Swearing In By The Koran?

NRO: The Constitution Protects Multiculturalism

(National Review Online)  What's more, the Constitution itself expressly recognizes the oath as a religious act that some may have religious compunctions about performing. The religious-test clause is actually part of a longer sentence: "The Senators and Representatives ... [and other state and federal officials] shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required ..." The option of giving an affirmation rather than oath reflects the judgment — an early multiculturalist judgment — in favor of accommodating members of some denominations (such as Quakers) who read the Bible as generally prohibiting the swearing of oaths.

The affirmation option was thus one tool to make sure that the law didn't exclude people of certain religious groups from office, but rather let them retain their religious culture while participating in American civic life. The religious-test clause was another tool. The Constitution itself — a pretty important part of the "value system underl[ying] American civilization" — expressly makes clear that elected officials need not take oaths of office with their hands on any book.

So the Constitution thus already expressly authorizes people not to swear at all, but to affirm, without reference to God or to a sacred work. Atheists and agnostics are thus protected, as well as members of certain Christian groups. Why would Muslims and others not be equally protected from having to perform a religious ritual that expressly invokes a religion in which they do not believe? Under the Constitution, all of them "are incapable of taking an oath on that book," whether because they are Quakers, atheists, agnostics or Muslims. Yet all remain entirely free to "serve in Congress."

This leaves one milder form of Prager's argument: Ellison shouldn't have to swear on the Bible, but we don't have to offer him a Koran, since he could affirm instead and affirmations don't require any holy book. That's not, I think, Prager's actual argument (which is that "If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book [the Bible], don't serve in Congress" and that all elected officials should "take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book"). But it might be a fallback.

Yet this too strikes me as a misreading of the American constitutional system. Prager goes on to argue:

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?

But the Constitution's judgment is that accommodating religious pluralism (especially as to oaths) doesn't let "my culture trump America's culture." Rather, the legal culture created by the Constitution makes room for many religious cultures, and allows all their adherents to be equal citizens and equal officeholders.

We see this in the Constitution's repeated recognition of affirmations as alternatives to oaths. We also see this in the free-exercise clause, which excludes no religion even though many denominations of that era saw rival denominations' views, and especially the views of Catholics, as deeply wrong and even evil — perhaps not quite as evil as Mein Kampf (which isn't a religious book, and thus not really apposite to the oath debate) but in that general ballpark.

The Supreme Court has long taken the view that the establishment clause and the free-exercise clause generally mandate equal treatment of people without regard to their religions; conservative justices, such as Scalia and Thomas, have agreed.

Letting Christians swear the oath of office, while allowing members of other denominations only to swear what ends up being a mockery of an oath — a religious ceremony appealing to a religious belief system that they do not share — would be such discrimination.

Nor have I seen any evidence that at the time of the framing, the religion clauses would have been interpreted in a way that differs from this consensus. And the text of the establishment clause suggests that the oath should be an oath not just of a federally "establish[ed] religion" (a religion given favored legal treatment by the government), but rather the oath that binds the particular officeholder "to support this Constitution."

Finally, Prager argues that "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."

I can't speak to the common practices of Jewish officeholders, but some quick searches reveal that Linda Lingle, the governor of Hawaii, was sworn in on the Tanakh (more or less the Old Testament); for the reasons I just mentioned, others would have been free to do the same, or to affirm if they preferred.

A Senate Web site reports that Presidents Franklin Pierce and Herbert Hoover (a Quaker) didn't swear at all, but rather affirmed. If a Bible was present (the site is silent on that), it wouldn't have been used as a swearing device. Nixon, also a Quaker, did swear, apparently on two Bibles. This didn't seem to help.

Much folly has been urged in the name of multiculturalism. But this is no reason to dismiss the core notion that a nation should both create a common culture and leave people with the freedom to retain important aspects of other cultures — especially religious cultures.

That notion is deeply American, and expressly enshrined in our Constitution. If it is "political correctness," it is so only in the sense that it's a political notion, and a correct one. It has served us well, even when dealing with religious groups that were once hated and seen as incompatible with American values, such as Catholics.

We ought not blindly accept the legitimacy of other cultures' beliefs. But the Constitution says that we can't demand complete surrender to our majority culture — especially its religious beliefs — either in "personal life" or in public life.

[sandycat2]

Andy, Well, I am glad your religion gives you peace. I am very passionate about my country and I still have a great deal of anger about 9/11 even 5 years later. And I see how Muslims are letting their religion be used in terrorism and murder and I listen while Muslims seem to make excuses for things that can't be excused away. It's how I feel.

