Conservatives Attack Use of Koran for Oath

BlaznFattyz · 12-10-2006, 05:17 AM

When Keith Ellison, the Minnesota Democrat whose election last month will make him the first Muslim in Congress, announced he would take his oath of office on Islam's holy book, the Koran, he provoked sharp criticism from conservatives and some heated discussion on the blogosphere.

The discussion has revived the debate about whether the nation's values and legal system are shaped only by Judeo-Christian heritage or if there is room for Islamic and other traditions...

Cont'd

seattlegal · 12-10-2006, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Article

Still, some conservative Christians have taken Prager's editorial as a clarion call. The American Family Association in Tupelo, Miss., for example, sent out an "action alert" to its 3.4 million members urging them to write their legislators "to pass a law making the Bible the book used in the swearing-in ceremony of Representatives and Senators."

Such a law would be Unconstitutional, according to both the main body of the Constitution and the First Amendment, and possibly the Fourteenth Amendment, as well.

Quahom1 · 12-10-2006, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Such a law would be Unconstitutional, according to both the main body of the Constitution and the First Amendment, and possibly the Fourteenth Amendment, as well.

Agreed.

Absolute gaurantee that no specific or state religion will be imposed upon one duly sworn into office, nor will the elected be required to take an oath under any such religion..

BlaznFattyz · 12-11-2006, 01:19 AM

if the point of the swearing in is to tug at the religious, cultural, and social heartstrings to better ensure compliance to a high moral standing in office, then i don't see a problem with using the quran to swear in a muslim or a torah to swear in a jew. why would he swear in on a bible? of course that could just swear in by saluting the flag or something.. but you know swearing in is an american tradition.

Dor · 12-11-2006, 05:30 PM

This is one I actually agree on. If people elect a muslim they should let him swear in using the Koran or Torah for a Jewish etc.

seattlegal · 12-11-2006, 06:08 PM

What kind of logic is involved in writing to your Congressman, who swore on the Bible to uphold the Constitution, to urge him to push through an Unconstitutional law? Wouldn't that be asking the congressman to nullify the oath he took on the Bible to uphold the Constitution?

Dondi · 12-11-2006, 06:08 PM

Reverse the situation. What if your are a Christian Iraqi who successful ran for a seat in the Iraqi Parliment (or whatever it is they have) and were told that you had to swear on the Qu'ran?

I much rather see this Muslim Democrat given the permission to swear on the Qu'ran, for who knows, some future time this nation might be proclaimed a Hindu nation and we'd all will be forced to swear on the Bhagavad Gita.

Freedom of religion must be preserved.

InLove · 12-11-2006, 06:13 PM

So much agreement in the room! As one who struggles sometimes with democracy and how it goes hand-in-hand with Christian's viewpoints, this is uplifting to me.

Edited to add: I don't think I stated my thought very well there. I am hoping I conveyed the essence of what I am thinking.

InPeace,
InLove

Saltmeister · 12-12-2006, 01:24 PM

Why swear by the Bible or Quran at all?

Why not just swear by the American Constitution and the legal documents defining it? The "Constitution" is the "religion," or should I say instead, "ideology" of the American political system, not Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism or Hinduism. The oath is to protect and serve the American Constitution. As an American Citizen, you are swearing, as a public and civil servant, to preserve the integrity of the American government, following its rules and protocols, upholding its tenets, statutes and institutions and aligning oneself to the goals of the American political system. On top of that, one promises to amend whatever is improper and wrong in the American political system and to regulate it in such a way that it achieves its goals, or to change the goals in view of what the nation considers important.

How can one swear to preserve the integrity of the American political system yet swear, in the same context, to be serving an alterior entity, such as a religion like Christianity or Islam? How can one preserve the integrity of the American government when a promise is made to impose one's agenda on governmental processes "in the name of religion?" It would be more meaningful to privately and personally follow Christ or Islam, but swear to perserve the integrity of the American political system and in the same context swear to serve the goals of the American political system. This, of course, sounds like a "separation of religion and state thing," but the way I see it, it's not about making religion a "peripheral" of the State, that one's religious interests are pushed down to the bottom of one's priorities to serve the State.

To me it's the other way round. Even if I was serving in the government, my religion would still be at the top of my agenda. Religion is personal and private (and most important in my life). The affairs of State would be secondary. It would just be my job. Here's my point: if we work in the government, we do it to serve people. We do it to serve the State. With my religion, I serve God. Religion and state are separate not because the State takes precedence over religion, but because one's religion, one's personal and private interests take precedence over State and cannot be subordinated by the State.

