Comments on: Swearing In By The Koran?

NRO: The Constitution Protects Multiculturalism

[kemetorigin]

Sandycat2
The bible is intolerant of other faiths as well. It says only "true believers will enter the kingdom of heaven". It is intolerant of those who do not believe in the "holy trinity". Perhaps visiting religoustolerance.org would enlighten you. The Islamic deity Allah derives from the deities of Abraham as do both Jehovah and Yaweh(G_d of the Jewish faith), thus, they are all one in the same. The tenets of faith may differ, but ultimately they all maintain a common theme--RESPECT. The images of Islam have been tarnished to reflect those of extremists. Xian media has not used Timothy McVay or Eric Rudolph as examples of Xianity. Nor have they used Ted Haggard. You would not want the world to see these people as Xian symbols, so why would you see Muslim extremists as examples of true Islam? It is hypocrisy.

[kemetorigin]

Here Here Mr. Volokh!

I concur; it is about what the individual holds holy. If you as someone not of the Xian faith to swear on the bible then it means nothing to the individual b/c he/she is not beholden to that book and thus may feel no moral obligation to act truthfully b/c the faith is not there. However, when asked to comply with a faith that is original and/or prized by you, you are more likely to act in accordance with that by which you are swearing because it has been fortified by your own faith.

[notblue]

To jerryomara the word I used was tradition and your intolerance of tradition proves my point

[khen1950fx]

Rubbish.

[sandycat2]

I am not a rascist, but I don't believe in extending people tolerance and good-will if the same is not shown to Americans. I have read about Muhamed and the Koran and it is not tolerant of anyone else but muslims. In the Koran it is okay for muslims to lie to non-muslims. In the Koran, it is okay to kill non-muslims. According to Mahamed and the Koran, muslims are the only people and their God is the only God. Islam needs a reformation, but how can a reformation happen when these intolerant and murderous things are spoken by their prohet and in their so-called holy book.

[notblue]

Didn't our founding fathers, politicians, judges and public servants use the bible swearing ceremony since this great country was founded? Isn't all our legal tender plastered with the same referrences? What's the big deal? Whether you believe in the bible or not it's a cerimonial tradition that has been used from the beginning. Why do some minority groups show no tolerance for American tradition when tolerance to there traditions are demanded in our modern society?

[rafterman1]

Since we are talking about public office, especialyl at the Federal level, shouldn't these people be taking their oath on a copy of the Constitution? Unfortunately though, the Constitution seems to have little meaning to people these days.

[sandycat2]

When our media can publish cartoons mocking Muhamed and the Koran, then I will accept the Koran and not before. Why is it Americans are expected to be tolerant of those that are not tolerant of us. And Islam and the Koran has not been tolerant of Americans. I think the Muslims should swear in on no book because one is not needed. And it certainly shouldn't be the Koran.

[halozcel]

U.S.Constitution should be used or in the name of your honor sworn,not on religious books.

[gaye5]

I really dont think it matters what he swears on, as Muslims are allowed to lie for the cause of allah to the infidel, in times of war etc, as long as they dont mean it in their hearts and lets face it we are the infidel and they consider that they are at war with us anyway...
Unfortunately, passages from the Qur%u2019an clearly reveal that lying is permitted, particularly in reference to non-believers in conflict with Muslims. It is also clear that if forced to do so, Muslims may lie under oath and can even falsely deny faith in Allah, as long as they maintain the profession of faith in their hearts. In the Qur%u2019an, Allah says: "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness (vain) in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts; and He is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing." Surah 2:225. The principal also has support in the Qur%u2019an 3:28 and 16:106.

[flolake]

What on earth is the difference as to which book someone swears an oath to. No matter which book is used, the person being sworn is going to do what he or she wants.

Recent history tells us that many elected public officials either were or became rotten to the core. By their end, their true colors were showing for all the world to see & to put in their 2 cents worth in a forum such as this.

We are more than lucky if an elected official goes all the way through their office and never makes a stink or even waves in some cases. Americans historically dwell on the bad in people. Especially the American press.

Again, what's the difference between one book & another. People are going to do what they're going to do and the U.S. public is usually the last to know.

