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.
Given that Americans of Jewish faith take their oath of office on the Bible and atheists take their oath of office on the Bible, why should Ellison be different?
I kind of like the idea that if he won't take the oath on the Bible, that he shouldn't be allowed to take his seat in Congress, and that his Republican opponent be given the seat.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I know, it'll never happen, but I can dream, can't I?
:)
dana: like the idea that if he won't take the oath on the Bible, that he shouldn't be allowed to take his seat in Congress
ReplyDeleteSo that the Bible becomes a shibboleth, rather than a sacred text?
You are correct. I looked it up and the history of the presidential oath of office is interesting. For example, Teddy Roosevelt did not swear his oath on a Bible and Dwight Eisenhower, Harry Truman, and Richard Nixon all used two Bibles.
ReplyDeleteDoes it say anything to our enemies if a Koran is used, as Prager implies?
And to answer your question, what about people who perjure themselves and so, one can assume, find their oaths to be meaningless?
Why should it matter? I would expect that he should swear on something which would be meaningful to him, whose presence when he is taking the oath would remind him of the importance of keeping it and bind him to it.
ReplyDeleteIf the bible won't do that for him but the koran will, why is it a problem?
Originally, I was thinking about the continuity of using the Bible, a book most often recognized by Americans as part of the ceremony. But after Julian's comment, I looked up information on the ceremony and not only is it not required, but hasn't always been used and when it has, it has been used by different people to signify different things.
ReplyDeleteGiven all that, I really don't see a problem with him using a Koran, a book that has great significance to him. I suspect, however, that most conservatives won't see it that way.
I suspect, however, that most conservatives won't see it that way.
ReplyDeleteProbably because most conservatives don't much like the principles expressed in the US Constitution.
"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." -Article IV
Jes,
ReplyDeleteTry reading. It could really help with your comprehension.
It's not necessarily about what is required, but rather what one should do. That's where the disagreement comes in.