“Minnesota Democrat Keith Ellison, the first Muslim ever elected to Congress, has decided to take the oath of office with his hand on a Quran, the Muslim holy book, rather than the customary Bible.”
Can someone explain to me why the Christian bible is “customary” or why it has ever been used as the basis for an “oath”? First of all, its use in American courts of law and, more importantly, the swearing-in of government officials has always seemed antithetical to the First Amendment’s insistence on separation of church and state. Requiring those swearing to uphold the Constitution by using a religious symbol obviously violates the basic principles of the very document they are swearing to uphold, and is therefore so illogical as to defy reason.
Secondly, how does the placing of one hand on a book while raising the other in a “may I leave the room?” gesture guarantee that the owner of said hands will speak the truth? What is the basis of this superstition? What dreadful catastrophe is expected to befall a lying oath-taker? And exactly what does “so help me god” mean? “So help me look sincere, god”? “So help me get away with this, god?” Or what?
And what about those among us who think that neither the Christian bible nor the Koran nor any other so-called “holy writ” is more binding than other collections of folk tales?. Why not use the works of Shakespeare or Homer or Mother Goose to swear on? Or the swearer's favorite anthology of myths, allegories and fables? How can reasonable people believe that placing a hand on any book is a guarantee of truthiness on the part of the oath-taker?
I’m just asking here, folks. But I swear (on my copy of Alice in Wonderland) that the first thumper who insists the United States is a Christian country will be jeered at, sneered at, and otherwise castigated, thrown to the lions, chewed up and spit out in tiny little pious pieces.
So don’t start with me.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 96
Most folks get seriously upset when their assumptions get questioned or challenged, which is why there is the fuss here, although I think it's exacerbated by the fact that we are at war with jihadists.
You are right, that this is not a "Christian nation", although it IS true that a majority of the population defines themselves as being Christians. We do not have a state religion. In fact, no one in Court or Congress is required to swear anything on a bible; there are specific provisions for use of Holy Books of non-Christian faiths AND for taking civil oaths, with no religious basis at all.
That said, Keith is a barrier breaker from way back (I should note: I live in his district) and he's likely to challenge lots of assumptions. Should be an interesting ride :)
That said, let me be the first to say that America is a Christian nation:))
Where a promise is considered appropriate before committing oneself to truth, everlasting light, economics with truth etc., an affirmation is allowed instead, here the UK. One major facet of the affirmation is that the responsibility for what you say lies (here, pun could be intended) with you, and you alone; you are not asking the forces of the unkown to get involved, intercede on your behalf nor take responsibility for your lack of personal credibility or backbone.
In parliament, on the other hand, the individual is committing a heinous sin if fealty etc is not sworn to, and on behalf of the monarch in a time honoured traditional manner. It attaches many layers to nationality, loyalty, government and all the stuff that we are meant to believe goes on there on our subjugated behalves. Now that's convenient isn't it.
If you want to talk pantyhose, bras, and shoes, I have plenty to say about women being forced to wear ridiculous garments.
It's a silly, meaningless tradition, and I wonder how it originated. I'll Google around and see if I can find anything.
M'Lady,
I hope you're not objecting to swearing in general 'cause I swear a lot. And, damnit, I have a right to. Hell, I'd swear on my mother's grave but she ain't got one yet.
"That said, let me be the first to say that America is a Christian nation:))"
You are _way_ too late to be the first to assert that falsehood. (smile noted)
Bongo,
"I've been wondering why people are supposed to take off their hats as a show of respect. How does baring one's head show respect?"
This goes back to the days of wearing armored helmets. Baring your head was a gesture of vulnerability and so respect and (perhaps) trust. Shaking hands comes from the same period because it demonstrates your hand contains no weapon.
Ask me about the use of forks, some day.
The scary thing is that a lot of people are probably taking this seriously.