The State is not God. When we separate religion and state, we are not cutting God in half. The State is a man-made entity. God is uncreated. We need to make a distinction between what is man-made and what is uncreated. Should we try and impose religion over the state? My question is, does that mean God is imposing His authority over something man-made?

The way I see it, God doesn't need something man-made to rule over us. Fusing religion and state is another way of saying that God is inadequate. We are fusing something God-made with something man-made. What does that say about God? I think that might be seen as an insult to God. Fusing religion and state is a way of saying that God needed a political system to rule over His people. That may be seen as undermining God's personal ability to rule.

The Constitution by surrendering its authority to the people to decide what to do with themselves, in terms of religion, is actually allowing people to make God their priority. If the Constitution imposed "religion" on people in order to control what they did in their personal lives (in which case it would be unconstitutional), it would in fact be anti-God.

Separation of church and state is actually pro-God rather than anti-God. The State is henceforth not allowed to impose its authority on God's people. God's people are at liberty to do as they please, and not be lorded over by the State. Even if "God's people" believe that they can mount their religion on the pinnacle of a political system, they would in fact be deluding themselves. You can't serve God by putting religion on top of a political system because it's man-made.

There is no such thing as a God-run State. The State is run by ideology, which is lifeless and dead. If God ran the State, that would make God a politician!!!! So God Himself would have to swear by the Bible and promise to uphold the American Constitution. God would be a man, a man-made man proclaiming everything that is man-made, including the American Constitution. Christ was a man, but he wasn't man-made. Christ was God-made, and he introduced a God-made religion.

Imposing religion over the State doesn't mean we're more religious or pious. We have this idea that we're in a society of moral decline. Perish the thought. Don't waste your time. We can meet and experience God wherever we want. We don't need a political system to express our devotion to God. Why bother with politics? Who here thinks we can change the world by getting into politics? Even so, is not changing people and their attitudes more important than changing what runs and drives the world?

Somewhere in our history, we as human beings decided that we needed a political system. But that was before we found God.

Dor · 12-12-2006, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Religion is personal and private (and most important in my life). The affairs of State would be secondary. It would just be my job. Here's my point: if we work in the government, we do it to serve people. We do it to serve the State. With my religion, I serve God. Religion and state are separate not because the State takes precedence over religion, but because one's religion, one's personal and private interests take precedence over State and cannot be subordinated by the State.

That right there is why SM. Religion is supposed to take spot 1 no matter what and take precedence over all things which is why we generally take oaths with religious texts.

BlaznFattyz · 12-12-2006, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

The "Constitution" is the "religion," or should I say instead, "ideology" of the American political system, not Christianity...

before something is a law, it is a moral issue first. morality for many founders of the united states, and for many today stem from judeo-christian principles, which imo is a great place to grab morality. the second the united states put god in it's system, it has been tradition ever since. i have heard the argument of taking certain things out because its religous, the counter-argument i have heard is that it is the traditions upon which this nation is founded and they are not to be forgotten.

Quahom1 · 12-12-2006, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Why swear by the Bible or Quran at all?

Why not just swear by the American Constitution and the legal documents defining it? The "Constitution" is the "religion," or should I say instead, "ideology" of the American political system, not Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism or Hinduism. The oath is to protect and serve the American Constitution. As an American Citizen, you are swearing, as a public and civil servant, to preserve the integrity of the American government, following its rules and protocols, upholding its tenets, statutes and institutions and aligning oneself to the goals of the American political system. On top of that, one promises to amend whatever is improper and wrong in the American political system and to regulate it in such a way that it achieves its goals, or to change the goals in view of what the nation considers important.

How can one swear to preserve the integrity of the American political system yet swear, in the same context, to be serving an alterior entity, such as a religion like Christianity or Islam? How can one preserve the integrity of the American government when a promise is made to impose one's agenda on governmental processes "in the name of religion?" It would be more meaningful to privately and personally follow Christ or Islam, but swear to perserve the integrity of the American political system and in the same context swear to serve the goals of the American political system. This, of course, sounds like a "separation of religion and state thing," but the way I see it, it's not about making religion a "peripheral" of the State, that one's religious interests are pushed down to the bottom of one's priorities to serve the State.

To me it's the other way round. Even if I was serving in the government, my religion would still be at the top of my agenda. Religion is personal and private (and most important in my life). The affairs of State would be secondary. It would just be my job. Here's my point: if we work in the government, we do it to serve people. We do it to serve the State. With my religion, I serve God. Religion and state are separate not because the State takes precedence over religion, but because one's religion, one's personal and private interests take precedence over State and cannot be subordinated by the State.

