Should Keith Ellison have to swear his oath of office on a Bible?
posted at 12:23 pm on November 29, 2006 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Prager makes the case and Volokh dismantles it. He gets off a cute line, too:
A Senate website 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.
Long story short: if the oath is a way of impressing upon the swearer the seriousness of his duties then it’s stupid to have him swear on a book he doesn’t regard with the utmost seriousness. If the oath is a way of demanding allegiance to America’s Judeo-Christian heritage then it’s a violation of the Constitution’s “religious test” clause. As for this point from Prager:
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?
You know what the answer to that is? Don’t elect Nazis. If the day should come where we’re seating Congressmen who’d want to break out Mein Kampf for their swearings-in, their choice of literature will be the least of our worries. I understand the complaints about Ellison and the worries about terrorism and multiculturalism, but when people as prominent as Newt Gingrich are calling for a rethink of the First Amendment, it’s worrisome. Let’s not go thug here.
And now, having said that, I join Rick Moran as he invites the shrieking, Greenwaldian NSA-wiretapping doomsayer brigades of America to “bite me.”
“We found there was a great appreciation inside government, both at the political and career levels, for protections on privacy and civil liberties,” said Raul, author of a book of privacy and civil liberties. “In fact, I think the public may have an underappreciation for the degree of seriousness the government is giving these protections.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
No. Can you imagine the seething if it were required?
bloggless on November 29, 2006 at 12:29 PM
It’s kind of out of our control. He’s already elected.
Kevin M on November 29, 2006 at 12:30 PM
I agree he doesnt have to swear on the bible. But neither should he use the Koran.
William Amos on November 29, 2006 at 12:30 PM
Yup. And on that very note, Ellison’s koran is the least of our worries.
Pablo on November 29, 2006 at 12:30 PM
The more interesting question is whether Ellison calls for God to protect the United States, or Allah, since the latter is only the Arab language word for “the Only God”, i.e. the God of Muslims, Christians and Jews alike.
Niko on November 29, 2006 at 12:31 PM
If Lieberman were elected, would you be OK with him using a Torah?
Pablo on November 29, 2006 at 12:31 PM
I think he should be able to swear on whatever book he wants.
StoutRepublican on November 29, 2006 at 12:32 PM
If someone testifies in an American court, can he choose not to swear on the Bible?
Josephine on November 29, 2006 at 12:32 PM
I never did understand why people have to swear on the bible when it seems clear that this very book tells us not to do so.
Maybe I am reading it out of context, but Jesus seemed pretty clear when he said:
jman on November 29, 2006 at 12:33 PM
A man can swear on whatever book he wants. I care more about the character he will display.
Trooper on November 29, 2006 at 12:36 PM
Agreed.
jman on November 29, 2006 at 12:37 PM
As far as I know, Jews don’t swear on the Torah. So what was your point again?
Yes.
Niko on November 29, 2006 at 12:38 PM
So he’s sworn in on a Koran. Big deal. It gives these babies one less thing to seethe over. If it makes anyone feel better, flush a Koran in honor of the moment. Symbolically, of course.
JammieWearingFool on November 29, 2006 at 12:38 PM
He should swear his oath on an AK-47, or a stick of dynamite, or something.
JackM on November 29, 2006 at 12:38 PM
Lieberman has been elected repeatedly. Was he sworn in using the Torah ?
William Amos on November 29, 2006 at 12:39 PM
I totally agree, but what if some one being elected in doesn’t believe in any religious text? The Bible has always been defacto in that case. It seems like we should take out the whole “swearing on a book” thing all together.
CorinthianJest on November 29, 2006 at 12:39 PM
When elected I will use Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand for the swearing in. “Who is John Galt?”
Bradky on November 29, 2006 at 12:40 PM
I do want Ellison to swear to uphold the constitution. And that same constitution says that he must respect freedom of religeon including those different than his.
William Amos on November 29, 2006 at 12:41 PM
So are you suggesting that Bush didn’t take his oath of office on Mein Kampf? Yeah right, next thing you will tell me is that Cheney didn’t take his oath on the Necronomicon ex Mortis.
BohicaTwentyTwo on November 29, 2006 at 12:42 PM
Bush derangement syndrome can strike anyone at anytime
William Amos on November 29, 2006 at 12:44 PM
I vote we make it a requirement that our elected Presidents swear on a signed photo of David Hasselhoff. Who could have a problem with that?
Zetterson on November 29, 2006 at 12:45 PM
Necronomicon- Ha ha.