Maybe we ought to have a state religion like the Romans had. Nobody took it very seriously but the ceremonies had to be carried out exactly according to plan. If the priest failed, the ceremony had to start again from the top. It would make swearing in officials more fun. Imagine a mistake three hours and fifty eight minutes into a four hour ceremony. The good part was the amazing number of holidays accompanied by bread and circuses. The "games" were actually religious events, even if there was a lot of gambling on the chariot races and gladiatorial combats.
I'm for adopting the kind of Paganism that believes that all gods are valid including ones that you make up.
Maybe we could bring Michael Jackson back from exile to coach politicians in the finer points of crotch grabbing.
Seems to me that "Big Dick" combined with "Cheney" is an oxymoron, but you may have said it ironically.
"""I have such limited experience in that area, Ruth. I know women who CHOOSE to cover their hair, top to toe. Those women are extremely insulted when anyone suggests that anyone has forced them to make that decision. Well, except for the nuns, but I think even they have been offered a choice now. """
Yean EVEN Nuns! I would have never guessed catholics would have that kind of tolerance. They almost ruined Sandy's life!
You are right. We are not a Christian nation. We are not a religious nation. I'm glad because the agenda of those people who would make it a Christian nation is no better than those who want to make their nation an Islamic one.
I'm talking about those individuals who would like Christian law to be American law. I think we are protected from that by the US Constitution (which is the source of our laws).
Jeff I do think though that your statement is a bit harsh. There are many comparisons and contrasts between Islam and Christianity. But when it comes down to it, be it The Bible or The Quran, they are both just works of literature and recordings of stories and tales. And, I hate to say it but there is nothing plain and simple about any of this conversation!
But I don't think that Joe was trying to say that he was comparing Christianity and Islam at all. He (to me, correct me if I am wrong Joe) is just saying that having an agenda for a nation, it doesn't matter which religious extreme you follow, is just that AN AGENDA. And that maybe we should just stick with the fact that we are a nation of immigrants, which was where our foundation first came from... And that trying to PUSH anything on anyone under any agenda, just may not be the best idea on any level.
Just a thought. And DAMN this is why I stick to swearing about absolutely nothing and trying not to talk politics or religion, yet alone both in one.
And as for his political move being good or bad, the future has yet to determine that and we can figure that out in the next 20 yrs. when everything is bound to evolve just that little bit further into compassionate and understanding tolerance working its way into both politics and organized religion.
Here are some of Jesus' words from Matthew:
10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Revelation 19:11-15 refer to Jesus making war. It's too long to quote here. Look it up.
I could go on and on and on. The above just refers to New Testament scripture. The old testament is full of violence, blood vengeance and murder. The most famous quote is from Exodus:
21:24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
21:25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Christianity is not a peaceful religion, and those who call Jesus the "Prince of Peace," as Handel did in the Messiah were ignoring a lot of the Bible.
And then I noticed that most of this thread is about three years old!
I wonder if Jeff has learned anything since then...
Have you heard of Dominionists? They want to replace the Constitution with a set of laws based on the OT. Of course, they want public schools to teach the Christian religion, and public ceremonies to include Christian prayers.
While they don't advocate forcing people to become Christians (at least not yet) they clearly intend that everyone will be forced to obey laws based on Christian beliefs, and all children will be indoctrinated in Christian dogma.
Now, Dominionists are a fairly small sect of the Christian faith, but fundamentalists share many of the same ambitions. Clearly, they all want to tear down the Jeffersonian (and Constitutional) wall separating church and state.
The reason it is not a threat is because of the US Constitution. Our laws are not based on their (the Christians) precepts. If they were things would be very different for those of us who don't participate in organized religion.
(stepping off of my soap box and throwing up peace signs)
Kids I am checking out of this conversation; just like I do at family gatherings, just as I do when I am at work at the bar, and just like I do when I am just out to fill my head with a little gathering! Why can't we all just get along?