[flolake]

What on earth is the difference as to which book someone swears an oath to. No matter which book is used, the person being sworn is going to do what he or she wants.

Recent history tells us that many elected public officials either were or became rotten to the core. By their end, their true colors were showing for all the world to see & to put in their 2 cents worth in a forum such as this.

We are more than lucky if an elected official goes all the way through their office and never makes a stink or even waves in some cases. Americans historically dwell on the bad in people. Especially the American press.

Again, what's the difference between one book & another. People are going to do what they're going to do and the U.S. public is uaqually the last to know.

[akarsno]

What did America say to the world the land of the free!
And now they are not praticing what they are suppose to be preaching!
Where is our human rights?
What happened to the constituition?
Is America not what the world should follow in examples in anything?
Think about it?
I believe in America the Great for the last 34 years of my life.
Please practise what you preach!

[gossimer]

We shouldn't compare Keith Ellison to people who've previously lied under oath with their hand on the Bible, as Keith Ellison is his own person. If he chooses to be sworn in with his hand on the book he most reveres, the Koran, that SHOULD be his right, just as he chooses to call God, Allah, or by any of the many other names of God.

If you make someone swear an oath on any book that holds little of no meaning for them, including the Bible, it has absolutely no purpose or meaning to them and the oath is meaningless and void as well. It's what's in the persons heart and soul that matters most, NOT on what their hand is resting on.

[harleydrle]

Since swearing is optional and affirming has been accepted in the past, then he should affirm without a book. As pointed out by several of the posters here, swearing on the bible has had no affect on many of our elected officials, and those are only the few that have been caught. Do away with the book and affirm them all to make it equitable. What difference will it make? There are only 2 kinds of politicians, those who have been caught abusing the power and those who have not. But....in light of the state of world affairs since 1975, the cold hard statistics are plain to anyone who wishes to open their eyes and take an honest look. Terrorism is NOT spread equally among the worlds various religions. I for one am not prejudiced and judge each human on their actions rather than their beliefs, color, sexual or religious preferences, but at the same time, I will not bury my head in the sand as so many Americans have done and are doing. Democracies tend to erode from the inside due to the infusion of radical and irrational ideas that tear them apart and divide the union. When terrorism becomes an equal opportunity issue spread equally over the world, I will no longer look at the statistics. For now they do not lie. Do away with the book and affirm them all to make it equitable, starting now!

[marcodele]

Didn't Oliver North swear on a bible before lying to congress? Didn't Clinton swear on a bible before saying he never has sx with Monica?
Didn't Tom Foley and Tom Delay and all the others swear on a bible to uphold the dignity of their offices? Does it really matter which religious ritual one emulates in accordance with customs?

[abu-sahajj]

"Then how is it not an act of hubris to declare your religion equal to American culture?" (kenner116)

Great point, not only is the resistance to allow Rep. Ellison not to swear by the Qur'an rooted in arrogance but it typifies the very condition that the Founding Fathers fought to free themselves of, that position being described here by Thomas Jefferson,

"Our minds were circumscribed within narrow limits by an habitual belief that it was our duty to be subordinate to the mother country in all matters of government, to direct all our labors in subservience to her interests, and even to observe a bigoted intolerance for all religions but hers." (T. Jefferson, The Works of Thomas Jefferson)

I think that Ellison's convictions of truth justice and equality are of a personal matter unless the U.S. is not the secular government that it suggests and is in fact more related to the a Theocracy than it is willing to admit, if not then what is the problem.

wasalaam

Abu Sahajj
http://wasalaam.wordpress.com/

[getcentered]

Swear In By The Koran.

I don't care.

Swear in by some dirt, as long as it strengthens the promise being made, and justifies perjury or fraud charges if you're lying.

[rafterman1]

I must have missed the anouncement making Christianity the official religion of the US.

"At any rate everyone should have a right to swear upon their holiest scripture in a court of law; as long as the religion represented by the scripture is officially recognized by the U.S. government."

It should not be necessary to be on a government approved list in order to adhere to your religion while entering public office. If somehow a Nazi was elected and wanted to be sworn in with Mein Kampf, he should be allowed to do so. Anyway, if that actually happened, I'd be more worried about the electorate that would vote for a Nazi than about what he was sworn in with.