View Full Version : Oath of Office
I’m a Christian so I am strongly biased. However, given all we face with the GWOT, this change in tradition / practice seems to be a very bad idea for the US. Any thoughts out there?
WASHINGTON — Letter written by Rep. Virgil Goode (R-Va.) in response to constituents commenting on Rep.-elect Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) using a Koran to take the oath of office:
Thank you for your recent communication.
When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand.
I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran.
We need to stop illegal immigration totally and reduce legal immigration and end the diversity visas policy pushed hard by President Clinton and allowing many persons from the Middle East to come to this country.
I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped.
The Ten Commandments and "In God We Trust" are on the wall in my office. A Muslim student came by the office and asked why I did not have anything on my wall about the Koran. My response was clear, "As long as I have the honor of representing the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia in the United States House of Representatives, The Koran is not going to be on the wall of my office." Thank you again for your email and thoughts.
aricbcool
12-21-2006, 17:48
Any thoughts out there?
By posting the blurb from Rep. Greene, I'm assuming you agree with his views? He doesn't say in his letter, so I'll ask you: Why do you think allowing a Muslim man to swear upon the Koran is a bad idea?
Here's what I think: Not everyone in America is a Christian. Nor does one have to hold traditional Christian values in order to be morally qualified to hold office. While I understand that it's a long-standing tradition to take an oath of office upon the Holy Bible, I don't think it's an important enough tradition to restrict the freedom of others to choose a Holy Book of their liking.
Another point to ponder is what effect the Holy Book one is swearing upon has upon the oath itself. For instance, how much more seriously would you, a Christian, take an oath upon the Holy Bible vs. the Koran, a book you do not believe in?
A man taking an oath upon a book that is not Holy to him might as well be swearing upon the latest paperback bestseller. The only thing he has left is his own strength of character to follow through with what he's been charged to do, rather than an obligation to his Holy Book and the Holy Hand that wrote it.
If anything, Ellison is merely showing how seriously he takes the oath ceremony.
As far as the GWOT goes, do you really think that refusing to let Mulsim elected officials swear their oath upon the Koran will help eventually win the Global War on Terror?
Regards,
Aric
PS: Could you provide a link for the quoted article you posted?
Kyobanim
12-21-2006, 19:18
I'm not a believer period. If I chose to run for office and for some freak of nature, was elected, I wouldn't use a bible or the koran or any other religious symbol.
I would put my hand on a copy of the Constitution. My office would have the Constitution hanging on one wall and the Declaration of Independance on the other. On another wall would be pictures of as many of my constituants that I could get to remind me daily of who I was there to represent.
Peregrino
12-21-2006, 19:38
I'm not a believer period. If I chose to run for office and for some freak of nature, was elected, I wouldn't use a bible or the koran or any other religious symbol.
I would put my hand on a copy of the Constitution. My office would have the Constitution hanging on one wall and the Declaration of Independance on the other. On another wall would be pictures of as many of my constituants that I could get to remind me daily of who I was there to represent.
AMEN! (Don't forget to have available the Federalist Papers and other documents published by the Founding Fathers so the "original intent" issue stays clear and in the forefront.) Though Aricbcool does have a legitimate point. Peregrino
I’m a Christian so I am strongly biased. However, given all we face with the GWOT, this change in tradition / practice seems to be a very bad idea for the US. Any thoughts out there?there were those who felt that departing from the Anglican Church and casting off the monarchy were bad ideas...personally, if one chooses to take the oath on a Bible, i have no objection...i would prefer to see the Constitution take a more central role...(although Kyo is probably correct in his self-assessed electability)...i don't care where one goes to church, let folks worship as they choose...but their oath, before God or Goddess or whomever, is to "Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States" and it is this sacred (IMNSHO) document that provides for the freedom to swear an oath on the scripture of choice...
jasonglh
12-21-2006, 20:02
President John Quincy Adams took the oath on law books including the Constitution.
Constitution of the United States : Article VI
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.
IMO....It doesn't matter what you place your left hand upon when being sworn into office, although I do like the Constitution suggestions, as mentioned above.
In fact, the very first swearing in of an elected official, George Washington, the use of a Bible was an after thought.
Here's a nice little blurb about the "George Washington Bible"
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0500250.htm
What does it matter, what faith our elected officials are, as long as they do the job in which they were elected and to "Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States."
My $0.02
GreenSalsa
12-22-2006, 06:15
Agree with all of the above...
As a Christian I would rather someone DID NOT use the Bible as a "prop" and swear on it. I think comments from the letter above give "proof" and "ammunition" to the Muslim extremists about the Christian bias in America / rest of the World.
PS: Could you provide a link for the quoted article you posted?
Here is the address
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,237990,00.html
I should elaborate further as to my thoughts when I read this article. Let me first say that I am NOT an educated man (barely E and E’d from High School).
From my O.P. it would appear that the oath or rather how taken is an indicator of the values and beliefs of the people. It seems to me that most of the colonists were from Europe and members of the Christian faith in some form.
I read this letter and I see that Rep. Goode is concerned with what seems to be an increasing Muslim presence in this country. (see today’s follow up story below)
We are as a country today what our forefathers envisioned and fought to establish.
I don’t want to see that dream altered in the future by those whose religious faith would trump their commitment to the original intent of our forefathers. I see Muslim problems in France today and wonder how much it affects their national policy. I understand that we are a “melting pot”; but I do wonder how much of one ingredient the recipe can stand before we lose our original flavor.
I spent my “college years” learning from the Officers and NCOs that I served under. That learning process continues for me today via this forum. Thanks for allowing me to lurk and learn!
Lawmaker Stands Firm on Quran Criticism
By SUE LINDSEY
Associated Press Writer
ROCKY MOUNT, Va. — A congressman said Thursday that he will not retract a letter warning that unless immigration is tightened, "many more Muslims will be elected" and use the Quran to take the oath of office.
Republican Rep. Virgil Goode triggered angry responses from a civil rights group and some colleagues with a letter this month to constituents concerned about a decision by Rep.-elect Keith Ellison of Minnesota, the first Muslim elected to Congress, to use the Quran when he is sworn in.
"I will not be putting my hand on the Quran," Goode said at a news conference Thursday at the Franklin County Courthouse.
Goode, who represents Virginia's 5th Congressional District, said he is receiving more positive comments from constituents than negative.
"One lady told me she thinks I'm doing the right thing on this," he told Fox News. "I wish more people would take a stand and stand up for the principles on which this country was founded."
Goode also told Fox News he wants to limit legal immigration and do away with "diversity visas," which he said let in people "not from European countries" and "some terrorist states."
In his letter, Goode wrote that strict immigration polices are necessary "to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America.""The Muslim representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran," he wrote.