Klaatu barada nikto- That’s comedy gold.
Trooper on November 29, 2006 at 12:46 PM
Our Country and our Government were founded on Judeo Christian philosophy. Specifically, that our rights stem from God (The Judeo Christian God) and not from man or government. As such, The Bible is THE ONLY book that should be used if a book is to be used. If one does not agree with that then let them affirm with no book at all.
The importance of swearing on the bible has everything to do with respect for the Country, it’s heritage and it’s traditions. Ellison’s unwillingness to do so says a lot about his character, or the lack thereof. Comments regarding Ellison taking his oath more seriously because it is on a book he believes in are ridiculous. Taqqiya anyone?
America1st on November 29, 2006 at 12:47 PM
Now you tell us not to vote for Nazis.
frankj on November 29, 2006 at 12:48 PM
Niko - Thanks.
Josephine on November 29, 2006 at 12:49 PM
When he gets to the part that says “So Help Me God”…what does he say…an that IS part of the Oath of Office.
DoctorDentons on November 29, 2006 at 12:50 PM
The very concept of oath-swearing is nonsensical. It is unnecessary for a person with integrity and meaningless for a person without it.
RedWinged Blackbird on November 29, 2006 at 12:50 PM
When elected, I will use a cached archive of Allah Is in the House for my swearing in.
Kralizec on November 29, 2006 at 12:51 PM
Actually, I think they should have to swear to a wireless laptop logged onto Hotair. Michelle can take it from there.
Zetterson on November 29, 2006 at 12:58 PM
If Muslims are supposed to embrace Christians and Jews as “people of the Book,” doesn’t that imply that they also revere “the Book” also, which is the Bible? Guess it’s just talk.
I don’t want an American office holder swearing on the Koran due to the fact that Islam isn’t only a religion but a political/legal system, also.
Ellison’s primary allegiance will be to Islam and the establishment of the ummah under shari’a here, not to America and her laws.
Well, duh, not that we didn’t know this about the guy already, but having him sworn in on a Koran instead of a Bible is making an exception for their culture to replace ours, which is what they want anyway.
Slippery slope, my friends and one that leads to the grave, at worst, or dhimmitude, at best, for “we the people…”" of the Book.”
Jen the Neocon on November 29, 2006 at 12:58 PM
To help treat my Bush Derangement Syndrome, my doctor recommended Hot Air. You see, Hot Air is different from other blogs (Kos, DU). Its writers are firmly grounded in reality, so it helps me to stay politically informed, as well as control the urge to weave Machiavellin conspiracy theories. Thank’s Hot Air.
BohicaTwentyTwo on November 29, 2006 at 12:58 PM
Having someone swear on a book they do not believe in would be meaningless. The point of the tradition is based on a Christian’s fear of lying under oath to God. If a person does not believe in that God … there would be no fear and no incentive for honesty.
I have no idea if Muslims have the same fear of lying before their God, but if so … it would make more sense to have a Muslim swear on the Qur’an.
Swearing to tell the truth on the Bible is not swearing to uphold the teachings of that Bible. Swearing to tell the truth upon the Qur’an would not be swearing to uphold the teachings of the Qur’an. You are swearing that you are telling the truth.
However, there may be religions which forbid swearing before God.
Gregor on November 29, 2006 at 1:00 PM
Niko,
I’d suggest Googling “Oath More Judaico”, and then getting back to us when you’ve expanded your knowledge. You might want to poke around here for a while too.
It was a question, not really required to have a point. Feel free to answer it, if you like, and then we can get around to the point.
Pablo on November 29, 2006 at 1:00 PM
Personally I think that the whole idea of swearing on a Bible, in which Jesus admonishes Christians to not swear oaths, but that our yes should be yes and our no should be no, is kinda silly.
Ennuipundit on November 29, 2006 at 1:01 PM
William Amos,
Ah, of course. I was back to thinking of him running for POTUS…
I don’t know what he swore on, but if it was Torah, would that be a problem?
Pablo on November 29, 2006 at 1:03 PM
As long as he doesn’t demand to do his swearing in — standing up in an airplane chanting loudly in arabic — I don’t care what he does.
mesablue on November 29, 2006 at 1:03 PM
Keith Ellison/Hakim/X Ellison/Ellison-Muhammad is a threat to national security!
Louis Farrakhan’s First Congressman
IndependentConserv on November 29, 2006 at 1:05 PM
Franklin Pierce chose to affirm the oath rather than swear (on the bible), as was his right. He used a law book.
