Taking the Oath on the Koran

[micatala]

Columnist Dennis Prager has taken issue with incoming Congressman Keith Ellison's intention to use a Koran instead of a Bible for his 'unofficial photo op swearing in'.

Prager contends this action would "undermine American civilization" and that he should not be allowed to do it.

He says in part

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?

Questions for debate:

Should the Congress take any action to prevent Ellison from swearing in on the Koran? Why or why not?

Does Prager have a point that this would be opening up the swearing in ceremonies to a slippery slope?

More generally, what is the point of using a Bible or any other book to 'swear on' when taking such oaths? Should we use the constitution itself instead? SHould we dispense with a book?

A commentator on CNN this evening noted a couple of examples where a book was not used, or where an 'affirmation' was given instead of an 'oath' (I am not sure what the difference was supposed to be).

[Vladd44]

Whaaaaaat?

How can we trust someone if they dont swear at a bible...uh I mean swear on a bible.

If our civilization is so easily undermined then perhaps we should all stand still and breath slow, this thing could give at any moment.

Perhaps the fool writing the article should read the constitution, but since when has the constitution mattered to neocons.

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.

I read a few of his other articles, what an idiot, thanks for bringing him to my attention I needed someone new to laugh at.

[Galphanore]

Should the Congress take any action to prevent Ellison from swearing in on the Koran? Why or why not?

Absolutly not, though truth be told they shouldn't be required to swear on a holy book at all. Our government is secular, not Christian. It just so happens many Americans are Christian, America it's self is not.

Does Prager have a point that this would be opening up the swearing in ceremonies to a slippery slope?

No. He has no actual standing in his stance, he is essentially saying that in matters of government one religion is more important then another. That in it's self is enough to show that he is wrong.

More generally, what is the point of using a Bible or any other book to 'swear on' when taking such oaths? Should we use the constitution itself instead? SHould we dispense with a book?

Yes, we should dispense with a book. We should swear them in the same way many Americans respond to the flag, with a hand over the heart. If they want to instead us their own holy book, however, it should not be stopped. The practice of swearing on the bible both for politicians and in court rooms should be seriously rethought.

[micatala]

I would be interested in any responses from Christians to Prager's position. FOr example, another statement from the article is

First, it [his using the Koran for the swearing in]is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- my culture trumps America's culture.

I did not get the sense that Ellis was doing this as an act of 'hubris'. Yes, one could say he is making a statement, although I have not as yet heard any detailed discussion from him personally on his reasoning. To me, it makes sense that if you want to use a book as a symbol of the seriousness with which you are taking the oath, one that you personally hold as Holy would be more appropriate.

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.

On what basis would we say that the Bible is America's 'holiest' book? Even if this is so, does it mean it must be the only one we use for such events?

Article VI of US Constitution wrote:
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.

I am not sure using a BIble to swear in on constitutes a 'religious test'. Requiring someone to swear that they believe the BIble or hold it as holy would.

Yes, we should dispense with a book. We should swear them in the same way many Americans respond to the flag, with a hand over the heart.

I can't see much reason not to do this, except for tradition. Would you also apply this to court proceedings?

[McCulloch]

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.

I am not sure using a Bible to swear in on constitutes a 'religious test'. Requiring someone to swear that they believe the Bible or hold it as holy would.

I do not see why requiring someone to swear using a Bible or a Qu'ran or Mormon some other religious book is not a religious test.

Is it just me or does anyone else notice the irony?

[Jesus said,] "Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FALSE VOWS, BUT SHALL FULFILL YOUR VOWS TO THE LORD.'
"But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is THE CITY OF THE GREAT KING. Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes' or 'No, no'; anything beyond these is of evil.

The very book that teaches that swearing oaths is absolutely pointless is the book being used the most for swearing oaths!

[micatala]

I am not sure using a Bible to swear in on constitutes a 'religious test'. Requiring someone to swear that they believe the Bible or hold it as holy would.