Ellison said Thursday that Goode and others had nothing to fear about Muslims.
"They are our nurses, doctors, husbands, wives, kids, who just want to live and prosper in the American way," Ellison, a Democrat from Minneapolis, said Thursday on CNN when asked what he would say to Goode if they met. "All of us are steadfastly opposed to the same people he's opposed to, which is terrorists, and so there's nothing for him to be afraid of."
Asked whether he thought Goode was a bigot, Ellison said, "I don't know the fellow, and I'd rather just say that he has a lot to learn about Islam. ... I don't want to start any name-calling."
Virginia's senior senator, Republican John Warner, said in a statement Thursday that he respects the right of congressional members to freely "exercise the religion of their choice, including those of the Islamic faith utilizing the Quran."
Rep. Rahm Emanuel, an Illinois Democrat who is Jewish, said Thursday that he hoped Goode would meet with Ellison, saying he would "see what I saw: a good American with good values of a different faith who's trying to do right by the people he represents."
The Council on American-Islamic Relations had asked Goode to apologize, saying the remarks sent "a message of intolerance that is unworthy of anyone elected to public office."
Ellison was born in Detroit and converted to Islam in college.
His decision to use the Quran at his ceremonial swearing-in next month prompted criticism from conservative talk radio host Dennis Prager. The American-Islamic relations council has called for Prager's removal from the board of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.
....... The American-Islamic relations council has called for Prager's removal from the board of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.
Dang, I was doing good until I got to the last line. Snooorked coffee all over my desk.
Hey A-IRC, how about that nutcake in Iran? Oh, right, we are the only ones who need to grow, understand, study all the good things about islam and what it will do for us once we convert.
When in America do as the immams do.
Thanks for the morning chuckle.
Pete
x SF med
12-22-2006, 08:11
Dang, I was doing good until I got to the last line. Snooorked coffee all over my desk.
Pete
Pete-
Q'est que c'est 'snooorked'? I like the word, but would prefer to be able to use it correctly. Is this the correct verb for liquids being focefully ejected from the nasal passages due to uncontrollable laughing?
Humbly submitted,
x
...Is this the correct verb for liquids being focefully ejected from the nasal passages due to uncontrollable laughing?
Humbly submitted,
x
Yes, along with a few chokes and gags.
I have a bad habit of drinking coffee as I read through a long thread. It was a ho-hum post and I took a big swig just as I got to the last bit. One hand on the mouse, one hand on the cup "Help, Cecil, Help.":D
Pete
x SF med
12-22-2006, 09:20
Pete-
I'm a major coffee addict - gotcha boss.
Thank you for the new word, will it be in the new edition of the OED soon, or just the SF dictionary?
It seems to me that most of the colonists were from Europe and members of the Christian faith in some form.
Here's something for ya bud. The United States was not founded on the Christen Religion. As was said in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1798.
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli
Most of "Founding Fathers", as you say, were more or less followers of the Protestant faith.
IMO....what Goode is doing is nothing more than "Grandstanding" and "Fear Mongering", and "Stirring the Pot" as it were. Again, who cares what a persons religion is, as long as they can do the job, in which they were elected into.
x SF med
12-22-2006, 12:38
Diver-
I fully agree Honor, Integrity and competency are what makes a person good for any elected position - religion is irrelevant. If I were in the same district and TS ran for office, I'd probably vote for the pagan, because he's got the honor and integrity part down - as for competency, he better be running for sherriff.
I'm definitely a believer, but Rep Goode's statements border on Xenophobia. And while it does make me a little uneasy to see someone sworn into office with the Koran, I think it's better to grit my teeth and tolerate it than to force religion down someone's throat.
aricbcool
01-04-2007, 02:08
From my O.P. it would appear that the oath or rather how taken is an indicator of the values and beliefs of the people.
I disagree, considering that the oath itself is defined in the Constitution and hasn't changed since its inception, while the beliefs and values of the people most certainly have. How the oath is taken is an indication of the beliefs of the person taking it, or in some cases how said person wishes to be viewed by the people.
Check this link out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States_oath_of_office
It seems to me that most of the colonists were from Europe and members of the Christian faith in some form.
First google hit for "Founding Fathers Christians": http://watkins.gospelcom.net/foundingfathers.htm
Go down about halfway and it goes through several of the founding fathers. The short answer...
"They were certainly godly men who believed in a supreme being, but not everyone would subscribe to the Apostles' Creed."
As far as colonists goes, I could not find any demographics for religous groups in 18th century colonial America online.
In my opinion, the "Christian Values" that are espoused in the Constitution stem less from the religion itself, and more from the unique culture that the document comes from. These cultural values are determined by a recipe of many things, sometimes to include the dominant religion of the area.
That said, not everything to do with cultural values stems from the local religion. For instance, the common pursuit of Classical studies among the founding fathers arguably leads to the founders modeling their government in many ways after Republican Rome.
To convolute things further, religions will often change their moral attitudes to reflect the cultural values of the time (in order to attract more followers). This brings about the chicken vs egg problem, of which came first, the value or the religion espousing it?
What I'm getting at is that for the purposes of this argument, the terms "Christian Values" and "Western Values" can be interchangeable, considering that in spite of an individual's spiritual beliefs, the individual often shared cultural values to match that of the people. A modern example of this would be the Muslim who says he shares many of the same values as you. Or the many posts in this thread noting that honesty, morality, and strength of character are not a Christian Monopoly.
I think the whole view that America was a "Christian Nation" until recent liberal ideas tainted our longstanding traditional viewpoints stems from Christian idealism run rampant in the early 20th century. A few examples are prohibition (spearheaded by the Women's Christian Temperance Union), the addition of "Under God" in the pledge of allegience, and the Hays Code of 1930.
The latter being a code of content by which films of the time were to be produced created a massive amount of moral propaganda as well as reinforced the American values of the time as being the same American values that have been held for all time.
Films upon films that glorify America as a God fearing nation beset on all sides by immorality and sin were a dime a dozen. Biblical epics presented as allegory can be included in the mix.
We who have inhereted these films end up with an easy medium by which to base many assumptions that aren't necessarily true.
I read this letter and I see that Rep. Goode is concerned with what seems to be an increasing Muslim presence in this country. (see today’s follow up story below)
If I were to be concerned about any growing presence in this country right now, it would be the number of illegal Mexican immigrants. I think that will have a much larger cultural impact upon this country in the near future than any Muslims will. In addition, I don't think that Keith Ellison is an illegal immigrant, nor did any vote for him so I don't see how illegal immigration has anything to do with him or the way he takes his oath. It looks to me like Goode is taking an easy opportunity to gather support for his new legislation.
We are as a country today what our forefathers envisioned and fought to establish.
