the fact that they rate more scrutiny then the rest combined judging from the articles about them tell me your more probable position?
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The book used is about the oath-taker. The content of the oath is about the country. If some idiot wants to swear in on Mein Kempf, I just want to make sure I know about it before the next election.
Also, there's no requirement I could find that the oath be taken on any book, let alone a specific one.
Why would anyone who believes a text to be sacred want someone swearing on that text who didn't share that belief?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to say, I want my elected officials taking the oaths that they feel bind them most strongly.
I think I put more weight on the oath of office, and oaths in general for that matter, than most Americans do, though.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:We had very few Nazi's in office when we were at war with Hitler.
Ah...another one of those people.
All Muslims are not terrorists. All Iraqi's are not terrorists. All Afghani's are not terrorists. Just repeat that mantra to yourself and maybe you won't make an ass of yourself by comparing Muslims to Nazis.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Sure. Or no book at all. Since when does the book itself enforce the oath?"
By what it says about the person by taking the oath. By your reasoning we might as well be taking an oath by placing our hands on the head of a police officer. Sure, a person can be a hypocrite. However, it at least helps to establish the person recognizes the same values as the rest of the society (even if they might not hold them).
As for Jews swearing on their Holy book, it should be realized that Christians consider the Jewish Scriptures to be equally as Holy. To use that as an argument is, more or less, to show ignorance of Christianity.
I have serious reservations about a Muslim respecting Democracy. At best they are suspect. It is the ONLY religion that I have felt needs to be banned from the United States of America.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, there's no requirement I could find that the oath be taken on any book, let alone a specific one.
That's good, because there isn't any book that I would feel comfortable swearing on.
I probably wouldn't make a stink about it for something like testifying in court, but to me swearing on the Bible is no more binding to me than swearing on a text-book.
Well, I probably believe most of what's in a text-book, so probably even less so.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: Whistle away Lisa, I bet you are a big fan of the five Muslim Arabs in the Knesset, or does the fact that they rate more scrutiny then the rest combined judging from the articles about them tell me your more probable position?
You mean the ones who publically assert that they oppose the existence of a Jewish state, and support suicide bombers? No, I'm not particularly fond of them. Then again, there are Arabs in the Likud who are absolutely good people. Could be they're Druze, rather than Muslim, but I wouldn't actually care one way or the other. The point is that it's their actions and positions that concern me. Not who they are.
You know nothing at all about this Keith Ellison guy other than the fact that he's Muslim. You made a bigoted comment. And rather than show some embarrassment for it, you decided to stand up tall and proclaim "I am a bigot". That's sick.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: As for Jews swearing on their Holy book, it should be realized that Christians consider the Jewish Scriptures to be equally as Holy. To use that as an argument is, more or less, to show ignorance of Christianity.
You are missing the point. It's not that they used a Tanach; it's that they wouldn't use a Christian bible.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have serious reservations about a Muslim respecting Democracy. At best they are suspect. It is the ONLY religion that I have felt needs to be banned from the United States of America.
Any country that Muslims are banned from isn't the United States of America.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Just repeat that mantra to yourself and maybe you won't make an ass of yourself by comparing Muslims to Nazis."
Just repeating a mantra is not going to change my view that, at least in heart if not in actions, they are all terrorists. Now not all Germans were Nazi's, but that doesn't mean a large portion of them didn't at the time support the movement.
I would like more proof that even a large minority are not tengentially anti-American and more importantantly anti-Democracy. Even the most democratic Egypt is more a theocracy than a democracy. However, I do recognize that was a democratically decided political situation.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I probably wouldn't make a stink about it for something like testifying in court
In federal court, the requirement is that "every witness shall be required to declare that the witness will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation administered in a form calculated to awaken the witness' conscience and impress the witness' mind with the duty to do so." So no worries there.
quote:However, it at least helps to establish the person recognizes the same values as the rest of the society (even if they might not hold them).