Maybe then we can realize just how much opinions and ass holes really do have in common... we all have 'em and we are all bound to act out on either of them at any moment!
I however disagree that Jesus was just a man. He is a man that inspired more good and charitble works than anybody in history. The work that was inspired in his name could never be matched in my opinion. He was no more a simple man than ghandi was.
I am not an advocate of religion but I will never just sit and listen to the anti-christian bigotry that goes on here. Take the things said about Christians in gather and replace the word Christian with say......Jew, Arab, black people, Mexicans....etc. Then tell me who is a bigot.
Jesus was an inspiration to many and will continue to be so. But my point was that the Bible is just a literary collection and we can choose to use its verses to emphasize just about any point that we have to make. And a comparison to Ghandi is a fair and great one! But yet both are still mortal men. There are many amazing men, Ghandi, Jesus, MLK, hell even many amazing women, Maya Angelou, Rosa Parks, Angela Bassett. The list goes on and on, just like this conversation goes in circles....
I don't think that any religion should be judged based upon either its literary works or its followers. Which, of course leads me to wonder the difference between religion, faith, literature, philosophy, and so on. But that is another discussion and another time!
I agree, rhetoric of any kind can lead to ignorance and obstinance. The world has a lot of prejudices and they show their faces wearing many ugly masks!
Ruth, I solemnly swear, this is an entertaining andinformative article.
At the risk of not being funny, the point I was trying to make with the Biblical quotes is that Christianity, like most religions, is intolerant and aggressive towards nonbelievers...heretics, pagans, infidels...call them what you will. Is the Koran more intolerant than the Bible? I have never seen a scorecard. You say my quotes are out of context. Do you claim that the Bible does not advocate violence at all?
At the moment, we do not have any Christian terrorists...except those trying to beat down the Constitutional wall between church and state by introducing Christian symbols, teachings and dogma into our public life...and using taxpayer money for openly religious (faith based) social services.
Also, I would like to respond to your distinctly un-funny remark about "Christians dont want women to kill their young,,," Maybe you said this in jest, dunno, but MOST Christians are not in favor of government overriding a woman's right to make that decision for herself. South Dakota, a very conservative, very Christian state just proved that.
Here's another gem: "But I dont know of any attempt from Christians that would force anybody to be Christians."
True, but they want very much to impose their Christian beliefs on all of us...anti-abortion, anti-stem cell research, anti-Evolution theory, anti Gay marriage, etc.
As for anti-Christian bigotry...point out some in the thread, please.
And with that final diatribe, I will shut up.
But back to the article, the swearing doesn't seem to work much anyway in the case of politicians.
"""As for anti-Christian bigotry...point out some in the thread, please.
And with that final diatribe, I will shut up. """
I give you this....
""" I'm just asking here, folks. But I swear (on my copy of Alice in Wonderland) that the first thumper who insists the United States is a Christian country will be jeered at, sneered at, and otherwise castigated, thrown to the lions, chewed up and spit out in tiny little pious pieces.
So don't start with me."""
Now I know I know.....she was just kidding and most of you Christian haters thought it was funny. If I was to get angry every time I heard something like that by "tolerant" liberals I would spend most of my day like a wide eyed angry liberal and there is no way I would want to live that way so it really doesnt bother me. It speacks for those who say such things and they are still Go'ds children, just suffereing from an angry heart.
Ok now Bert. If somebody was to write an article about afirmative action and ended with some intended humor, say something like this....."""Ok I swear on the bible that if any negro tries to say that rewarding people for the color of their skin is fair I swear to god they will be called "the n word" spit at, forced to pick cotton, beaten and hanged!"""
Would that be bigoted?
Or how about a guy writing and article questioning Isreals right to exist that ended...."""If any Jew dares say that isreal has a right to exist I swear on the bible they will be rounded up, beaten, put in labor camps, gassed to death and burned"""
Would that be bigoted?