I don’t want to see that dream altered in the future by those whose religious faith would trump their commitment to the original intent of our forefathers. I see Muslim problems in France today and wonder how much it affects their national policy. I understand that we are a “melting pot”; but I do wonder how much of one ingredient the recipe can stand before we lose our original flavor.
No we're not. This country today is based on a system of government our forefathers created. Originally, the constitution had 10 ammendments. Since then we've added 17 more. Futhermore, our forefathers original intent is debated every day in courthouses across America. Gun control is the most prominent example that comes to mind.
This original flavor you speak of is already gone. New flavors are here in the form of emancipation, women's suffrage, presidential term limits, equal rights, and federal income tax. The list of ingredients grows longer if we leave the protective shell of the Constitution and taste the rainbow of Bureaus, Agencies, Offices, Services, Commissions, and Organizations.
I agree that Muslim immigration is a concern, especially considering Europe's track record. Illegal immigration as a whole is a huge problem as well. There are very few trends I've seen lately that I agree with in regards to culture, morality, and the role of the government in both. However, I think it's a cheap shot to hide behind the argument of "what our forefathers intended", especially when what you're saying isn't specified in the legal documents these forefathers took so many pains to create.
I'm sorry for dragging up an old post. I was going to reply to this sooner, but Christmas happened.
Regards,
Aric
Peregrino
01-04-2007, 15:22
:munchin :munchin :munchin
BTW - Nice argument! Now, before it goes nuclear: Y'all play nice now, yuh heah!
Peregrino
incommin
01-04-2007, 18:24
Point one - Jews, Christians, and Muslims share the same god and the same early old testament beliefs but not the same religion.
Point two - Most of the early founding fathers believed in a god or a higher power; a few were deists. No all were Christians.
Point three - The oath taken today does not have the same meaning it did.... I'll leave it at men were more honorable then...... personal honor meant more.
Point - four - Our courts have reinterpreted the constitution and made laws that have changed the intent of the founding fathers..... some for good and some for bad.....
Point five - We argue over things that are emotional and can only be measured in the eye of the beholder ( justice, fair, equal, right and wrong are a few)...
My .02
Jim
The culture war is about the authority of a book
By Dennis Prager
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
If you want to predict on which side an American will line up in the Culture War wracking America, virtually all you have to do is get an answer to this question: Does the person believe in the divinity and authority of the Five Books of Moses, the first five books of the Bible, known as the Torah? ("Divinity" does not necessarily mean "literalism.")
I do not ask this about "the Bible" as a whole because the one book that is regarded as having divine authority by believing Jews, Catholics, Protestants and Mormons, among others, is not the entire Bible, but the Torah. Religious Jews do not believe in the New Testament and generally confine divine revelation even within the Old Testament to the Torah and to verses where God is cited by the prophets, for example. But "Bible-believing" Christians and Jews do believe in the divinity of the Torah.
And they line up together on virtually every major social/moral issue.
Name the issue: same-sex marriage; the morality of medically unnecessary abortions; capital punishment for murder; the willingness to label certain actions, regimes, even people "evil"; skepticism regarding the United Nations and the World Court; strong support for Israel. While there are exceptions -- there are, for example, secular conservatives who share the Bible-believers' social views -- belief in a God-based authority of the Torah is as close to a predictable dividing line as exists.
That is why one speaks of Judeo-Christian values, but not of Judeo-Christian theology. Torah-believing Jews and Torah-believing Christians have very different theological beliefs, but they agree on almost all values issues -- largely because they share a belief in the divinity of the same text.
Many members of all these different religions have found it quite remarkable how similar their values are to those of members of these other religions. An evangelical Protestant who might regard Mormonism as nothing more than a heretical cult will find himself seated next to Mormons at a rally on behalf of the Boy Scouts. An Orthodox rabbi who might never set foot in a church will join a panel of Christians in opposing the redefining of marriage. And so on.
Very often the dividing line in America is portrayed as between those who believe in God and those who don't. But the vast majority of Americans believe in God, and belief in God alone rarely affects people's values. Many liberals believe in God; many conservatives do. What matters is not whether people believe in God but what text, if any, they believe to be divine. Those who believe that He has spoken through a given text will generally think differently from those who believe that no text is divine. Such people will usually get their values from other texts, or more likely from their conscience and heart.
That a belief or lack of belief in the divinity of a book dating back over 2,500 years is at the center of the Culture War in America and between religious America and secular Europe is almost unbelievable. But it not only explains these divisions; it also explains the hatred that much of the Left has for Jewish, Protestant, Catholic and Mormon Bible-believers.
For the Left, such beliefs are irrational, absurd and immoral.
Which is exactly how most conservatives regard most leftist beliefs, such as: there is nothing inherently superior in a child being raised by a mother and father rather than by two fathers or two mothers; men and women are not basically different, but only socially influenced to be different; Marxism was scientific; that the Soviet Union was not an evil empire; it was immoral for Israel to bomb Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor; morality is relative to the individual or society; there is no moral judgment to be made about a woman aborting a healthy human fetus solely because she doesn't want a baby at this time; material poverty, not moral poverty, causes violent crime, etc.
This divide explains why the wrath of the Left has fallen on those of us who lament the exclusion of the Bible at a ceremonial swearing-in of an American congressman. The Left wants to see that book dethroned. And that, in a nutshell, is what the present civil war is about.
:munchin :munchin :munchin
BTW - Nice argument! Now, before it goes nuclear: Y'all play nice now, yuh heah!
Peregrino
Not going nuclear here. As I said previously, I’m here to lurk and learn. My initial post was to “stir the pot” so to speak in order to glean from the wisdom of the members of this board. Many folks here have much more training as a soldier than I, not to mention education and life experience. I, like most, know what I believe but I’m always willing to learn more. Thanks to you Aric and the rest of you for taking the time to share your perspectives. SG out.
Team Sergeant
01-05-2007, 10:41
I’m a Christian so I am strongly biased. However, given all we face with the GWOT, this change in tradition / practice seems to be a very bad idea for the US. Any thoughts out there?
Yes.
In being "strongly biased" you limit your ability to think logically. You've been taught "what to think" try learning "how to think" instead.
Did you ever consider this "political theatrics"? Just as hollywood actors love being in the spotlight so do politictians. They seem to have little concern if its good or bad media, just so long as their names are mentioned.
When I become a US Senator I'll take my oath on a toilet.;)
Why? I've made a few promises while praying to the porcelain gods and I intend to honor those promises.:D
TS
Yes.
I've made a few promises while praying to the porcelain gods and I intend to honor those promises.:D
TS
Ah , I see we do have one thing in common:D
Thanks for the words of wisdom TS!
The Reaper
01-05-2007, 11:55
Yes.