[sandycat2]

Please don't link McVeigh who was angry with the US government with Christianity. What he did in the Oklahoma bombing had nothing what so ever to do with Christianity. And my point is our government put McVeigh on trial and we put him to death. we did not sumpathize with him and let him walk around free.
Muslims countrys who sympathize with Islamic terrorists don't put their terrorist murders in jail.
The US government has never bombed Lebanon, Palestine (which never has been a country) or Chechnya. The US bombed Iraq and Afghanistan after Islamic terrorists attacked the US on 9/11.
Hisbollah did murder 249 US marines in the bombing of the marine barracks in Lebanon. They were in Lebanon as peace-keepers. The US did nothing about those murders, but we couldn't just forget about 9/11

[andy_f90]

(con't from below)

However that doesn't mean to me that American people are bad. They are still the most generous people on Earth!

They donated millions of dollars to help people (and many Muslims) when the Tsunami struck Muslim Indonesia...because generosity and charity (a pillar of Islam) knows no cultural boundaries.

Likewise many Muslim gov't including 3rd world Indonesia sent aid to Hurricane victims of Katrina. They said they were returning the favor and helping Americans rebuild knowing 1st hand the misery and hopelessness.

Over a BILLION dollars were given to the victims by the Muslim countries of the Middle East including Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan, Indonesia, Turkey, etc...(who sometimes wouldn't spend that amount money on their own people).

Are you willing to see the good which overwhelmes the sporadic and sensationalistic 'terrorism' (overlooking MUCH LARGER STATE TERRORISM)?

Again sorry for the lecture and tone...but I get very passionate about my faith and will be willing to defend it and its inherent spiritual peace it gives me.

Peace.
Andy

[andy_f90]

In Tim McVeighs case, he was convicted of murder in Oklahoma City bombing and out to death.

Oh but he wasn't a Muslim, a jew, a hindu, or agnostic was he? He was a self-proclaimed Christian and made it known many times to be doing God's work against the 'oppressive' government.

Your dismissal of McVeigh as a "murderer" and "criminal" and not to give the same "criminal" regard to those Muslim terrorist speaks volumes...However unlike McVeigh neither was he bombed by the US gov't or his brethren killed by the US gov't in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Chechnya, etc.

Remember the mujahadeen proclaimed as "freedom fighters" by Pres. Reagan to use them as proxies against Soviets only to call them terrorists after the proxies turned on them for their support of Israel.

"There are still many terrorists who murdered innocents and never even served a day in jail because Islam sympathised with them and let them walk around scot free."

LOL. Islam is not a living entity...it can't put people in jail anymore that it can let them out. :)

Here are some murderers and facts to ponder:

Number of people killed by Muslim terrorists in the last 50 years: Less than 5,000.
Number of Muslims killed by US gov't under Bush only: 600,000+ (just think of Shock and Awe). And before crying they were "liberated" ask Iraqis if they feel liberated.

[andy_f90]

Sorry Sandycat2,

I think you need to continue reading THE RIGHT sources. You're of researching from sites that match your pre-existing notion of Islam, morality, spirituality, civilization, etc...

Keep looking and challenge you're pre-judgements. I've read many websites and books from detractors of Islam (and trust me, some of the arguments used against Muslims and Islam are the same recycled arguments used for millenia from Europe which always have viewed Muslims from a prism of threat and hostility...)

If your are truly "objective" as you say, then God will help you find it, otherwise if you've made up your mind then there is nothing I can do to help. Sorry...

I found this one tradition of Prophet Muhammad instructing Ali, his nephew:

In Islamic rules of warfare, one isn't to take a life out of anger, and this is reflected in a tradition in which Ali (Muhammad's nephew) forced himself to refrain from killing a man whom he defeated in battle, simply because he realized that anger would motivate his action. Of course, Saddam isn't much of a Muslim. For whatever reason, there's an atmosphere of chaos and apathy in many of the Arab states. Maybe it's a vacuum left after European control, who knows. It's politics, not religion.

Peace and goodnight.

[andy_f90]

Mohammed had instructed his followers not to take prisoners and all the Meccans who fell off their camels were instantly beheaded. The carnage that followed led to a complete rout of the Meccans...

Exactly the Meccans were routed. The largest, well-armed army of Arabia with 1,200 men and hundreds of horses routed by a ragtag group of Muslims numbering 1/4 their size (313 badly armed). The night before the battle, Prophet Muhammad humbled himself all night crying to God and beseeching his help, "Oh Allah (God) if we were to lose this battle, then there would be no one left to carry on your message to the people. You've chosen me as your messenger and you're the best protector and judge."

