Muslim Rep. Ellison: No Oath on Bible

It's not like it matters. Everyone that gets swore in on the bible has their own agenda anyways and don't care about the people.

Yeah, next think you will see is someone saying they believe in Readers Digest and would like to sware on that.

There may be precedent in allowing him to take the oath without the Bible , I have not researched it . I see no problem here .

Would conservatives object to Mitt Romney taking the oath of Presidential
office on a Mormon Bible?

"there has never been, and is no, requirement that a member of Congress put
his hand on anything when taking the oath of office. There is nothing in the law
requiring a member to do anything in particular with his hands. A member is free
to put his hand on a Bible, on any other book or for that matter, to keep his
hands at his sides or in his pockets or to make bunny shadows with them during
the taking of the oath.

The very first law passed under the Constitution was enacted on June 1, 1789
(Statute I, Chapter 1 (1 Stat. 23)): "An Act to regulate the Time and Manner
of administering certain Oaths." That law says nothing about what someone
taking the oath of office is supposed to do with his hands; nor does it say
anything about Bibles or any other books being involved in the process. That
original law currently is disbursed in 2 U.S.C. Sections 21, et seq. and 5 U.S.C.
Section 3331 and in none of these sections (nor in the Rules of the House of
Representatives) is there any requirement about what one does with his hands."

- A reader, knowledgeable on the subject, to Andrewsullivan.com

... and before it gets pointed to as a "liberals love muslims and hate Christians"
peice of bull****, it merely points out the lack of actual knowledge regarding
the laws of this country within the religious reactionary circles. Just because
something has been done often doesn't mean it has to be done without
questioning it. That would be the definition of the liberal/conservative struggle.

Also, interesting to find, while chatting with coworkers and then doing some
web searching, that the U.S. has had more Episcopalian Presidents than
any other (11), that the founding fathers were mostly Unitarian Universalists (which
aren't regarded as Christians) or non-denominational, two presidents were Quakers/Shakers (Hoover and Nixon) and one was a Jehova's Witness (Eisenhower, though he converted to the rather less exotic Presbyterian).

Great men are hallmarked by their ability to put reason, selflessness and
the greater good above their personal views, desires and allegiances. That's
been the case in this countries great past, and I long for it, again... which
I guess makes me a conservative on the issue.

Thanks leef , and welcome to Conflicting Views .
I had not had time to look it up .
Note for your info , we like posters to post links to their sources when possible .

Actually, I usually post here as Oleo, but I'm suffering insomnia at my girlfriend's
apartment, can't remember my password and don't have access to my regular
email. Forgive the name change, it was not intended as a deception.

Here is one interesting examination of presidential religious affiliation:
List of United States Presidential religious affiliations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'll post the other one later, from my usual computer where it is bookmarked.

I was driven to agnosticism, then atheism, by living in a southern town full
of fundamentalists Christians, who attempt to impose their views on you
at every turn, though my natural clash with my family's (casual) Catholicism
helped. Like Holden Caulfield, I think Jesus would have a problem with a lot
of the people who think they like him so much.

Deism and Unitarianism/Universalism might've appealed to me if I'd encountered
it earlier. More than anything I think it's important to understand the part
that placing reason above religion played in the foundation of this country
after the American revolution, and how important it is for the healthy future
of the nation.

Welcome leef.

Great cover:rollinglaugh: :rollinglaugh: :beerchug:

typical christo-facism....

the my book is better than yours, type rhetoric is completly childish to say the least.

I want to be fair and just, and give the man a chance. Nonetheless, I can't help but disapprove of his being in office, knowing he's Muslim, while America is at war with roughly 200 million Muslims worldwide. It's just crazy that we'd be willing to be led by someone who identifies with our enemies, ideologically and religiously.:no:

This type of comment sickens me! You are willing to keep someone from office because of their religous affiliation? What happened to freedom of religion? ...and i'll have you know that there are many muslims who are helping the US in its fight against terrorism, but your ignorant generalization shows your your true colors!


:FU2:

Remember 911.:AR15firing::rocketwhore:

:swordfight:
remember the crusades?
Remember the conquest of the Incas?
Remember the spanish inqusition?
remember the holocaust?
Remember the Irish revolutionaries?

but are we to not trust ALL christains because of these events?

"remember the holocaust?"

Hitler got the crazy notion he could get away with it from you Muslims, when the Turks slaughtered the Armenians after WWI. German military advisers accompanied the murderous Turkish Army. Later, Hitler told his Nazi henchmen to attack Eastern Europe and kill without mercy, citing the fact the world had forgotten about the Armenians.

okay first off, i'm not musilm i just happen to believe in equality.... and secondly you only mention one of the many many wars persecuted by the christains, and yet they hypocritcly accuse the muslims of being violent when they are the same!

No offense, Curmie, but do you ever take a stand on anything?:dunno:

So, all people who fight wars are equally rotten? Have you heard of the concept of the just war?:wtf:

Huh?:confused:

which war are you calling just? The crusades? the Inqusition? conquest of the Incas? etc....

how do you justify those wars? My point is that no matter what the belief is there is always a bad person who holds it, and it is pointless to blame the many for the actions of the few!

Islam is responsible for many bad things but so is Christanity and nearly every other belief, and it is imperitive that equality should respected throughout these bad times!

what? Did this go over your head????