Bert your contempt for Christians blinds you to the obvious. I pray that God will take th anger from your heaert.
*snapping fingers, singing "I've Got the Poowwwerrr"*
I apologize for being at least partly responsible for the hijacking of this thread. It was Jeff's offhand comments bashing non-Christians that triggered me, and I should learn to have more self-control.
But, forgive me once again, I must respond to his latest.
Jeff, I am not a Christian hater...how could I be in this country where most people are Christians? Most of my friends and relatives are Christians! I feel threatened by a small group of fundamentalist fanatics who want really DO claim that we live in a "Kristhun Nayshun" and are Hell-bent on imposing their beliefs on all of us.
I have no more hate in my heart than you do.
Like it or not, most of our politicians have been Christian and have traditionally used the Bible. The thought is that if God is brought into the process, people will fear their afterlife and follow through on the promises they make with their hand on God's word. I don't think that works and I don't think that's what God demands of us in resolving our afterlife. So if it makes people feel good, and influences their behaviour (maybe if we're lucky) let them do it and let's not argue the point. What did Joe Lieberman do? If politicians don't like the Bible, they have always had the chance to make an affirmation.
I don't care if Ellison swears on his copy of Dick and Jane Go to First Grade. The Bible clearly doesn't help make our politicians good and honorable people. So why not just skip the whole issue and ask the incoming congresspeople if they are gonna do good stuff, honestly and to the best of their ability and let it go at that. If they'd rather use the bible that's okay too.
I pray that god will put the dictionary in your pocket.
I am not faulting the Founders for this choice. My beef is with the current political environment which insists on perpetuating outdated practices and rituals that are no longer pertinent or useful. This article was simply an attempt to shine a light of humor on one small bit of political nonsense and perhaps to give those who accept this kind of inanity without thought to take a second look and perhaps ask a question or two.
And I wish to hell it weren't necessary to explain the nature and purpose of a lampoon on a site which was established to cater to intelligent people. *sigh*
I don't mind repeating myself on this one. The best guarantee of freedom of religion is a secular government.
That said I take your silence as to my last post as an acknowledgement that I was right Bert.
To Nanci B...and to support Nippy Katz's statement about the founding fathers, I wrote this piece about a year ago. It is a series of direct quotes of Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Madison, Paine and others on religion in general and Christianity in particular. I will also add that the first six presidents of the United States were not Christians.
You also used a page out of Sandys playbook and mocked me for a typo which shows anger and intellectual defeat. Bert dont worry though I understand. Its best to avoid making more of an ass out of yourself so I would just let this one go.
Bert still cant answer the question. I know I know by being honest as believe you are, you would have to admit tht your friend Dame here is an anti-Christian bigot. She is obviously irritated with my outing of here bigotry just read her last post. This is great. she doesnt want you to respond because its just bringing attention to her low quality intolerant character.
"""I'm just asking here, folks. But I swear (on my copy of Alice in Wonderland) that the first thumper who insists the United States is a Christian country will be jeered at, sneered at, and otherwise castigated, thrown to the lions, chewed up and spit out in tiny little pious pieces."""
I think Dame Picked an excellent topic and for that I will rate it a 10. She made an incredibly reasonable argument and I agree that demanding a muslim to be sworn into office on a bible is assinine at best. I was commenting on her last point which would make it part of her topic. She wrote it.
Bert tried but failed to argue for her and he had to bug out. So now Dame says I am a numbnut with a dipshit agenda for commenting on her words that she published. Oh and they accused me of name calling too. Hipocracy?
On Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, in Annapolis
at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional
Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie
Raskin, professor of law at AU, was requested
to testify.
At the end of his testimony, Republican Senator
Nancy Jacobs said: "Mr. Raskin, my Bible says
marriage is only between a man and a woman.
What do you have to say about that?"
Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your
oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible
and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did
not place your hand on the Constitution and
swear to uphold the Bible."
The room erupted into applause.