Keith Ellison to take oath of office on Koran

There is a poll on AOL about this and the results truly disgust me.

The issue is Church != State, and apparently most of us totally miss the point.

Good grief.

thumbtacks wrote:

Let's just hope the book was handled properly. Or else there will be a riot. Unfortunately, if somebody comes up with some political cartoons over this (and you know someone will) I could see a lot of problems occuring.

As a christian, I dunno where I stand on this.

I mean, it's historically proper to swear on the Bible, but that was pretty much for all Christians who would have convictions lying as they place their hand on the Holy Bible.

But now we're dealing with a Muslim, who probably could care less about the Bible. His convictions come from the Koran. It wouldn't make sense to ask me to swear on a Dilbert cartoon, would it?

I dunno where I stand on this topic.

Maybe that was the problem in Mexico?

SpectateSwamp wrote:

Maybe that was the problem in Mexico?

As a Christian, I know where I stand.

I realize the tradition is a symbolic acknowledgement of God, whose word is the Bible.

However, if the person taking the oath does not actually acknowledge that same God or respect His Word, then the use of the Bible is virtually  meaningless.

On one hand I understand why he would request this, yet on the other hand I take no pleasure in seeing anyone follow false gods.

(Hopefully we can keep this discussion civil.)

I have read somewhere today, can't remember where that this whole story is crap.

Apparantly you don't take an oath on any holy book when taking a seat, and he never said it anyway.

Ah, here it is.

Don't believe the hype.

blowdart wrote:



Larsenal wrote: I realize the tradition is a symbolic acknowledgement of God, whose word is the Bible.

See I'd disagree with that.

Larsenal wrote:

On one hand I understand why he would request this, yet on the other hand I take no pleasure in seeing anyone follow false gods.

Massif wrote:



Ah, here it is.

Don't believe the hype.

Members of the House of Representatives traditionally raise their right hands and are sworn in together on the floor of the chamber. The ritual sometimes seen as the swearing-in is actually a ceremonial photo op with the speaker of the House that usually involves a Bible.

"They can bring in whatever they want," says Fred Beuttler, deputy historian of the House.

JohnAskew wrote:



There is a poll on AOL about this and the results truly disgust me.

The issue is Church != State, and apparently most of us totally miss the point.

Good grief.

DCMonkey wrote:



Larsenal wrote: On one hand I understand why he would request this, yet on the other hand I take no pleasure in seeing anyone follow false gods.

Same God. Different messenger.

I just have an icky feeling with people trying to uphold the law, swearing in an oath on a book with 10 laws (fundamentally). Honestly I think the oath should be sworn in on the consititution...after all isn't that what you're there to uphold?

God, Satan, Buddah, Vishna, etc...really don't care what book you use as long as you live your life...

However the people of this country do care that you uphold the consititution.

Larsenal wrote:

As a Christian, I know where I stand.

I realize the tradition is a symbolic acknowledgement of God, whose word is the Bible.

However, if the person taking the oath does not actually acknowledge that same God or respect His Word, then the use of the Bible is virtually  meaningless.

On one hand I understand why he would request this, yet on the other hand I take no pleasure in seeing anyone follow false gods.

(Hopefully we can keep this discussion civil.)