In being "strongly biased" you limit your ability to think logically. You've been taught "what to think" try learning "how to think" instead.
Did you ever consider this "political theatrics"? Just as hollywood actors love being in the spotlight so do politictians. They seem to have little concern if its good or bad media, just so long as their names are mentioned.
When I become a US Senator I'll take my oath on a toilet.;)
Why? I've made a few promises while praying to the porcelain gods and I intend to honor those promises.:D
TS
I think the words will be hard to understand with your head down there in that position.:D
TR
Danny Muj
01-05-2007, 23:56
Following the logic of allowing any religious book to be used whilst swearing in would allow for an individual to swear in on the Satanic Bible, if that were the representative religious book of that person, would it not?
Would that pose a problem for anyone?
aricbcool
01-06-2007, 00:26
Following the logic of allowing any religious book to be used whilst swearing in would allow for an individual to swear in on the Satanic Bible, if that were the representative religious book of that person, would it not?
Would that pose a problem for anyone?
I can think of a few politicians where that would be entirely appropriate.
--Aric
CoLawman
01-06-2007, 01:29
It is not a question of religious tolerance, it is a question of loyalty. Is he loyal to this country or is it superceded by his Muslim beliefs? Having acquired a certain distrust of his religion, I find his act symbolic. In my warped mind he is not using the Koran to swear loyalty to the constitution, but rather it is a public display of his loyalty to his religion. Which scares me.
I wonder how long it takes for him to use my tax dollars to call on Ahmadinejad and Khameni ?
Aric,
I believe illegal aliens who are Muslim pose a threat on par with Mexican illegals.
aricbcool
01-06-2007, 01:50
Aric,
I believe illegal aliens who are Muslim pose a threat on par with Mexican illegals.
Which kind?
I should have clarified my previous post. I was thinking of illegal immigrants in particular, the kind that bring their familes in order to settle. The post was geared towards the social changes evident in GB and Europe. The kind intent on bringing death and terror are another story and are a greater threat than the Mexicans IMO.
Of course it could be pointed out that many terrorists come from the large muslim immigrant populations in Western nations. I'm not sure how accurate this would be in regards to the US.
My thinking is that the enormous population of Mexican illegals is destroying the infrastructure of this country much faster than the muslim immigrant population is destroying its social values.
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this.
--Aric
aricbcool
01-06-2007, 02:31
The culture war is about the authority of a book
By Dennis Prager
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
If you want to predict on which side an American will line up in the Culture War wracking America, virtually all you have to do is get an answer to this question: Does the person believe in the divinity and authority of the Five Books of Moses, the first five books of the Bible, known as the Torah? ("Divinity" does not necessarily mean "literalism.")
I do not ask this about "the Bible" as a whole because the one book that is regarded as having divine authority by believing Jews, Catholics, Protestants and Mormons, among others, is not the entire Bible, but the Torah. Religious Jews do not believe in the New Testament and generally confine divine revelation even within the Old Testament to the Torah and to verses where God is cited by the prophets, for example. But "Bible-believing" Christians and Jews do believe in the divinity of the Torah.
Shouldn't we lump Muslims in there too? ;)
It's an interesting article. However, I think that the "culture war" that everyone talks about is mostly waged by the two political parties rather than believers vs. non-believers, as I think most people (believers and non-believers) have varying opinions on all of the social issues of today.
Where the war begins is at the ballot box where I have to choose a politician who is associated with a political party that has a platform that specifically defines its stance on all of these issues, half of which I disagree with. Thus, the people are polarized based on which ticket they vote rather than what they believe.
Also, the Torah isn't that specific about a lot of the issues at hand. For instance, where in the Bible does it talk about... "the morality of medically unnecessary abortions;skepticism regarding the United Nations and the World Court; strong support for Israel", or others not mentioned in the article, like illegal immigration, economic strategy, affirmative action, political correctness, etc.
--Aric
Team Sergeant
01-06-2007, 09:49
Following the logic of allowing any religious book to be used whilst swearing in would allow for an individual to swear in on the Satanic Bible, if that were the representative religious book of that person, would it not?
Would that pose a problem for anyone?
I guess my attempt at humor in using a toilet to swear an oath didn't kick into your logic loop? Then again maybe it did and you do understand?:rolleyes:
I would say that yes it opens the door to anyone to use any symbol when taking an oath of "allegiance". Soon the allegiance itself will be a thing of the past.
I'm sure my forefathers are turning in their graves.
TS
Kyobanim
01-06-2007, 10:53
These people are swearing to uphold the Constitution, not the religious symbol that their hand is on. Are they not as patriotic as you if they believe in Muhamud (sp?) Maybe a Jew wants to only use the old testament, is that allowed?
If someone doesn't believe in your version of god does that mean they can't participate in the Democratic system?
Maybe we should make a list of gods that are permissable to use in the United States.
One of the founding principles of this country was freedom of religion. I guess they were just kidding.
bandycpa
01-06-2007, 11:35
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus himself said, "Do not swear at all...Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes', and your 'No', 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one". (Matt 5:33-37 [condensed])
Without getting too detailed, the religious leaders during Christ's time had a habit of using grand oaths to emphasize just how serious they were about doing what they said they would do. In other words, if one said "By God in Heaven, I'll do it.", that carried more weight than someone simply saying "Yes, I'll do it.". Of course, if a high priest swore by Jerusalem, and he wasn't in Jerusalem at the time, the oath didn't carry as much weight. That's how fine the Art of Oathmaking was back in that day.
So, Christ's admonition about oaths was about getting back to basics...to mean what you say. Your "Yes and No" is all you have control over. As such, swearing on the Bible, Quran, Torah, etc. merely externally accentuates our promise. The real test of the oath taken depends on the character of the person making it. The symbolism of swearing on something is cool and all, but the substance is in that person's morals, ethics and character.
In my view, I would see nothing wrong with a person just standing up, raising their right hand, and taking their oath without any kind of religious symbol at all. The promise is still in full effect, and the consequences of breaking that promise are just as dire.
My .02.
Bandy
FearTheCats
01-12-2007, 11:16
In North Carolina courts, we still take oaths with our hands on Bibles that have "North Carolina Judicial Department" printed on the front covers. Except at last month's swearing-in; we had so many deputies taking the oath that we had to draft some POBs (privately owned Bibles). But if your faith doesn't permit you to recognize the Bible, you can take an affirmation that has the same effect.
In Florida, you just raise your right hand and swear or affirm to tell the truth. Works about as well.
Most people don't give a hoot. One time, I had a Muslim client who told me she swore on the Bible in court while wearing her hijab and everything. I'm like, whaaaaat? She said she it didn't matter to her. :eek: Okeydoke, I won't tell the guys who issue fatwas.
I think you should be allowed to swear on the Quran, Torah, Book of Satan, Book of Shadows, Atlas Shrugged, The Origin of Species, whatever you take seriously. If you don't like what somebody swears on, then DON'T VOTE FOR THEM.
Sdiver, I can't let this pass without comment.
Here's something for ya bud. The United States was not founded on the Christen [sic] Religion. As was said in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1798.
Quote:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli
mmm hmmm ... one block quote from Wikipedia is all we need to smack down those deluded Sudden Babdis bumpkins.
Here's one for YA, Sdiver--tell me where they keep the original Treaty of Tripoli, and explain why it is still valid today, if (hint) it ever really said that.
Kyobanim
01-12-2007, 12:30
It has already been said to keep the discussion friendly. It won't be said again. This goes for everyone.
F.T.C. : just saw this. Gotta run out the door to that work thing. I'll get ya later, that is, if the thread isn't locked/closed by the time I get back. ;)
It has already been said to keep the discussion friendly. It won't be said again. This goes for everyone.
I hope everyone plays nice....I'm lurking to learn something.:)
It is not a question of religious tolerance, it is a question of loyalty. Is he loyal to this country or is it superseded by his Muslim beliefs? Having acquired a certain distrust of his religion, I find his act symbolic. In my warped mind he is not using the Koran to swear loyalty to the constitution, but rather it is a public display of his loyalty to his religion. Which scares me.
I wonder how long it takes for him to use my tax dollars to call on Ahmadinejad and Khameni ?
What about a Jewish person?
What about Catholics, are they more loyal to the Vatican?
Do you identify yourself as a Christian first, American second? If so, what would you say to someone that questioned your loyalty?
Say the situation were reversed, Islam were the majority and you were being sworn in with the Bible, would you be swearing your loyalty to the Constitution or making a public display of loyalty to your religion ? Further, in a country that has freedom of religion as a cornerstone, why would you use the Koran which is not your belief, for someone's piece of mind?
FearTheCats and Sdiver, I think a discussion on the Treaty of Tripoli would be pretty interesting, especially since I only have a limited understanding of the topic. How about you guys start a new thread to discuss it should you decide to continue on that topic shift?
The Reaper
01-12-2007, 20:29
IIRC, Christians, Jews, and Muslims are all "People of the Book", and all accept the Old Testament as the Holy Word.
Having said that, why is a Bible containing that (or an Old Testament) not acceptable to any of the three?
TR
I understand that the Torah is the same for Jews and Christians - has anyone here read the Quran? Is the same Torah included in it?
CoLawman
01-12-2007, 21:28
What about a Jewish person?
What about Catholics, are they more loyal to the Vatican?
TK,
The Pope nor the Rabbis are responsible for civil unrest and warfare in the countries their followers populate. These two religions do not incite their followers to overthrow governments through violent means. The Catholics do not blow up the DNC headquarters due to the opposition of abortion. The Vatican does not issue Fatwahs or edicts against governments and/or infidels.
Read the Geneva Spiritual Appeal of 1999. You will see that all religions gathered, asking GOVERNMENTS not to use religion as justification for violence.
Certainly governments have persecuted Muslims and engaged in genocide, but not as a result of religious edicts. Just the opposite, governments have used religion as justification for abhorrent acts. Now in those countries where Muslims have persecuted and participated in abhorrent acts......I can assure you it was at the direction of their spiritual leaders.
Do you identify yourself as a Christian first, American second? If so, what would you say to someone that questioned your loyalty?
I live my life as a Christian which is not in conflict with being a loyal American. I pray to my God and swear allegiance to America. No ranking required.
Your question is similar to, Are you a husband first and a father second? :rolleyes:
Say the situation were reversed, Islam were the majority and you were being sworn in with the Bible, would you be swearing your loyalty to the Constitution or making a public display of loyalty to your religion ? Further, in a country that has freedom of religion as a cornerstone, why would you use the Koran which is not your belief, for someone's piece of mind?
I appreciate your questions, but we are getting far afield from my original statement. ellison swearing on the Koran disturbs me, emphasis on ellison. Homeboy is an advocate for Gang members, more specifically for Vice Lords gang leader Sharif Willisone, who shot and killed a Minnesota police officer. Additionally, Homeboy is an advocate for convicted cop-killer Assata Shakur, who is currently on the FBI's Most Wanted. Homeboy seems to be a fan of Symbionese Liberation Army terrorist Sara Jane Olson, advocating her release.
I won't go into the whole Nation of Islam and Homeboy's ties to Louis Farrakhan.
Homeboy's affiliation with Islam does increase my already healthy distrust of Islam.
In summary Homeboy's swearing on the Koran disturbs me and let me reiterate that his motive is suspect.
Now where was that homeboy's most recent comment about........America's "occupation" of Iraq ..........
Should have considered Max_Tab’s video first (see comedy zone). Please disregard my previous question. Moving out to Google.
jfhiller
01-12-2007, 22:24
I understand that the Torah is the same for Jews and Christians - has anyone here read the Quran? Is the same Torah included in it?
The Torah isn't in the Quran. The Torah is considered a holy text by Muslims, but on any discrepancies, the Quran is understood to be authoritative and corrective of it. Practically speaking, very little attention is paid to the Torah (or the New Testament for that matter, also considered holy) by most Muslims.
edited:
Sorry. Didn't disregard soon enough...
FearTheCats
01-13-2007, 00:49
Razor: done.
Kyobanim: will comply.
Hope the new thread inspires some curiosity and thinking, and another reminder that the more things change, the more they stay the same. The Mooselimb pirate problem was already 300 years old in 1797.
The Pope nor the Rabbis are responsible for civil unrest and warfare in the countries their followers populate. These two religions do not incite their followers to overthrow governments through violent means. The Catholics do not blow up the DNC headquarters due to the opposition of abortion. The Vatican does not issue Fatwahs or edicts against governments and/or infidels.
All religions have skeletons in their closets and blood on their hands, no?
I appreciate your questions, but we are getting far afield from my original statement. ellison swearing on the Koran disturbs me, emphasis on ellison. Homeboy is an advocate for Gang members, more specifically for Vice Lords gang leader Sharif Willisone, who shot and killed a Minnesota police officer. Additionally, Homeboy is an advocate for convicted cop-killer Assata Shakur, who is currently on the FBI's Most Wanted. Homeboy seems to be a fan of Symbionese Liberation Army terrorist Sara Jane Olson, advocating her release.
I won't go into the whole Nation of Islam and Homeboy's ties to Louis Farrakhan.
Homeboy's affiliation with Islam does increase my already healthy distrust of Islam.
In summary Homeboy's swearing on the Koran disturbs me and let me reiterate that his motive is suspect.
Now where was that homeboy's most recent comment about........America's "occupation" of Iraq ..........
Correlation not causation, no? Cop killers, Patty Hearst's playmates, this makes Ellison a liberal progressive dem representative of the stripe of liberal that pervades Minneapolis. Farrakhan, the NOI, and other black identity movements have nothing to do with al Qaeda.
Homeboy's affiliation with organized religion does already increase my healthy distrust of organized religion.
Homeboy's being a professional politician and congressman period, to me makes his motives suspect.
mmm hmmm ... one block quote from Wikipedia is all we need to smack down those deluded Sudden Babdis bumpkins.
Here's one for YA, Sdiver--tell me where they keep the original Treaty of Tripoli, and explain why it is still valid today, if (hint) it ever really said that.
I just had read Article 11, in a book several weeks ago, and when this discussion came up, Wikipedia was the first source that came up, so I posted it.
As far as where the original is kept.....I'll defer this comment to your "Treaty Of Tripoli" thread you started.
written before Mr. Ellison swore in but good to consider.....
America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on
By Dennis Prager
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.
IIRC, Sen. Joe Leiberman swears in on the Torah and has done so since he started as an elected official. I would suspect that other Jewish elected officials do the same.
BTW, great thread!
Books
x SF med
01-15-2007, 11:39
written before Mr. Ellison swore in but good to consider.....
America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on
By Dennis Prager
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.
SG1987-
In response to the highlighted areas above:
Since we expect our elected officials to uphold a moral and ethical code thet protects this country, and its myriad cultures why shouldn't someone who believes differently be allowed to swear his alliegance on the book most holy to his/her beliefs? It makes more sense that the person do exactly that, as he is proclaiming his fealty before his/her God, rather than on a book that holds no influence over his/her beliefs. It seems a more powerful act to me.
Provinciality in thought could be more damaging in the long run than the granted right to "Freedom of Religion", all parts of the Constituion should be held equally in honor, and as stated earlier in this thread, maybe the use of the Constitution and the individual's choice of book of their beliefs might be a binding promise.
The Mein Kampf argument above is weak at best - Nazism is not a religion, nor a moral code.
SG1987-
The Mein Kampf argument above is weak at best - Nazism is not a religion, nor a moral code.
x SF Med,
Thanks for the feedback. On a side note have you seen this? It's very interesting and may make the argument valid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Occult_History_of_the_Third_Reich
Warrior-Mentor
01-15-2007, 20:08
What if I REALLY liked the Lord of the Rings.... :rolleyes:
Come on.
The Reaper
01-15-2007, 21:21
So, would a Black Book of a Satanist, a copy of "Manifesto" for an agnostic commie, or a comic book for an atheist be acceptable as well?
TR
aricbcool
01-15-2007, 21:51
So, would a Black Book of a Satanist, a copy of "Manifesto" for an agnostic commie, or a comic book for an atheist be acceptable as well?
TR
Depends on which comic book, Sir. ;)
Seriously though, if the US government is going to require a specific book to be sworn on, it should choose something secular. If however, it is up to the person being elected, then it's no place for the government to intervene.
The moderate solution would be for congress to pass legislation denoting which books are acceptable and which are not acceptable.
My thought is that you get what you vote for. If district wherever wants to elect some agnostic comic book collector, they deserve the farce and disgrace of him swearing on his sacred Spiderman 1st issue, cheesepuff stains and all.
--Aric
Edit to add: Focusing on the word "acceptable", Sir. I think that there are many things in this country that aren't acceptable. However, this fact alone does >not< necessarily merit legislation to make them illegal.
Peregrino
01-15-2007, 22:06
--Aric
Edit to add: Focusing on the word "acceptable", Sir. I think that there are many things in this country that aren't acceptable. However, this fact alone does NOT necessarily merit legislation to make them illegal.
My .02 - Peregrino
aricbcool
01-15-2007, 22:08
My .02 - Peregrino
Oops. That's what I meant... :o
--Aric
Go For Broke
01-16-2007, 09:31
[QUOTE=sg1987]Here is the address
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,237990,00.html
Goode also told Fox News he wants to limit legal immigration and do away with "diversity visas," which he said let in people "not from European countries" and "some terrorist states."
In his letter, Goode wrote that strict immigration polices are necessary "to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America.""
As one whose ethnic / anthropological origins impart an epicanthic fold in the eyelid...that part about "not from European countries" does tend to remind me of the 1907 Gentlemen's Agreement / Immigration Act of 1924 or the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. Makes me glad that my ancestors made it across the big pond prior to this time period...
V/R,
Kyobanim
01-16-2007, 09:48
So, would a Black Book of a Satanist, a copy of "Manifesto" for an agnostic commie, or a comic book for an atheist be acceptable as well?
TR
Have you been spying on me again?
x SF med
01-16-2007, 10:04
TR, WM-
Extreme examples at best. My thinking would be more along the lines of religious / philosophical books - the Analects of Buddha, Tao te Ching, the Coptic Gospels, etc. books that support the moral and ethical beliefs of the individual. I suppose, in deference to your arguments, that a person could claim that any of those books you mentioned could be the basis of their philosophical/ moral/ethical belief system - but, the psychological makeup of those individuals would probably preclude them for collecting the votes needed for election.
The Reaper
01-16-2007, 10:08
....the psychological makeup of those individuals would probably preclude them for collecting the votes needed for election.
I would have said that about a Moslem as well, till it happened.
TR
x SF med
01-16-2007, 13:01
Scary thought - "Comic Book Guy" from the Simpsons as an elected official, swearing in on Spiderman #1.
Point taken TR. FLR, move, pushing for 50, recover, smart salute, move out quickly.
We’ve heard the saying that “God, guns, and guts made us a free people”. It seems to me that as we "evolve" as nation we are becoming more splintered.
From my O.P. it seems:
1. many have forgotten the God of the people who established this great country. (see included article by a Jewish person of some note) hence the title of this thread – a matter of discussion I’d bet our forefathers never saw coming!
I firmly believe that actions follow beliefs. I wonder, if we as a people no longer believe as we once did, then perhaps that would explain why we debate things like the place of religion in Government, whether two men may marry etc….
2. many today lack the intestinal fortitude to see the G.W.O.T. through
(I’d be willing to bet that Jews and Christians in the USA as a whole today see the threat of Islamists more than most of our secular friends in this country)
3. many are already after our guns….
I am willing to consider that this may be the rant of an ignorant redneck down in Georgia so I toss it out(to accomplished men that I respect) in order to test the waters and broaden my horizons . That being said we’ve also heard the saying “if it walks like a duck, quacks, like a duck….”
America: Founded to be free, not secular
By Dennis Prager
________________________________________
© 2007
Contrary to what you learned at college, America from its inception has been a religious country, and was designed to be one.
As the greatest foreign observer of America, the Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville, noted in his "Democracy in America," "Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power." Or, as the great British historian Paul Johnson has just written: "In [George] Washington's eyes, at least, America was in no sense a secular state," and "the American Revolution was in essence the political and military expression of a religious movement."
In fact, the founders regarded America as a Second Israel, in Abraham Lincoln's words, the "Almost Chosen" People. This self-identification was so deep that Thomas Jefferson, today often described as not even a Christian, wanted the seal of the United States to depict the Jews leaving Egypt at the splitting of the sea. Just as the Jews left Egypt, Americans left Europe.
There has been a concerted, and successful, attempt over the last generations to depict America as always having been a secular country and many of its founders as deists, a term misleadingly defined as irreligious people who believed in an impersonal god.
It is also argued that the values that animated the founding of America were the values of the secular Enlightenment, not those of the Bible – even for most of the founders who were religious Christians.
This new version of American history reminds me of the old Soviet dissident joke: "In the Soviet Union, the future is known; it's the past that is always changing."
Once almost universally acknowledged to be founded by religious men whose values were grounded in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, the average college graduate is now ignorant of the religious bases of this society, and certain that it was founded to be, and has always been, a secular society that happens to have many individual Christians living in it.
That explains the attempts by activists to erase whatever public vestiges of religiosity remain – any cross on a county or city seal, the replacement of "Merry Christmas" with "Happy Holidays," the Supreme Court's rulings against school prayer even of the most non-denominational type, etc.
This country was founded overwhelmingly by men and women steeped in the Bible. Their moral values emanated from the Bible, and they regarded liberty as possible only if understood as given by God. That is why the Liberty Bell's inscription is from the Old Testament and why Thomas Jefferson, the allegedly non-religious deist, wrote (as carved into the Jefferson Memorial): "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?"
The evidence is overwhelming that the founders were religious people who wanted a religious country that enshrined liberty for all its citizens, including those of different religions and those of no faith. But our educational institutions, especially the universities, are populated almost exclusively by secular individuals and books that seek to cast America's past and present in their image.
Are we a Judeo-Christian country with liberty for people of every, and of no, faith? Or are we a secular country that happens to have within it a large number of individuals who hold Judeo-Christian values?
If you are undecided which side to fight for, perhaps this will help: Western Europe has already become a secular society with secular values. If you think Western Europe is a better place than America and that it has a robust future, you should be working to remove Judeo-Christian influence from American life. On the other hand, if you look at Europe and see a continent adrift, with no identity and no strong values beyond economic equality and possessing little capacity to identify evil, let alone a will to fight it, then you need to start fighting against the secularization of America.
Or, if you think that the university, the most secular American institution, is largely a place where wisdom, character and a discerning ability to distinguish between right and wrong prevail, you should be working to remove Judeo-Christian values from American life. But if you believe that the university is largely a place of moral foolishness, then you need to start worrying about the secularization of America.
If America abandons its Judeo-Christian values basis and the central role of the Jewish and Christian Bibles, its founders' guiding text, we are all in big trouble, including, most especially, America's non-Christians. Just ask the Jews of secular Europe.
FearTheCats
01-16-2007, 13:26
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/532956.html
They must have been reading this thread. North Carolina law requires a person taking an oath "to lay his hand upon the Holy Scriptures." It doesn't say "Bible." You can affirm an oath without any religious text at all, but the only Scriptures you'll find in North Carolina courthouses are Bibles, Old and New Testaments stuck together, although I guess you could open it to the last page of the Old Testament and lay your hand only on that part.
But some people take their faith seriously enough that they want to use their own texts, not just an affirmation. ACLU of North Carolina and a Muslim citizen are suing to have Qurans, Torahs, and Bhagavad-Gitas accepted as "Holy Scriptures" too.
It's fine with me. I wouldn't ask anybody to swear by anything they don't believe.
What the trial court ruled was that because the plaintiff had been denied permission to swear on the Quran sometime in the past, there wasn't a real case anymore and dismissed it. The NC Court of Appeals ruled that even though the plaintiff had been denied permission in the past, it was a situation sure to come up again, so we can decide it. They kicked it back to the trial court, "though we are careful to express no opinion on the merits of those claims."
http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2007/060062-1.htm
is where you can read the opinion for yourself. Try it, you might like it! If you don't, I'll give you your money back.
I am definitely NOT an expert on Islam. But isn't there some tidbit that says that it is OK for a muslim to lie to an infidel? If so I imagine it could be extended to the oath.
edit - spelling
FearTheCats
01-16-2007, 14:17
Even then, you're still hosed:
NCGS § 11‑2. Administration of oaths.
Judges and other persons who may be empowered to administer oaths, shall (except in the cases in this Chapter excepted) require the party to be sworn to lay his hand upon the Holy Scriptures, in token of his engagement to speak the truth and in further token that, if he should swerve from the truth, he may be justly deprived of all the blessings of that holy book and made liable to that vengeance which he has imprecated on his own head. (1777, c. 108, s. 2, P.R.; R.C., c. 76, s. 1; Code, s. 3309; Rev., s. 2354; C.S., s. 3189; 1941, c. 11; 1971, c. 381, s. 9; 1985, c. 756, s. 2.)
§ 11‑3. Administration of oath with uplifted hand.
When the person to be sworn shall be conscientiously scrupulous of taking a book oath in manner aforesaid, he shall be excused from laying hands upon, or touching the Holy Gospel; and the oath required shall be administered in the following manner, namely: He shall stand with his right hand lifted up towards heaven, in token of his solemn appeal to the Supreme God, and also in token that if he should swerve from the truth he would draw down the vengeance of heaven upon his head, and shall introduce the intended oath with these words, namely:
I, A.B., do appeal to God, as a witness of the truth and the avenger of falsehood, as I shall answer the same at the great day of judgment, when the secrets of all hearts shall be known (etc., as the words of the oath may be). (1777, c. 108, s. 3, P.R.; R.C., c. 76, s. 2; Code, s. 3310; Rev., s. 2355; C.S., s. 3190.)
If you don't go in for that holy book stuff:
§ 11‑4. Affirmation in lieu of oath.
When a person to be sworn shall have conscientious scruples against taking an oath in the manner prescribed by G.S. 11‑2, 11‑3, or 11‑7, he shall be permitted to be affirmed. In all cases the words of the affirmation shall be the same as the words of the prescribed oath, except that the word "affirm" shall be substituted for the word "swear" and the words "so help me God" shall be deleted. (1777, c. 108, s. 4, P.R.; c. 115, s. 42, P.R.; 1819, c. 1019, P.R.; 1821, c. 1112, P.R.; R.C., c. 76, s. 3; Code, s. 3311; Rev., s. 2356; C.S., s. 3191; 1985, c. 756, s. 3.)
And once you've promised to tell the truth, don't break it in MY county:
§ 14‑209. Punishment for perjury.
If any person shall willfully and corruptly commit perjury, on his oath or affirmation, in any suit, controversy, matter or cause, depending in any of the courts of the State, or in any deposition or affidavit taken pursuant to law, or in any oath or affirmation duly administered of or concerning any matter or thing whereof such person is lawfully required to be sworn or affirmed, every person so offending shall be punished as a Class F felon. (1791, c. 338, s. 1, P.R.; R.C., c. 34, s. 49; Code, s. 1092; Rev., s. 3615; C.S., s. 4364; 1979, c. 760, s. 5; 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1316, s. 47; 1981, c. 63, s.1, c. 179, s. 14; 1993, c. 539, s. 1202; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)
§ 14‑210. Subornation of perjury.
If any person shall, by any means, procure another person to commit such willful and corrupt perjury as is mentioned in G.S. 14‑209, the person so offending shall be punished as a Class I felon. (1791, c. 338, s. 2, P.R.; R.C., c. 34, s. 50; Code, s. 1093; Rev., s. 3616; C.S., s. 4365; 1993, c. 539, s. 1203; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)
They say nobody gets arrested for perjury. Well, just try it in front of ME in MY county. I don't know or care whether Islam allows Muslim to tell whoppers to infidels. Christians aren't allowed to lie under oath, but they do it anyway. I'll arrest 'em all and let God sort 'em out.
But if it is true, it makes it harder to take such a vow seriously.
I do agree that if a Christian intends to lie, they would do it even after swearing on a Bible. If a muslim intends to lie, he would do it even after swearing on a quran. It should be about morals and ethics, not just religious preference.
I think I may have seen this coming....
Group That Funded Rep. Ellison's Pilgrimage to Mecca Called a Front for Extremism
Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison took a trip to Mecca in December that was funded by a group terrorism experts say is tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, an international Islamist movement.
By Joseph Abrams
FOXNews.com
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison's groundbreaking pilgrimage to Mecca last month was paid for by an American Muslim organization that has ties to Islamic radicals and is "the Muslim equivalent of the neo-Nazi party," his critics say.
Ellison, a Democrat, became the first U.S. congressman ever to make the hajj pilgrimage when he visited Islam's holy city in December. The trip was funded by the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, a non-profit interfaith group that is one of 55 branches of the MAS nationwide. The pilgrimage was hailed by Muslim activists in the U.S.
"A U.S. congressman going on hajj sends a very positive message to the Muslim world about America and the religious diversity in America," said Ibrahim Hooper, communications director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Muslim advocacy group.
But Ellison, the only Muslim in Congress, is coming under fire for his ties to MAS, which one terrorism expert called "the Muslim equivalent of the neo-Nazi party."
"It is the de facto arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S.," said Steven Emerson, director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism. "The agenda of the MAS is to ... impose Islamic law in the U.S., to undermine U.S. counterterrorism policy."
The MAS was founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, an international Islamist movement created in Egypt in 1928. Radical members of the Brotherhood founded the terror group Hamas and were among the first members of Al Qaeda.
The Muslim American Society's former secretary general has acknowledged that the group was founded by the Brotherhood, and in 2004 he estimated that about half of MAS members were in the Muslim Brotherhood.
"Ikhwan [Brotherhood] members founded MAS, but MAS went way beyond that point of conception," Shaker Elsayed told the Chicago Tribune, explaining that the group had expanded to include a wider viewpoint.
The Department of Justice has never taken action against MAS and declined to comment on whether it was investigating the group's ties.
"As a general rule, the Justice Department does not comment on whether or not a particular group or individual is under investigation or has been under investigation," said Dean Boyd, a spokesman for DOJ.
Ellison gave the keynote address at MAS-Minnesota's conventions in 2007 and 2008, and one of the organization's directors took time off his job to campaign for Ellison during his run for the House in 2006. Ellison was also the first guest on an MAS radio show launched last month.
Representatives for MAS-Minnesota did not return calls or e-mails requesting comment. But Mahdi Bray, the national director who campaigned for Ellison, denied his group had funded the congressman's pilgrimage, calling the story a "myth" and "urban legend" that needed to be laid to rest.
"Keith Ellison is a member of Congress who knows that congressmen don't take trips sponsored by nonprofits. That would be a breach of congressional ethics," said Bray, executive director of the MAS Freedom Foundation.
But Ellison's office told FOXNews.com that MAS had indeed paid for the congressman's hajj.
"The trip, funded by the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, was fully reviewed and approved in advance by the House Ethics Committee," Ellison's office said in a statement to FOXNews.com.
The office, which did not say how much Ellison's trip cost, defended MAS as a highly regarded interfaith organization with many ties in Minnesota.
"The Muslim American Society of Minnesota is a widely respected 501c3 organization incorporated in Minnesota, whose mission is to promote interfaith understanding," Ellison's office said in a statement to FOXNews.com. "The Muslim American Society of Minnesota (MASMN) has an ongoing interfaith project with the Minnesota Council of Churches, and a community outreach partnership with the St. Paul Police Department."
Ellison's office stressed that prominent Minnesota politicians, including former Vice President Walter Mondale, are close to the MAS. It did not address allegations that MAS has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Emerson said Ellison's embrace of MAS was an attempt to legitimize the group, which he called out of the mainstream. "It's very troubling that he is trying to project an image of moderation, but he is tied to these radical groups," Emerson told FOXNews.com.
MAS has stirred up controversy in Minnesota for its activities in the state, including a fatwa, or religious edict, it issued barring Muslim taxi drivers from carrying passengers with alcohol. MAS said in its 2006 decree that Islamic jurisprudence prohibited carrying those passengers "because it involves cooperating in sin according to Islam."
Click here for more on that story.
The MAS magazine, "The American Muslim," has printed articles defending "martyrdom operations" to wrest control of Gaza and the West Bank from Israel.
The Minnesota chapter at one time featured writings from Islamic clerics praising Hamas and urging Muslims to "wage Jihad until death." The postings, which were active as late as June 2007 -- one month after Ellison first addressed the group's convention -- have since been removed.
Though the MAS Web site has been washed of the religious texts that critics found offensive, Emerson says the group's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood remain intact.
"Their founding ideologues are all members of the Muslim Brotherhood," Emerson said. "I don't think you can get more radical in the United States without crossing the line to incitement."
Those accusations have some Muslim activists fuming.
"If you read the anti-Muslim hate sites on the Internet, every Muslim is the devil incarnate," said Hooper.
"In general any Muslim who seeks to have positive participation in American society is going to come under attack by those who seek to marginalize and exclude the American Muslim community," he said.