Anyone know if Jefferson used his homemade version of the bible?
Ellison should be able to use whatever book he wishes.
Defense Guy on November 29, 2006 at 1:05 PM
I think that the President used The Malleus Maleficarum for his inauguration, not Mein Kampf.
I would be more worried about the guy that wants to swear on his Criterion Platinum Special Limited Edition Director’s Cut boxset of LOTR.
rw on November 29, 2006 at 1:08 PM
Is stupid argument.
The idea is to get a binding (in HIS view) oath out of the guy, not to force a religious conversion.
mojo on November 29, 2006 at 1:12 PM
It does not matter which book he swears his oath upon. It only matters that he hold to that oath.
Lies are still lies if sworn upon either the Bible or the Koran.
MikeyB on November 29, 2006 at 1:13 PM
If he doesn’t believe in the Bible it is a useless gesture. Why substitute another book at all? Just have him raise his right hand and swear him in without the use of the word God. Or the moron could just fake it.
Why do you care how a bunch of oath-breakers take their oaths anyway? Let’s be honest, if it really is one nation under God then there wouldn’t be…… well you get the picture.
This really is a bit of a silly debate don’t you think? Every one of them takes an oath and then promptly starts breaking it the first chance they get, usually that very day. If their lies and empty oaths make you feel all warm inside then by all means let them comfort you. You have my sympathies and I hope you continue to enjoy the view from inside your own colon.
Cary on November 29, 2006 at 1:14 PM
Ellison isnt running for president either so why ask this ? This debate is if Congressman ellison should or should swear to uphold the constitution. Why you want to turn it into an attack on Lieberman I have no clue
William Amos on November 29, 2006 at 1:16 PM
Sounds like you still need a lot of treatment
William Amos on November 29, 2006 at 1:16 PM
Maybe if everybody just swore on something, we all would automatically have more integrity.
infidel on November 29, 2006 at 1:17 PM
I have no problem with Mr. Ellison swearing on a Koran or Green Eggs and Ham. Sure, our country is based on Judeo-Christian blah, blah, blah–but we aren’t legislated by the damn Pope.
I’m surprised we don’t make our elected officials swear on the true God of this country…the Allmighty Televsion. A plasma only, please.
robblefarian on November 29, 2006 at 1:19 PM
FWI - I propose to make all elected officials swear on a leatherbound copy of the U.S. Constitution.
mikeomatic on November 29, 2006 at 1:20 PM
FWIW, dammit.
mikeomatic on November 29, 2006 at 1:21 PM
Ennuipundit is right, yes should be yes and no should be no.
The oath means nothing more than, “I could have been lying before but I am telling the truth now.” It is nothing more than a ritual to make the masses feel all warm and fuzzy before the oath-taker-breaker raises their taxes.
Here’s a thought: Be an honest person and you won’t need to take an oath to qualify your position, office, or statements.
How many times have we heard, “I can’t believe this! That Congressman took an oath! How could he do this?”
Always going after the symptom instead of the cause. Brilliant.
Cary on November 29, 2006 at 1:23 PM
“A man can swear on whatever book he wants. I care more about the character he will display.” - Trooper
47+ comments and no one has asked why only men should be swearing on a book? LOL
Get a mop for the testosterone
Bradky on November 29, 2006 at 1:23 PM
Consider the term “man” to be gender inclusive.. sigh..
Trooper on November 29, 2006 at 1:27 PM
Excellent idea. I’ll second that. I swear I will–I have my hand on a television right now! Ok, not “right now”–I’m typing, but after I’m finished typing, I swear I will…
robblefarian on November 29, 2006 at 1:29 PM
Dear Hot Air Readers and Commenters:
Thank you for your input. After careful thought, I have decided to swear my Oath of Office on a copy of Protocols, and The Communist Manifesto. Da’Wa, Bitches!
Best Regards,
Congressman Keith Ellison
Kid from Brooklyn on November 29, 2006 at 1:30 PM
I’m surprised no one has discussed the last part of AP’s post (which I find to be significantly more important and interesting). “Bite Me” is being too nice to those that have been spewing the Bushitler line.
Rick on November 29, 2006 at 1:30 PM
Pablo, thanks for bringing random search phrases and links into the debate. Back on topic, in 2006 no Jew I know of swears on the Torah whether in court or when taking office, so the relevance of your “question” still escapes me.
