I have said in other places that I have no objection to Mr. Ellison taking his oath of office with the Quran.
I don't really care if he uses the collected work of L Ron Hubbard (preferably his truly great Scifi), or some newly 'uncovered' gospel by Dan Brown, or the works of Theodore Herzl, or even Marat Sade.
The constitution specificies an oath of office only for the president.
Article 2 section 6 says there should be an oath but doesn't specify it
The federal code of 1884 does:
I, Loyal Citizen of the Republic, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
Here is the problem:
The Quran is supposedly a perfect book, which always was and always will be, expressing unchangeable truth and the command of god.
Mr. Ellison Today:
Speaking in Dearborn late Sunday night, the first Muslim elected to Congress told a cheering crowd of Muslims they should remain steadfast in their faith and push for justice (JUSTICE??? hmmmmmmmm, in the quran this has a specific meaning)."You can't back down. You can't chicken out. You can't be afraid. You got to have faith in Allah, and you've got to stand up and be a real Muslim," Detroit native Keith Ellison said to loud applause.
Many in the crowd replied "Allahu akbar" -- God is great.
"Muslims, you're up to bat right now," he said. "How do you know that you were not brought right here to this place to learn how to make this world better?"
Continue reading "Mr. Ellison, the oath, the Quran, and the problem (?)" »
5 comments:
I always hate to disagree, but here we go.
"You got to have faith in Allah, and you've got to stand up and be a real Muslim,"
PLUS
"How do you know that you were not brought right here to this place to learn how to make this world better?"
EQUALS
A damn good reason why we should be skeptical of anyone swearing any American oaths on the Koran. Furthermore, we should care if someone CHOOSES to take an oath on Dianetics, Jane Eyre, or the Rachel Ray triscuit box. We are defined by our choices, are we not? Notwithstanding everything you've done previously, were you to choose to take an oath on, say, Captain America and the Falcon, I would sincerely question the seriousness with which you were about to take your job. We are defined by our choices. Ellison will have chosen to take his oath on a book that is incompatible and antithetical to the government he is swearing to protect. Now, I'm hardly one to stand on ceremony, but were I in a such a position of influence and importance, you can be sure that I would not be so flippant, if I were so inclined to take an oath on any text, to think that what text I put my hand on didn't matter; that the appearance of the thing didn't matter; that the choice didn't matter.
Nevermind that, of course. Here we have the first Muslim elected to Congress, a former "no justice, no peace" member of the Nation of Islam, a probably co-conspirator with the infamous Sheiks on a Plane, a man exhorting his constituents to make the world better as Muslims, "real" Muslims (not Americans, by the way) who will take his oath on a Koran and we should all pretend that there isn't something amiss with this???
We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We scoff at tradition and are shocked to find...
D.T.
You are always so articulate. It's good to find you commenting here.
The Sheikhs on a Plane line is classic. Thanks for that.
I'm torn on this one. That's why I don't write on it. I agree with you, in one way, because I do believe America is a Judeo-Christian nation. But, in another way, I recognize that the man, going by the Constitution, does have the right to swear his oath on whatever book he pleases.
Simply put, Islam is incompatible with Democracy, but until we define that with legislation, or admendment, we can not deny a Muslim the right to swear on a Koran, or be elected to office, etc.
Here's a problem with swearing an oath on the Koran- the book advocates lying to infidels. Therefore any such oath taken on it is essentially meaningless.
Judeo-Christian nation, huh? I agree with that. But what about the Native Americans? The Iriquois, the Algonquin, the Dineh, Blackfoot? The list goes on. They were here before any of us. If a Muslim shouldn't swear on the Qur'an, why aren't THEY asked to settle this dispute?
And if the Bible or Torah is acceptable to swear on, then why not the Qur'an? Even the Bible calls for a death penalty for apostasy from faith, in Deuteronomy.... without even a trial to determine if the accused is sane. Just a str8 up execution on the spot! Check it out for yourselves.
Black Lion,
You are correct about that. However, Judaism has gone through a long Talmudic process of reformation by which the religion has become more compassionate. If you read what us Christians refer to as the "Old Testament" straight through you see that God appears to be transformed from an angry, jealous God who demands blood sacrifice, to a God who says that helping widows and orphans is the sacrifice that He desires.
Christ then became the ultimate blood sacrifice in our place.
And Christ calls on we who follow Him to serve others (by feeding them and clothing them) in order to serve Him.
That is the story and the Truth of the Bible.
Islam has a different story and truth, and it still calls for death for apostates, adulterers and homosexuals.
None of us want to live that way. In fact, we believe that such a system is not justice. And, of course, I believe you would agree with me that Islam does not believe in Democracy.
Thanks for being honest with us, by the way. I appreciate it.
Post a Comment