The State is not God. When we separate religion and state, we are not cutting God in half. The State is a man-made entity. God is uncreated. We need to make a distinction between what is man-made and what is uncreated. Should we try and impose religion over the state? My question is, does that mean God is imposing His authority over something man-made?

The way I see it, God doesn't need something man-made to rule over us. Fusing religion and state is another way of saying that God is inadequate. We are fusing something God-made with something man-made. What does that say about God? I think that might be seen as an insult to God. Fusing religion and state is a way of saying that God needed a political system to rule over His people. That may be seen as undermining God's personal ability to rule.

The Constitution by surrendering its authority to the people to decide what to do with themselves, in terms of religion, is actually allowing people to make God their priority. If the Constitution imposed "religion" on people in order to control what they did in their personal lives (in which case it would be unconstitutional), it would in fact be anti-God.

Separation of church and state is actually pro-God rather than anti-God. The State is henceforth not allowed to impose its authority on God's people. God's people are at liberty to do as they please, and not be lorded over by the State. Even if "God's people" believe that they can mount their religion on the pinnacle of a political system, they would in fact be deluding themselves. You can't serve God by putting religion on top of a political system because it's man-made.

There is no such thing as a God-run State. The State is run by ideology, which is lifeless and dead. If God ran the State, that would make God a politician!!!! So God Himself would have to swear by the Bible and promise to uphold the American Constitution. God would be a man, a man-made man proclaiming everything that is man-made, including the American Constitution. Christ was a man, but he wasn't man-made. Christ was God-made, and he introduced a God-made religion.

Imposing religion over the State doesn't mean we're more religious or pious. We have this idea that we're in a society of moral decline. Perish the thought. Don't waste your time. We can meet and experience God wherever we want. We don't need a political system to express our devotion to God. Why bother with politics? Who here thinks we can change the world by getting into politics? Even so, is not changing people and their attitudes more important than changing what runs and drives the world?

Somewhere in our history, we as human beings decided that we needed a political system. But that was before we found God.

Out of incentive not to perjore one's self. Seems man can't let a yes be a yes and a no be a no, so there is the swearing before a god. However, in the US we're learning. And now some merely affirm (yes or no).

v/r

Joshua

bananabrain · 12-13-2006, 09:13 AM

i was particularly incensed by dennis prager's intervention. he's clearly a total feckwit. you will note that a lot of jewish groups supported mr ellison's actions, with which i am in complete accord.

b'shalom

bananabrain

Saltmeister · 12-13-2006, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dor

That right there is why SM. Religion is supposed to take spot 1 no matter what and take precedence over all things which is why we generally take oaths with religious texts.

Sure, being Christian means one should strive to be "holy," but I would disagree with the idea that changing and shaping a political system on being "more holy" automatically means we as people are more "holy" and "pious." A political system is driven by rules. But even if we had rules on how to be "holy," it would not necessarily make us "better people."

Obsession with rules can create, as well as resolve, personal problems. If people are obsessed with rules, they may think they can compare themselves with other people on the basis of what rules people follow. That might cause unhealthy attitudes in people as well as deluding them about their real personal problems. That is ideology -- the idea of assigning value to people based on how well they follow the rules. A political system operates on that assumption -- that the value of life in society is determined by how it is organised and structured.

You may disagree with this, but the way I see it, when agendas often attributed to Christianity are pursued by means of a political system, what you end up with is no longer the religion, "Christianity" but something else -- an ideology. Another way I would say this is that Christianity, when mixed with elements of a political system, becomes a "corrupted form" of Christianity.

Furthermore, as it's often said, political systems are man-made. Why else? They're based on rules. They're dogmatic. Sure, God is a "higher authority" than a man-made political system, but I disagree with the idea that it means we must "shoehorn" religion into a political system. Just because God is higher up on the pecking order doesn't mean he needs to use "intermediaries" to further His goals. I would have thought that God wouldn't need a political system -- that He could achieve His goals by interacting directly with us through His Spirit.

But I guess Christianity means different things to differents groups of Christians around the world. To some, Christianity is "ideology" and it is seen as something that must be enforced through rules. It seems to mean that "striving to the holy" means we must try to change and shape the political system, the legal system and social values. Christianity, I guess, means something else to me. I see all these things as "external issues" in the sense that they are part of the environment in which we live, but don't have to affect our relationship with God. I'm a bit more "inward-looking" in my approach to Christianity whereas you might be more outward-looking.