Niko on November 29, 2006 at 1:31 PM
I want to swear on “The Lord of the Rings”. I swear to restore glory to Gondor. I am Isildur’s heir. Fight for me. And I will hold your oaths fulfilled. What say you?
vcferlita on November 29, 2006 at 1:31 PM
A bit of historical perspective:
Many of our Founding Fathers were Freemasons. George Washington was a Freemason, and he also started the custom of swearing-in the President by placing a hand on a Bible. In fact, the original George Washington bible is a prized posession of Saint John’s Lodge Number 1 of New York City. They bring it to Washington for inaugurations whenever the President requests it. Traditionally the President who requests the Washington bible is also a Freemason, but I’m not sure that’s a requirement.
Freemasonry shares a philosophy with Deism (the philosophy of non-Mason Thomas Jefferson, among others) that belief in God is necessary as the basis of morality. However, the sectarian details of religion are left to individual conscience. In practice, American lodges are Christian (although some conservative Christians would argue the point). Lodges in India would use the Rig Veda for oath-taking. Jews in American lodges can use a copy of the Torah or simply open the Bible to the Old Testament. If a muslim were to join a lodge, every effort would be made to find a Koran for his use.
Since the American tradition of swearing-in on a Bible is based in the customs of eighteenth-century Freemasons, it is entirely reasonable to expect Ellison to be sworn-in on a Koran. I’ll leave it to the religious and constitutional scholars to debate whether any such oath on a holy book should be continued in this day and age.
I’m frankly disappointed in the number of anti-muslim comments in the thread above. Islamofascism is the enemy, not muslim-American citizens who participate in our system and get elected to our government. You can start bashing Ellison if he introduces bills based on Sharia —- but not before.
Anton on November 29, 2006 at 1:34 PM
I just lost my comment on the “Bite me” portion of AP’s post. I find that to be the more interesting part.
Rick on November 29, 2006 at 1:34 PM
William Amos,
Yeah, i was recalling Lieb’s run(s). But the question isn’t whether Ellison should swear the oath to uphold the Constitution. He can’t take office without doing so. The debate is whether he should be able to do so on a koran.
It’s not an attack on Lieberman. What on earth makes you think it is? It’s a simple question: Is it okay if Lieberman wants to swear his oath on a Torah?
Pablo on November 29, 2006 at 1:34 PM
Doesn’t matter if he swears on a bible, or a Quran. He’s going to be full of crap either way.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on November 29, 2006 at 1:36 PM
Thanks for the agreement, Cary.
Ennuipundit on November 29, 2006 at 1:40 PM
Yeah, random links regarding Jews swearing oaths on Torah, which must never ever happen because you haven’t seen it happen this year.
Apparently, unbeknownst to me, I was just playing with a chimp. Feel free to disregard the part where I wasted my time on that.
Pablo on November 29, 2006 at 1:40 PM
Why is this even an issue? He’s a Muslim, use the Koran. Lieberman can use the Torah. Rachel Ray could use the Joy of Cooking for all I care. Sweet God in heaven, is this all we have to worry about?
honora on November 29, 2006 at 1:43 PM
Pablo, bored, much? Anyway, you clearly had implied that Jews, by chance, might want to swear on the Torah when taking office. Fact is that no Jewish official in the US or in Israel would want to do that. You might want to educate yourself on the customs of the contemporary Jewish denomination before traveling down that road any further.
Niko on November 29, 2006 at 1:46 PM
Thanks everyone, for a pretty good discussion. I vaguely believed in the tradition of swearing on the Bible, but now my position has clarified and solidified. I think there should be no more books in swearing in ceremonies. I don’t want Mein Kampf. Further, I don’t want Q’uran (sp?, like I care). I don’t want tree bark for the druids, etc.
Officials should swear of affirm, and if evidence is presented that the oath taken has been violated, it should be easier (than it currently is) to remove them from the offices they occupy. Impeachment/removal-from-office is not a criminal matter, so due process does not apply.
urbancenturion on November 29, 2006 at 1:56 PM
The Koran and our Constitution are completely at odds. The Koran should not be used.
januarius on November 29, 2006 at 2:01 PM
What do atheists swear on?
vcferlita on November 29, 2006 at 2:02 PM
I see no value in adding to the arguments over the book, every angle is suitably represented.
The oath is FAR more than a symbol. It is a legally binding contract, given in public, the failure of which is a de facto crime. The admonition against lying under oath in court is identical in nature to a sworn government official failing his(her) oath.
“I, [Loyal Citizen of the Republic], do solemnly swear to uphold 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.”