That would be what the election was for. The oath is required by the Constitution to ensure that the Constitution will be upheld. It's not to make some nebulous statement about values so vague as to be meaningless.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would like more proof that even a large minority are not tengentially anti-American and more importantantly anti-Democracy.
There's far more evidence that you - someone who has said that you feel Islam needs to be banned from our country - are against American democratic values than a random Muslim in America, let alone one that managed to get elected.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Even the most democratic Egypt is more a theocracy than a democracy. However, I do recognize that was a democratically decided political situation.
Aren't you the one who wants to establish a theocracy?
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just repeating a mantra is not going to change my view that, at least in heart if not in actions, they are all terrorists.
You know, I have some Muslim friends who I'd like to say would love to have that conversation with you -- but in reality, it'd probably depress them.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, Lisa, I'm curious about the opposition to swearing. I know that some Christians won't swear based on something Jesus said. I'm guessing that's not the basis for Jewish opposition to swearing. Might I ask what it is? (Is it the thing with Jepthah? Because I think that story would make me extremely wary of swearing.)
Regarding swearing on the Qur'an: I agree with just about everyone here. The point of swearing on a holy book is not that you are going to uphold that book. The point is that you're going to keep the oath you're swearing, which has absolutely nothing to do with the book (or lack thereof) in question. So, yeah...might as well have the guy swear on something that will make him inclined to keep his promises, whether that's a Qur'an, a Bible, a Tanach, the Principia Mathematica, the Silmarillion, whatever.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:That would be what the election was for. The oath is required by the Constitution to ensure that the Constitution will be upheld. It's not to make some nebulous statement about values so vague as to be meaningless.
I agree with this. Maybe all politicians should take their oath on a copy of the constitution that authorizes the office in the first place.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Swearing on their honour should be sufficient. If it isn't, nothing we put under their hand will make it sufficient.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That would be what the election was for. The oath is required by the Constitution to ensure that the Constitution will be upheld. It's not to make some nebulous statement about values so vague as to be meaningless.
I agree with this. Maybe all politicians should take their oath on a copy of the constitution that authorizes the office in the first place.
That doesn't make a lot of sense, though. The idea is for them to defend the Constitution. Swearing on it would be meaningless, since if they respect the Constitution enough to mean it, they'll already protect it, and if they don't care enough to protect it, the oath would be meaningless.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: Hey, Lisa, I'm curious about the opposition to swearing. I know that some Christians won't swear based on something Jesus said. I'm guessing that's not the basis for Jewish opposition to swearing.
<dryly> That's a reasonable guess.
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: Might I ask what it is? (Is it the thing with Jepthah? Because I think that story would make me extremely wary of swearing.)
It's not that. It's that swearing is a very complicated legal issue. We have several different types of oaths with different characteristics, and they need to be done, when they're done, with a great deal of care. It's generally discouraged to do any of them at all unless absolutely necessary, because God says in the Torah (Deuteronomy, towards the beginning; I'm too lazy to look it up right now) that He'll specifically extract payment from those who don't keep their vows.
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: So, yeah...might as well have the guy swear on something that will make him inclined to keep his promises, whether that's a Qur'an, a Bible, a Tanach, the Principia Mathematica, the Silmarillion, whatever.
Stranger in a Strange Land. The Spiral Dance.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: So, yeah...might as well have the guy swear on something that will make him inclined to keep his promises, whether that's a Qur'an, a Bible, a Tanach, the Principia Mathematica, the Silmarillion, whatever.
quote:Swearing on their honour should be sufficient. If it isn't, nothing we put under their hand will make it sufficient.
I agree, swearing on a book shouldn't be necessary, but it seems to be a pretty important symbolic gesture to many people. But what exactly is it supposed to symbolize, that there is some higher power that binds them to their oath, or that there is some religious value system that they adhere to? I think it would just be better to remove the religious overtones from these political matters altogether.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
What the columnist and a couple of posters here are missing is that the bible does not represent our values as a society. Their underlying assumption is wrong, and it makes the rest of their ranting nonsense. We are a specifically secular society, and the constitution which our elected officials swear to uphold goes to great lengths to make it clear that there is no official religion. By extension, then, a religious document cannot possibly represent our civil values.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by camus: [QUOTE] I think it would just be better to remove the religious overtones from these political matters altogether.