In another instance when he entered Mecca victorious over the powerful Meccan-pagan army (the very people who drove him out of his home and killed and tortured his disciples) he lowered his head in respect and offered a blanket amnesty FORGIVING his OPPRESSORS. Upon seeing this (which wasn't the custom of the time since to victor belongs the spoils), many idolaters converted to Islam.

I kid you not, go look up this indeputable facts in any well-respected historical books.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:0rUjiaPE77EJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Badr+badr muslims numbering&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

[sandycat2]

Sorry, nothing you say to me compares to what I see and have read about Islam. In Tim McVeighs case, he was convicted of murder in Oklahoma City bombing and out to death. There are still many terrorists who murdered innocents and never even served a day in jail because Islam sympathised with them and let them walk around scot free. Growing up, I never could understand how they could get away with murder and the people in the Islamic countries just let them get away with it.
Not to mention the fact that so many peaceful and toerant muslims celebrated when 9/11 happened.
And to quote me the bible is a waste of time. I really don't care about the bible. It has no realtion to anything happening in the world today.

[andy_f90]

In that year (235/850), al-Mutawakkil ordered that the Christians and all the rest of the ahl al-dhimma be made to wear honey-colored taylasans (hoods) and the zunnar belts.
Sounds just like Hitler and the Nazis to me."

With the exception that 6 million people weren't butchered, put into the oven, their blood wasn't running as high as horses knees as in the Crusades, women and children weren't killed in their homes as in the Inquisition, entire peoples weren't eradicated with small pox and violently converted under guns as during the Christian Conquistadors in Central and South America.

So yeah I'd wear differential signs anytime (during the 700s century by an UNISLAMIC ruler al-Mutawakkil) than be gunned down, getting a disease, my land robbed of gold, or driven out of my land!!!!!!!

[andy_f90]

5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified...or imprisoned.

I love it how you quote the Koran trying to prove its "violence" when what you're actually doing is proving the ways it actually limits violence by punishing the mischief-makers and criminals. Does or does not the federal gov't have a death penalty for criminals and imprisonment for those who fight the US gov't?

The verse IS NOT saying kill randomly those who are innocent or disbelievers who are NOT fighting you.


But your focus on the holy Koran is amusing since you overlook the Bible because "Christian fanatics" didn't attack the US (Oh yea, David Koresh's fight was against the Mexican gov't? And Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols attacked a Canadian gov't buidling because of their Jewish faith! LoL.)

Consider Bible 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

However unlike you, I understand the context...so I know if properly understood, both the original Gospel and the holy Koran's message can be perverted.

[andy_f90]

5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified...or imprisoned.

I love it how you quote the Koran trying to prove its "violence" when what you're actually doing is proving the ways it actually limits violence by punishing the mischief-makers and criminals. Does or does not the federal gov't have a death penalty for criminals and imprisonment for those who fight the US gov't?

The verse IS NOT saying kill randomly those who are innocent or disbelievers who are NOT fighting you.


But your focus on the holy Koran is amusing since you overlook the Bible because "Christian fanatics" didn't attack the US (Oh yea, David Koresh's fight was against the Mexican gov't? And Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols attacked a Canadian gov't buidling because of their Jewish faith! LoL.)

Consider Bible 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

However unlike you, I understand the context...so I know if properly understood, both the original Gospel and the holy Koran's message can be used by anyone to find justification for their fight.

[sandycat2]

Yes, I have the audacity, because it is. Islam is a peaceful religion. Islam is tolerant. I would like to know where on earth that is so.
I say again that the uS military and US government is not a religion.

[andy_f90]

Mohammed had instructed his followers not to take prisoners and all the Meccans who fell off their camels were instantly beheaded. The carnage that followed led to a complete rout of the Meccans and the victory of a bandit whose followers were to carry forward this bloodied legacy across continents, slaughtering millions of people (

[andy_f90]

Andy, the American military and the American government is not a religion. So please don't put them in the same category and compare them. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

No one is comparing a religion to a "military."

I'm comparing your absurd generalization when Muslims protest (albeit only 1%) and overwhelmingly peacefully (though the likes of FoxNews like to portray it as violent b/c of one churchburning and one nun dead) to that of the generalization of US military invading a Muslim country and killing thousands with SHOCK AND AWE and then you have the audacity of lecturing me about my religion being violent?

West produced the greatest wars and killings in human history, World War I and World War II killing over 50,000,000 HUMAN beings. Islam never produced the Holocaust. IT never produced the Inquisition, the thousands of witch-burnings, the bloody colonialist murders and plundering of their wealth.