I do not see why requiring someone to swear using a Bible or a Qu'ran or Mormon some other religious book is not a religious test.

I would make a distinction between the content of the oath and the manner by which it is taken.

To me, a religious test for qualification would mean things like belonging to a certain church or even belonging to any church at all, or being required to support certain religious viewpoints or actions, or having some sort of religious content within the oath itself.

I can see that using a religious book to take the oath might be considered an endorsement of sorts of the contents of that book, but I don't see that it is necessarily so. It depends on the function of using the book. It seems to me the function of using the book is to add 'weight' to the solemnity of the oath. I would allow that using a book does not necessarily mean the person taking the oath is taking it more seriously, and that, as a tradition, it is probably less appropriate in a society where a significant and increasing minority of people do not view the book as holy or even important.

Is it just me or does anyone else notice the irony?

Matthew 5:33-37 wrote:
[Jesus said,] "Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FALSE VOWS, BUT SHALL FULFILL YOUR VOWS TO THE LORD.'
"But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is THE CITY OF THE GREAT KING. Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes' or 'No, no'; anything beyond these is of evil.

The very book that teaches that swearing oaths is absolutely pointless is the book being used the most for swearing oaths!

This had not occurred to me, but yes, it is rather more than ironic even.

[Galphanore]

Yes, we should dispense with a book. We should swear them in the same way many Americans respond to the flag, with a hand over the heart.

I can't see much reason not to do this, except for tradition. Would you also apply this to court proceedings?

Yes. If I, as an atheist, swear to tell the truth on the bible then it is of no meaning to me. Why should it be? It's just another book. The same applies for any non-Christian, we should all be trusted to tell the truth because we are swearing upon our own self that we will do so, and anyone who would lie under those circumstances would lie after swearing on the bible just as easily.

[micatala]

Well, we could open another front on the culture war and propose we abolish the use of the Bible or any other book for use in swearing in of officials, witnesses, etc. I personally do not see any compelling reason to be against such a proposal.

What would be the likely effects of such a proposal?

It would be another fight over 'symbolism' with really little or no substance, just like flag-burning, displaying the 10 commandments, the pledge of allegiance, etc.


I would rile up certain segments of the population, futher justifying in their own minds that 'Christianity is under attack.'

IMV, it would have little or no chance of becoming a reality in the short term, and probably also in the long term.

[Galphanore]

Well, we could open another front on the culture war and propose we abolish the use of the Bible or any other book for use in swearing in of officials, witnesses, etc. I personally do not see any compelling reason to be against such a proposal.

What would be the likely effects of such a proposal?

It would be another fight over 'symbolism' with really little or no substance, just like flag-burning, displaying the 10 commandments, the pledge of allegiance, etc.

I would rile up certain segments of the population, futher justifying in their own minds that 'Christianity is under attack.'

IMV, it would have little or no chance of becoming a reality in the short term, and probably also in the long term.

We are a secular nation with Christians in it, the requirement to swear on the bible is a direct violation of the constitution. The "Christianity is under attack." group needs to understand that if you've been hitting me over the head for a long time and I stop you, that's not an attack.

[Dion]

If an outsider may comment: I cannot see that an oath constitutes a religious test so long as there is no requirement to swear on the holy book of, or renounce, any particular religion. Of course those who have no particular religious convictions must be allowed to affirm.

In Britain this is the commonplace way of doing these things. So, if I was giving evidence in court I would, as an atheist, affirm using words along the lines of:

'I solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give will be the truth, ... etc.'

I would, in effect, be giving my word of honour, which for me is no small thing. But then again, I'm not a politician!

If I were a Christian I would swear on the Bible, if a Jew on the Old Testament, if a Muslim the Qu'ran, etc.

A similar system is used when newly elected Members of Parliament swear or affirm allegiance to the Crown before taking their seat.

The only thing that I'm not really sure of is, is the gentleman who intends to swear on the Qu'ran actually a Muslim? If not, then he will be swearing no kind of oath at all.