Oath on Qur'an for Public Office in U.S.

[Mikawa Ossan]

I believe Duo had this in mind perhaps.

U.S. Constitution Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Although as stated previously, this is much more pertinent to this particular thread:

U.S. Constitution Article VI (excerpt)

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.

 

[Mike Cash]

"..respecting an establishment of religion" doesn't mean "...sending out mad props to the churches" It means "in regards to giving official status to a religious body" and had its origins, I believe, primarily in the abuses observed in Mother England with regards to the Church of England. This is echoed in the "...no religious test..." clause you cite.

The Free Exercise and Free Speech clauses and the lack of a religious test make it abundantly clear that officials are perfectly free to have their religious convictions and to act upon and in accordance with them, even in their official duties. To think otherwise is absurd.

 

[Flashjeff]

Personally speaking, I don't see what the flaming big deal is here. If Keith Ellison wants to say his oath of office over a copy of the Quran, the Yellow Pages or a stack of Penthouse magazines, that's his choice. But then, I don't care two hoots about religion, so this tempest in a teapot doesn't get my boxers in a bunch. This is all so much nonsense to give the conservative whackjobs on talk radio something to foam at the mouth about. Yawn! Wake me when something serious happens.

 

[Mike Cash]

As a conservative myself, I subscribe to and faithfully listen to the podcast of the #1 conservative radio talk show. I can assure you that it got precious little mention at all on that particular show.

 

[Flashjeff]

As a conservative myself, I subscribe to and faithfully listen to the podcast of the #1 conservative radio talk show. I can assure you that it got precious little mention at all on that particular show.

Oh, really? Then I stand corrected. My bad!

 

[Mike Cash]

Not at all. I don't listen to any of the others, but I wouldn't be surprised if it got a lot of attention on them.

 

[BrennaCeDria]

The point about no book being used for the official ceremony that is quoted someplace above is the one I wanted to make (and no just make again). The real ceremony is just everyone swearing at once, with no book of any religion. The one with the Bible, Qur'an, etc, is only a photo opportunity for the official and his or her constituents.

Even if it were part of the official ceremony, it would make sense because the chosen book would (hopefully) be something the one being sworn in holds dear and respects greatly. Now, we know how rarely this probably actually is the case, but the point stands for those that do respect whichever book is in question at the time.

But, since the book is only used in an unofficial, completely non-binding ceremony that isn't even required, let the guy do what he wishes.

 

[Duo]

Even as a devout Atheist myself I can not rationally buy into such an extremist suppression of individual religious freedom.
And there is nothing in the United States Constitution about the "separation of church and state", by the way. Nor is there anything there which prevents any public official from the free exercise of their religion.

I don't see what so extremist about it. I'm not saying civil servants should have no religion, but that part of their life should be private. When one becomes a congressman/senator what have you, they are not serving and representing an organized religion or god, rather the people. So the whole notion of swearing alligiance to the state under a holy book is just mind bogling to me. It seems like we're back in the old days where the king was granted power by the pope.

Public exercise of religion in itself is something that should be separated by state institutions. For example in Turkey women wearing veils are not allowed in state and public instutions such as universities.

God, I hate arguing American civics/politics with Europeans.

Why is that...are you gonna play the card that we cant understand the system in America and what not.... please... American politics/gov has always been full of contradictions.... right to liberty but xept for slaves, right to vote but for only white land owning males, and so it continues. This is just another of such examples. As an atheist you should be concerned by the embrace of religion by the state, I mean I would, especially if my president answers Jesus to the question of what political philosopher he prefers.

 

[Duo]

The Free Exercise and Free Speech clauses and the lack of a religious test make it abundantly clear that officials are perfectly free to have their religious convictions and to act upon and in accordance with them, even in their official duties. To think otherwise is absurd.

So you are telling me it's ok if lets say a senator gets up before senate and starts to give a speech on whatever issue holding a bible in his hand and qouting passages from it and refering to god's judgment as his yardstick for the way he would vote on a bill ????

I'm just makin an example here

 

[BrennaCeDria]

So the whole notion of swearing alligiance to the state under a holy book is just mind bogling to me.

That's the thing--there is no official ceremony that uses this, in spite of my opinion that if there were an official ceremony, then the person being sworn in should be able to use whatever they choose for it. The only ceremony that DOES exist for swearing allegiance uses nothing but a raised hand--no books or documents of any kind.

One option, if a document were officially sworn upon, is to allow a person to swear on birth and marriage certificates in addition to or instead of holy books of any available religion. It's not anymore reliable than swearing on a holy book, but IF the swearing-on-a-document was official, it would grant an alternative for those that are uncomfortable with the idea of holy books for any reason.

 

[sabro]

Forcing elected officials to keep their religion private is an infringement on their free excercise and free speech. All Americans, elected or not are allowed to excercise their religion and speech and getting elected does not change that.

They can wear religious garg, swear on their holy book, pray whenever they need to, celebrate, praise, worship and believe whatever they see fit. We don't need the State telling us what to do in these matters. It may be different in Europe, but in the US, religious freedom, tolerance, and freedom of speech are core values. Imposing the State's will on someone would be an abridgement of these basic principles.

Your private ceremony is your thing.

 

[Mycernius]

If Keith Ellison wants to say his oath of office over a copy of the Quran, the Yellow Pages or a stack of Penthouse magazines, that's his choice.

Probably get more swearing in over Penthouse. However you must keep it equal and have Playgirl for the female senators.

 

[ArmandV]

However you must keep it equal and have Playgirl for the female senators.

And Rep. Barney Frank. ;-)

 

[sabro]

Diversity at its finest! Viva la difference!

 

[Duo]

I split this thread cuz the rest of the convo diverged too far....you can find the new thread here :

Offtopic US-Euro different viewpoints

 

[sabro]

The Americans seem to be agreeing that the guy can go ahead and swear on the Koran. It doesn't seem to be an issue.

 

[Mike Cash]

I split this thread cuz the rest of the convo diverged too far....you can find the new thread here :
Offtopic US-Euro different viewpoints

Did my last post waxing nostalgic get deleted or did I fail to post it properly?

 

[Duo]

Um no i didn't delete anything....maybe it got lost when I moved the posts but I'm pretty sure I did it right so......

 

[Mike Cash]

Don't worry about it. I've been multitasking like crazy all afternoon and it is possible that I either didn't hit send before leaving the site or that I hit preview and left.