[sandycat2]

After the battle of Badr, the people of Medinah were horrified that they had given refuge to such a blatant criminal and his followers in their city. Many began protesting the presence of such violent and murderous people in their city. In a free society like Pre-Islamic Arabia, the poets acted as society's conscience and were free to criticise, satirize and examine the actions of people. The two most famous poets of this kind were Abu 'Afak; an extremely old and respected poet and Asma bint Marwan; a young mother with the gift of superb verse.

Muhammad was enraged at their criticism. When he heard the verses composed by Asma Bint Marwan he was infuriated and screamed aloud, "Will no one rid me of this daughter of Marwan!" That very night a gang of Muslims set out to do the dirty deed. They broke into the poets' house. She was lying in in her bedroom suckling her newborn child, while her other small children slept nearby. The Muslims tore the newborn infant off her breast and hacked it to pieces before her very eyes. They then made her watch the murder of all four of her children, before raping and then stabbing her repeatedly to death. After the murder when the Muslims went to inform the Prophet, he said "You have done a service to Allah and his Messenger, her life was not worth even two goats!"

[sandycat2]

Mohammed had instructed his followers not to take prisoners and all the Meccans who fell off their camels were instantly beheaded. The carnage that followed led to a complete rout of the Meccans and the victory of a bandit whose followers were to carry forward this bloodied legacy across continents, slaughtering millions of people (%u201CStrike of the heads of the non-believers%u201D is the mentality Mohammed drilled into his followers. And this commandment found its way into the Quran whose word is followed by the Zarqawi and Al Qaeda thugs even today).

[sandycat2]

Muhammad, the founder of Islam, traveled to Medina in 622 A.D. to attract followers to his new faith. When the Jews of Medina refused to convert and rejected Muhammad, two of the major Jewish tribes were expelled; in 627, Muhammad's followers killed between 600 and 900 of the men, and divided the surviving Jewish women and children amongst themselves.
The Muslim attitude toward Jews is reflected in various verses throughout the Koran, According to the Koran, the Jews try to introduce corruption (5:64), have always been disobedient (5:78), and are enemies of Allah, the Prophet and the angels (2:97-98).

[sandycat2]

In that year (235/850), al-Mutawakkil ordered that the Christians and all the rest of the ahl al-dhimma be made to wear honey-colored taylasans (hoods) and the zunnar belts. They were to ride on saddles with wooden stirrups, and two balls were to be attached to the rear of' their saddles. fie required them to attach two buttons oil their qalansuwas (conical caps) - those of, their) that wore this cap. And it was to be of a different color from the qalansuwa worn by Muslims. He further required them to affix two patches on the exterior of then slaves' garments. The color of these patches had to be different from that of the garment. One of the patches was to be worn in front oil the breast and the other on the back.
He gave orders that any of their houses of worship built after the advent of Islam were to be destroyed and that one-tenth of their homes be confiscated. If the place was spacious enough, it was to be converted into a mosque. If it was not suitable for a mosque, it was to be made an open space. He commanded that wooden images of devils be nailed to the doors of their homes to distinguish them from the homes of Muslims.

Sounds just like Hitler and the Nazis to me.

[sandycat2]

From the Koran,
[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
5.51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

This is what the Koran as spoken through the prophet says about Jews and Christians and non-believers.

[sandycat2]

Andy, the American military and the American government is not a religion. So please don't put them in the same category and compare them. It's like comparing apples and oranges.
The Pope was speaking at a college and he is German so I really don't see what that has to do with anything.
Of course, it can't be the muslims fault that people around the world find them violent and intolerant of others, can it?

[andy_f90]

(con't)

As for "And then the Islamic community going on a rampage over the Pope's speech makes my case on its own."

Your case? And what's that? They are violent? Then the American military going on a rampage in attacking Iraq and threatening Syria and Iran...all countries that haven't attacked it, so they may "pre-empt" a future attack is also proof of inherent American gov't violent ways.

And lets not forget the generalization of the military that sextually tortures and kills its victims in Abu Gharaib. How many more Abu Ghraibs, torture, secret prisons in Europe, Guantanamo Bays are there that the American people don't know about?

The fact of course there were anti-pope protests directly as a result of Ratzinger's comment, but by far and LARGE THEY WERE PEACEFUL. But oh yea, peaceful protests don't make it on the news. Only violence and one death here, one church-fire there makes it. Did you read the news of Florida's Muslims collecting money to rebuilt the doors of the only church that was attacked? Oh I forgot how could you, that doesn't make the news!!!



The world really misses John Paul II, there was a true, humble Christian man who actually respected Muslims and backed that respect with kind deeds such as kissing the holy Koran.