The beginning of our failure as a republic to have the nation we wish we had, is our failure to more certainly demand that those we elect obey the subject of their oath. The Constitution is our foundation as a nation. And that Constitution rests on an understanding that God is the source of the rights, freedoms, and blessings we expect, NOT the government itself.
Be it Ellison, Hastings, Murtha, Frank, or Cunningham, violating that oath should end a Representative’s career.
Freelancer on November 29, 2006 at 2:07 PM
Apologies, I pulled up an arcane version of the oath. Replace uphold with support.
AP won’t give us a preview/edit method because he enjoys our errors…
Freelancer on November 29, 2006 at 2:10 PM
Where did you pull that fact out of, Niko? I’d love to see your source for that fact.
Pablo on November 29, 2006 at 2:13 PM
Actually…I haven’t found a Muslim I like…him included…
Let’s see…Muslims tell their childern to be homicide bombers…Dems abort their babies…how long can they last??
ellie was elected by the people of MN…says a lot about them…
GOD BLESS AMERICA…I hope that offends elliedumn…
areseaoh on November 29, 2006 at 2:17 PM
Pablo, that any Jewish official in the US would want to place his oath on the Torah is your little fantasy, not mine, so have fun entertaining it.
Niko on November 29, 2006 at 2:24 PM
Again this post is about Ellison. For some reason you want to make it about Lieberman.
I said I dont think Ellison Should swear on the Bible. But I also held that he shouldnt swear on the Koran either. That seems to be your problem with the whole thing. I dont want to force him to swear to uphold the constitution on the basis of a book he doesnt believe. But neither would I trust him to uphold the constitution based on a book I dont believe it.
So in essence I wont insult him and he shouldnt insult me.
William Amos on November 29, 2006 at 2:28 PM
You’re making the argument, niko, while what I presented is a hypothetical question. If you don’t care to back your argument up, you probably shouldn’t make it to begin with.
Pablo on November 29, 2006 at 2:30 PM
Yeah, it’s funny, isn’t it? Whenever there’s a debate whether a Muslim should show his allegiance to America rather than to the umma someone steps in, “But what about the Jews?”
Niko on November 29, 2006 at 2:31 PM
What part of this hypothetical question is so bloody confusing to you?
Is it an insult to Jews for people to swear on the Bible? To Muslims? To atheists?
Would you be insulted if any of the above objected to you swearing on a Bible?
Pablo on November 29, 2006 at 2:33 PM
Pablo, no, you got it backwards. It’s you who put up a totally inconceivable argument - namely, that Lieberman might want to place his oath on the Torah, which is ridiculous if only on the grounds that Jews don’t do that in any court or office -, and it’s up to you to show that it bears any resemblance to the actual reality we happen to live in. Otherwise, you might run the risk that no one takes your “hypotheses” serious anymore.
Niko on November 29, 2006 at 2:34 PM
Are you insinuating something, Niko? What do you find so funny? Don’t be a punk, just spit it out.
Pablo on November 29, 2006 at 2:35 PM
This from a guy who refuses to support an actual argument he’s attempting to make. Bite me, bigot.
Pablo on November 29, 2006 at 2:36 PM
Your asking me to answer a hypothetic question about something that may never happen. I again poiint out this thread is about ELLISON not Liberman. Why cant you stay on topic rather go off on something totally irrelevant ?
You can be as insulted as you want. The 19 hihjackers who killed 3,000 Americans werent quoting the Bible or Torah when they murdered they were quoting the KORAN. And for that reason Ellison should have enough deceincy to not use the Koran.
William Amos on November 29, 2006 at 2:40 PM
In case anyone cares, a partial transcript of Gingrich’s speech is available at newt.org.
VerbumSap on November 29, 2006 at 2:43 PM
Pablo, you still got it backwards. You tried to make an argument, and it was me who refuted your argument by revealing that, in actual fact, no Jewish official in the US or Israel would place his oath on the Torah. So you spent - how many? 5 comments? on “defending” your initial “hypothesis” (quote: “If Lieberman were elected, would you be OK with him using a Torah?”) without citing any occurence where a Jewish official did what you implied.
Anyway, you might want to take a short break before digging any deeper. Just an advise.
And please refrain from hurling slurs at other commenters like you did in your post from November 29, 2006 at 2:36 PM. Thank you.
Niko on November 29, 2006 at 2:44 PM
Well you got me. I am rarely speechless, but this is close.
honora on November 29, 2006 at 2:46 PM
You know what the answer is? Don’t elect Moslems. Iraq this, terrorism that… And yet we let one of their own become a United States Senator. Shame on the people of Minnesota who elected this nut.