Agreed.
However, if a politician feels that need, then whatever book is holy to them should be used. I wouldn't trust anyone who swore on someone else's holy book. Wouldn't that just be negate the oath?
Regarding whether all Muslims should be trusted or not: What is this? The Red Scare? Give me a break. My best friend is Muslim. I live in a largely Muslim area in Chicago. I have never felt threatened by anyone here. To state that all of the people in any religion are on the same page as everyone else in that religion is false, and makes you sound ignorant.
Posts: 511 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree that this is a secular society. Our currency even says In God We Trust.
The government was set up so that it would never be run by a church, that doesn't make it a secular society though.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think they should have one testicle removed and kept on ice to be returned if they live up to their conservative promises at the end of their cycle, of course I do not know what the refrigeration life of a testicle is, Kennedy's would probably be as shriveled as his liver, Kerry's would be as hard to find as they are right now and Hillary would have to loan us Bill's which have pretty high mileage on them, but at least Hillary has them on her person most the time if we really want one...
quote: All Muslims are not terrorists. All Iraqi's are not terrorists. All Afghani's are not terrorists. Just repeat that mantra to yourself and maybe you won't make an ass of yourself by comparing Muslims to Nazis.
Not all Nazi's gassed Jew's either, it was the hobby of a select few, yet if you are unwilling to leave the political party that is clearly up to some pretty harsh behavior you are tarred with the same brush. "Every man who eats meat is on the same moral level with the butcher"
Also to give the Muslims a pass because they disguise their political agenda as a religion is a bit foolish, or are you one of 'those people' who sees Islams political role as secondary or separate from its philosophy, whatever that really is?
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:are you one of 'those people' who sees Islams political role as secondary or separate from its philosophy
Most of the Muslims I know see Islam's political role as separate from its theology. While it's true that not all Muslims feel that way, it's also the case that not all Catholics feel that way about their church.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: I think they should have one testicle removed and kept on ice to be returned if they live up to their conservative promises at the end of their cycle, of course I do not know what the refrigeration life of a testicle is, Kennedy's would probably be as shriveled as his liver, Kerry's would be as hard to find as they are right now and Hillary would have to loan us Bill's which have pretty high mileage on them, but at least Hillary has them on her person most the time if we really want one...
quote: All Muslims are not terrorists. All Iraqi's are not terrorists. All Afghani's are not terrorists. Just repeat that mantra to yourself and maybe you won't make an ass of yourself by comparing Muslims to Nazis.
Not all Nazi's gassed Jew's either, it was the hobby of a select few, yet if you are unwilling to leave the political party that is clearly up to some pretty harsh behavior you are tarred with the same brush. "Every man who eats meat is on the same moral level with the butcher"
Also to give the Muslims a pass because they disguise their political agenda as a religion is a bit foolish, or are you one of 'those people' who sees Islams political role as secondary or separate from its philosophy, whatever that really is?
So should Jews blame Christians as a whole for past (and present)crimes of a select few?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not all Nazi's gassed Jew's either, it was the hobby of a select few, yet if you are unwilling to leave the political party that is clearly up to some pretty harsh behavior you are tarred with the same brush.
Nazis were a political party, not a religion, and your inability to seperate the two makes it impossible to have a discussion.
quote:Also to give the Muslims a pass because they disguise their political agenda as a religion is a bit foolish, or are you one of 'those people' who sees Islams political role as secondary or separate from its philosophy, whatever that really is?
Or, said another way:
Also to give the Christians a pass because they disguise their political agenda as a religion is a bit foolish, or are you one of 'those people' who sees Christianity's political role as secondary or separate from its philosophy, whatever that really is?
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: So, yeah...might as well have the guy swear on something that will make him inclined to keep his promises, whether that's a Qur'an, a Bible, a Tanach, the Principia Mathematica, the Silmarillion, whatever.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
