Normally I ignore religious controversy, but the latest flap surrounding incoming Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison, a muslim who intends to take the oath of office with his hand on the Quran, demands comment. If you’re not muslim then mind your own business. Here’s the bottomline–the Christians who are in an uproar over Ellison’s plan and who insist that the oath can only be taken with the Bible probably ought to read the damn Bible. Why? Because the Bible, specifically the New Testament, contains clear instruction about taking oaths. According to James 5:12 (Whole Chapter):
But above all, [James 1:16] my brethren, [Matt 5:34-37] do not swear,
either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath; but your yes is to
be yes, and your no, no, so that you may not fall under judgment.
Got it? If you are really a practing Christian who believes that the Bible is the inerrant word of God then shouldn’t you follow its dictates? When it comes to taking an oath of office an authentic Christian should not swear on a Bible. A simple yes will suffice.
Someone alert that bozo Dennis Praeger. Praeger, who hosts a radio talk show, was running around Thursday sounding the alarm about Ellison. According to Praeger:
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?
Thank you Dennis Praeger for providing the most stupid, outrageous comment by any pundit in recent memory. Since you are a self-appointed vigilante for correct religious observance, how about focusing on all of those Christians who are flagrantly violating a Biblical tenet by swearing on the Bible? Jesus! At least be theologically informed.
I don’t know if Islam embraces or condemns someone swearing on the
Quran. If it makes Ellison more likely to be honest and hardworking
then swear away buddy. Personally I would prefer we eliminate the
religious hocus pocus from our politics. If you must use a religious
relic then use them correctly. Swearing on
Bibles should have no place in the lives of folks who claim to be
Christian. Is it too much to ask that anyone sworn into Congress will
simply raise their hand and promise to uphold and defend the
Constitution?
When I win the Presidency I plan on taking my oath of office on The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I wonder what Mr. Praeger would think of that!
Speaking of Richard Dawkins, here’s one of my favorite things of his, God’s Gift to Kansas.
Amen! Er… I mean, I agree.
In a number of place where we might ask a citizen to take an oath, the language offers the choice: “Do you swear (or affirm)…”
The affirmation has the same legal force as the oath, and I always assumed that the choice was there precisely because of the Christian injunction against swearing oaths.
If it makes Ellison more likely to be honest and hardworking then swear away buddy.
Exactly. There have always been ways (hand on heart, swearing on the heads of one’s grandchildren, etc.) for people to demonstrate they are committed to telling the truth. It’s a typical Evangelical smack in the face of non-Christians and of people who, like Quakers, don’t believe in swearing at all, to force them to take the oath on the Christian Bible. It would have no effect on truth-telling, and we could name not a few gd religious zealots who shamelessly lie like rugs.
My understanding is that members of congress are not “sworn in” with their hand on any religious tome, Christian, Muslim or otherwise.
And unless I’m mistaken, the oath they take is to abide by, support and defend the US constitution; nothing to do with religious stuff at all.
(Note; I’m writing this before I’ve done a current investigation to verify my understandings, so I hope anyone who knows the current facts will correct me if I’m wrong.)
I heard this discussed yesterday on cable, it seems you are correct and they only have say a bible or other when taking the pics, if desired.
Yes! It seems the religious books are only used as props in “Photo Ops”!
Such shameless pandering to the religious electorate by our elected officials! What hypocrisy! How pathetic!
There is one exception, the congresspersons who replaced others during the term were sworn in on a bible, separately. Ijust watched it on cspan when the delay replacement, and another do not remember, but Arizona Rep. were sworn in a couple weeks ago. But with the new congress they are sworn in all at once in a body.
Dennis Praeger, I used to listen to him years ago when he still made sense but I am afraid he fell off the truck. He is the most rabid Republican I ever heard and I do believe thinks the Dems are evil incarnate.
Strange outlook to come from a Jewish man, in any case.
I dare say that more ignorance has been weaponized since the Bush gang hijacked the executive branch in 2000 than since the McCarthy era in the 1950’s.
I remember when Praeger was somewhat rational; (I didn’t like him back then either and suspected his occassional demonstrations of rationality were flukes). Gads! I remember when David Horowitz was rational for a while, (during his Ramparts Magazine phase). But both these characters are goners now, never to return to sanity.
You know he is quite a scholar, even teaching Old Testament, and used to host Religion on the Line with guests from all quarters. I think maybe the Clinton years sent him into his lost world. That and the whole Rep. party’s indoctrination.
I like that line, weaponized ignorance, boy what a deadly weapon of mass destruction that is.
Even more bizarre is the flack over the new movie “Hapy feet”, which is portrayed by fox and others as animated version of Inconvenient Truth…with a touch of gayness, yes I swear, one of those penguins appears to be gay, gay because he won’t sing while dancing. Well it’s all just too funny for words. CNN had a great ‘bit’ on it.
I’ve been trying to get the term “weaponized ignorance” to become a regular phrase in the public discourse for years. Alas, my voice is a small one, and despite the fact that I’ve had several score LTTE’s published in various newspapers over the last few years, none of the letters I wrote that included the “weaponized ignorance” line ever made it to print.(Please don’t hesitate to pass it on to everyone you know.)
It’s sadly ironic the wingnut crackpots prefer to rail against cartoon penguins rather than address the very serious problem of the destruction of real penguins habitat due to climate change. These wingers are such fools and cowards!
As I recall, this is an oath taken en mass anyway… they all do it at the same time, standing at their places in the chamber. What they have on the desk in front of them, if anything, is up to them.
I mean, really. We’ve had Jewish Senators and members of Congress for years… I daresay they don’t swear on a Christian Bible. So what’s the big deal over a Quran?
Let Mr. Ellison — and any other government official being sworn in to office — swear on whatever symbol they wish, or none — the important part is the oath itself.
The “or affirm” is always included as an option because historically, Quakers took the “make no oaths” part seriously, and there were Quakers among the Founding Fathers. Obviously they wanted the government to be as inclusive as possible, but respectful of individual beliefs. That option is written into law specifically to allow for such differences in belief.
The Maryland House of Delegates will have its first Muslim member this year also, Saqib Ali, from northern Montgomery County. (And he is, btw, a progressive Democrat…)
From the House clerk’s office,
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?
What kind of moron wouldn’t see that if someone wanted to use “Mein Kampf,” the least of our worries would be what book they chose.
It is unconstitutional to require any kind of religious oath for any office in the United States. But none of our politicians has the balls to stand up to the demogoguery of the religious right. If I were king, (an interesting metaphor in a republic to say the least), I would say that anyone who wants to take a religious oath with respect to a government office thereby disqualifies themselves for said office.
The genius of our founders was that faith was too important to be a part of politics. Somewhere James Madison states that the new United States will never avoid the bitter religious wars of Europe unless they establish a strict separation of church and state, and by implication of church and politics. Religion is vital to private life but public decisions must be made acoording to other criteria, namely those so eloquently stated in The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States.