John on November 29, 2006 at 2:46 PM
William, the thread is about swearing oaths on holy books. My question isn’t the least bit off topic, and the only reasopn you want it to be is that the question makes you uncomfortable.
Niko, you’re full of crap, and my comment stands. You haven’t revealed any facts, except those about your character.
Pablo on November 29, 2006 at 2:47 PM
Pablo, unfortunately, your comments in this thread clearly show that it’s still you who put out an unsubstantiated claim, and when called on it declined to put up any facts to support it.
Anyway, other than that your comment on November 29, 2006 at 2:47 PM clearly proves that the sole reason you’re still participating in this thread is to hurl even more insults at other attendees.
Your behavior is almost tantamount to a full Mel Gibson. The episode where he suddenly reveals that he can’t keep his emotional issues under control, you know.
Niko on November 29, 2006 at 2:58 PM
niko, you’re an idiot, you’re dishonest, you’re a bigot, and I’m done wasting my time with the likes of you.
Pablo on November 29, 2006 at 3:06 PM
Scratch that Mel Gibson analogy. I rather say you frisched yourself.
Perhaps tomorrow you’ll come to realize that there’s no edit button to your disgraceful comments in this thread.
Niko on November 29, 2006 at 3:14 PM
Pablo, this thread is not about your personal feelings towards other commenters. Perhaps tomorrow, when you’re sober again, you might come to realize how you singlehandedly derailed the discussion.
Niko on November 29, 2006 at 3:30 PM
Not that I want to step into the middle of this, but now I am curious. Why is it inconceivable that a Jew would use the Torah for an oath of office?
Defense Guy on November 29, 2006 at 3:31 PM
This is all about symbolism. If we allow the Koran, then more heinous books would have to be allowed as well. As a previous commenter noted the Constitution would be an excellent choice.
infidel on November 29, 2006 at 3:36 PM
Niko, just one example would be sufficient, but have two.
VerbumSap on November 29, 2006 at 3:42 PM
What is the big deal? The most important thing in the oath is TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES!!
I’m disappointed with some comments here. How can you have freedom of religion on one hand, and require someone to swear only on the Bible?
Maybe they should swear on their mothers’ graves, or bring back the old “cross your heart, hope to die” thing.
budorob on November 29, 2006 at 3:45 PM
VerbumSap, in those circumstances Linda Lingle and Madeleine Kunin used the Torah rather as props to illustrate their Jewish heritage rathern than belief. There is no point in suggesting that Jews in general, or Lieberman in specific, might also want to swear on the Torah as it is not an inherent part of legal rites in the Jewish denomination.
Niko on November 29, 2006 at 3:50 PM
Generally a Tanakh is used for swearing in of Jewish elected officials, at the Local, State, and Federal level. “Tanakh” is actually an acronym for it’s conetents which are Torah, Nevi’im and Ketuvim. So yes, generally Jews do swear on a book which contains the 5 books of Moshe
repjew on November 29, 2006 at 4:01 PM
by the way Nevi’im are the prophets, Ketuvim are the writings.
repjew on November 29, 2006 at 4:02 PM
Does it really matter, in the long run?
Swearing an oath on the Bible reflects a consideration of the Bible as the Moral underpinning of our society. But this is simply a courtesy in context of most politicians. It would be disingenuous of anyone to swear on the Bible if he didn’t mean it, and more honest of him than most if he publicily refuses.
However,…
The Oath of office is an oath to the constitution, not to God. In a Biblically correct, no president should swear an oath to the constitution using the Bible.
As noted by Allah: “Presidents Franklin Pierce and Herbert Hoover (a Quaker) didn’t swear at all, but rather affirmed.” Which is technically correct in this situation.
Lawrence on November 29, 2006 at 4:09 PM
Point of information in the Pablo vs. Niko discussion: the Torah is in the Bible!
to wit, the first 5 books of the Old Testament=Pentateuch.
So U.S. oaths can be accomodated for both Jews and Christians by using the entire Bible.
Atheists, Quakers, Druids, Jedi warriors, etc. are on their own.
The Koran ban still stands, though.
As to the others saying they can swear on whatever book they fancy, grow up and get real.
(And you wonder why these people don’t take their responsibilities seriously? You obviously don’t expect them to from the start so they don’t.)
Jen the Neocon on November 29, 2006 at 4:59 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »