TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › 1st Muslim Congressman to take Oath on Quran
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

1st Muslim Congressman to take Oath on Quran

post #1 of 13
12/5/06 at 5:22am
Thread Starter 
http://www.dailysouthtown.com/news/o...51guc1.article

What do you guys think? Apparently there is a radio host that is trying to stir up the conservatives saying that the foundation of the U.S. is based on The Bible.

Personally (and I'm not trying to swing the posts - if you oppose this feel free to post), I'm for it. There is nothing written that you have to swear in on the Bible. Plus his foundation of his morals and ethics are based on the Quran...not the Bible.
Reply
post #2 of 13
12/5/06 at 7:03am
Well that radio host needs a history lesson, because the United States (Government) is NOT based on the bible (though christianity has a large role in this countries history). Its mostly based on greco-roman philosophy and government, which was highly pagan at its peak.

I don't think that ANY officials should be swearing on ANY holy book. Instead, they should swear on the US Constitution. That would be more in line with the secular nation that we really are (or at least should be).
Reply
post #3 of 13
12/5/06 at 7:26am
We already allow for this...Quakers and Mennonites disallow swearing at all, and in court they do not have to. Franklin Pierce and Herbert Hoover didn't make an inaugural oath, instead they used an affirmation.

Technically, an oath has to be made with some sort of God as witness... so if they swore on the Constitution it's no longer an oath... not that that is really a bad thing.

Don't these people know that most of our "founding fathers" were agnostic or closet atheists?

Would there be any argument if it were a Jewish man who wanted to swear on the Tanakh?
Reply
post #4 of 13
12/5/06 at 7:50am
If you were to make him swear on the Bible, you may as well have everyone swear on The Adventures of Huck Finn. It would be meaningless to him.
Reply
post #5 of 13
12/5/06 at 7:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
If you were to make him swear on the Bible, you may as well have everyone swear on The Adventures of Huck Finn. It would be meaningless to him.
Precisely!
Reply
post #6 of 13
12/5/06 at 8:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
Technically, an oath has to be made with some sort of God as witness... so if they swore on the Constitution it's no longer an oath... not that that is really a bad thing.
Thats only the connotation of the word 'oath'. The definition allows for not only a god/deity, but any 'revered person or thing'. For a government official, nothing should be more revered than the Constitution.
Reply
post #7 of 13
12/5/06 at 8:09am
The good thing is that the US (and Britain and France for that matter) can have congress/parliament/assembly representatives of differing beliefs, or of none, including Muslim, and that the ordinary people will vote for them regardless. But some people will always want to stir up trouble over people who are different from them.
Reply
post #8 of 13
12/5/06 at 8:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiffanyjbt View Post
Thats only the connotation of the word 'oath'. The definition allows for not only a god/deity, but any 'revered person or thing'. For a government official, nothing should be more revered than the Constitution.



The definition not involving God is both obsolete and even when it was used, it was rare.

An oath has to involve a god of some sort, or its not an oath. That's why they've had to pass specific laws allowing "solemn affirmation" which does not invoke any god.
Reply
post #9 of 13
12/5/06 at 8:31am
The invocation of a god/deity is the common understanding of an oath, but it is not the only current definition. An oath doesn't have to involve a god, according to your definition it can also involve "some other object of reverence", i.e. the Constitution. But we're arguing semantics now, which is moot. (I think other than this, we agree)

There are some states that still require an official to proclaim their belief in 'One Supreme God' or 'Savior' in order to take their position. This I feel is unconstitutional.
Reply
post #10 of 13
12/5/06 at 8:50am
from the Bill of Rights of the United States of America, ratified December 15, 1791 (italics mine)

Quote:
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I have no further comment.
Reply
post #11 of 13
12/5/06 at 2:35pm
I don't see what the big deal is. As long as the congressman swears to uphold the consititution of the United States, he could swear on my biology book for all I care
Reply
post #12 of 13
12/5/06 at 10:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
Don't these people know that most of our "founding fathers" were agnostic or closet atheists?
a few where yes, But not most.
anyway back to the question at hand.
i really dont care if the guy is muslim or not. Just so he does his job.
Reply
post #13 of 13
12/6/06 at 4:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
a few where yes, But not most.
anyway back to the question at hand.
i really dont care if the guy is muslim or not. Just so he does his job.
Fine, they were deist then. Not much practical difference, and nothing in common with evangelical religion that is going on now.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › 1st Muslim Congressman to take Oath on Quran