Ausserordeutlich
Moderator
You really think a fundamentalist Christian's first loyalty is to America? Think again.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Ellison To Take Ceremonial Oath With Quran
- Thread starter Northern Sod Breaker
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Since we are not mind readers and know not Ellis or Ellison or whatever his name is concerning loyalties to the US vs. loyalty to Islam ? I rather place him and his ilk under a cloud of suspicion.
Maybe we should bar entry to Congress, or any other elected office, by Muslims. And maybe we should just go all the way and send Muslims to internment camps like we did the Japanese during WWII.
Hmmmm... I guess that pesky Constitution thingie might get in the way of that plan.
To use your example, the Constitution didn't get in the way with the Japanese, did it?And maybe we should just go all the way and send Muslims to internment camps like we did the Japanese during WWII.
I guess that pesky Constitution thingie might get in the way of that plan.
JuanCarlos
New member
To use your example, the Constitution didn't get in the way with the Japanese, did it?
The Constitution also hasn't gotten in the way of California's gun laws, either. Doesn't mean we agree they're a good thing, does it?
Its outlined in the War Powers Act and Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917. Interesting read: http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/waract.htm
http://www.barefootsworld.net/srwep.html
badbob
http://www.barefootsworld.net/srwep.html
Quote:
And maybe we should just go all the way and send Muslims to internment camps like we did the Japanese during WWII.
I guess that pesky Constitution thingie might get in the way of that plan.
To use your example, the Constitution didn't get in the way with the Japanese, did it?
badbob
oldbillthundercheif
Moderator
The Koran is a very weird book full of interesting language and strange stories. So is the Bible. Who cares which one this guy puts his hand on, the oath is the important thing here.
S
Sgt Snafu
Guest
KOWBOY,
I'm with you. Here's something I posted on another gun forum on this subject.
I'm going to assume , for a moment, that most of you on this forum are WASP's. I say "you" and not "us", because I was born Irish Catholic. We Irish have no choice in the matter, we're born Catholic. Much like the Italians & the Spanish are also born Catholic. So it probably won't start an argument when I say that the King James bible is the real bible. That's the bible that most American's recognize & quote ad nauseam. Just ask anyone whose stolen a Motel 6 bible. It was no doubt a King James! As final proof of this, my wife and I recently found ourselves in a high end hotel room in Salt Lake City Utah, the "Vatican" of Mormonism. What do you think I found in the night stand drawer ? You guessed it, a King James Gideon's bible!!! Not the Book of Mormon, but a King James bible!
So that's why it's so important that we only elect Protestants to public office. Imagine the pandemonium if we elected an Irish Catholic President. He/she would probably insist on being sworn in using a Douay bible. I guess we could let that go in the interest of forced diversity. Now imagine if Joe Lieberman were elected to the highest office. I have it on good authority that Joe is a Jew. Those people use a thing called the Torah.It looks similar to two rolled up newspapers, and it doesn't even mention the real god. Not a word! But why should it? Those people (for some reason that evades me) don't believe that Jesus Christ is their personal savior. But if a Jew were somehow elected, we could probably get by using a King James bible with the New Testament ripped out. So it only follows that we should also rule out Mormons,Muslims, Quakers, Shakers, and Atheists.
As for myself, if I were elected President, I would handle it differently. I do believe in God, but I don't believe in religion. So what I will do when I take the oath is, I'll raise my right hand to God and have my left hand in my pocket (I'm sure my fellow Americans will be pleased to see a politician with his hand in his own pocket for a change). As for my right hand, no one will know for sure what god it is that I'm raising my hand to, or what finger is being pointed at which god.
I'm with you. Here's something I posted on another gun forum on this subject.
I'm going to assume , for a moment, that most of you on this forum are WASP's. I say "you" and not "us", because I was born Irish Catholic. We Irish have no choice in the matter, we're born Catholic. Much like the Italians & the Spanish are also born Catholic. So it probably won't start an argument when I say that the King James bible is the real bible. That's the bible that most American's recognize & quote ad nauseam. Just ask anyone whose stolen a Motel 6 bible. It was no doubt a King James! As final proof of this, my wife and I recently found ourselves in a high end hotel room in Salt Lake City Utah, the "Vatican" of Mormonism. What do you think I found in the night stand drawer ? You guessed it, a King James Gideon's bible!!! Not the Book of Mormon, but a King James bible!
So that's why it's so important that we only elect Protestants to public office. Imagine the pandemonium if we elected an Irish Catholic President. He/she would probably insist on being sworn in using a Douay bible. I guess we could let that go in the interest of forced diversity. Now imagine if Joe Lieberman were elected to the highest office. I have it on good authority that Joe is a Jew. Those people use a thing called the Torah.It looks similar to two rolled up newspapers, and it doesn't even mention the real god. Not a word! But why should it? Those people (for some reason that evades me) don't believe that Jesus Christ is their personal savior. But if a Jew were somehow elected, we could probably get by using a King James bible with the New Testament ripped out. So it only follows that we should also rule out Mormons,Muslims, Quakers, Shakers, and Atheists.
As for myself, if I were elected President, I would handle it differently. I do believe in God, but I don't believe in religion. So what I will do when I take the oath is, I'll raise my right hand to God and have my left hand in my pocket (I'm sure my fellow Americans will be pleased to see a politician with his hand in his own pocket for a change). As for my right hand, no one will know for sure what god it is that I'm raising my hand to, or what finger is being pointed at which god.
So that's why it's so important that we only elect Protestants to public office. Imagine the pandemonium if we elected an Irish Catholic President.
Uh, John F. Kennedy was Catholic.
badbob
S
Sgt Snafu
Guest
Bob,
Yes, JFK was a Catholic. The whole thing was tongue in cheek. In real life, JFK was sworn in and pandamonium didn't ensue. Before anyone else points it out, Nixon was a Quaker, but pandamonium did ensue, but it had nothing to do with his swearing in.
Yes, JFK was a Catholic. The whole thing was tongue in cheek. In real life, JFK was sworn in and pandamonium didn't ensue. Before anyone else points it out, Nixon was a Quaker, but pandamonium did ensue, but it had nothing to do with his swearing in.
Since the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of religion and since
elsehwere in the Constituion there is a prohibition on any sort of religious test
for public office, I think he's within his rights in asking to use the Koran. IIRC
when when the first Jewish Member of Parliament (UK) was elected in the 19th Century, he wanted to swear upon the Old Testament, there was an uproar, it was Disraeli, who was of Jewish descent, who defended the man's
request.
elsehwere in the Constituion there is a prohibition on any sort of religious test
for public office, I think he's within his rights in asking to use the Koran. IIRC
when when the first Jewish Member of Parliament (UK) was elected in the 19th Century, he wanted to swear upon the Old Testament, there was an uproar, it was Disraeli, who was of Jewish descent, who defended the man's
request.
Northern Sod Breaker
New member
He didn't last long either did he?.....Uh, John F. Kennedy was Catholic.
JuanCarlos
New member
He didn't last long either did he?.....
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. If Kennedy's assassination had anything to do with his faith, would that be anything other than a bad thing? It certainly wouldn't say anything good about our nation.
Then again, I'm pretty sure the fact that Ellison swearing his oath on the Qu'ran rather than the Christian Bible is being made into any kind of issue doesn't say anything good about our nation, either.
Northern Sod Breaker
New member
Well obviuosly someone hated him enough to kill him.
Gary Conner
New member
Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof; 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 grievences."
Ain't that one of the most wonderful sentences ever written?
If more of us would take that seriously (along with some of the other stuff those guys promised) we might just be able to get back to the business of attempting to save our Republic from continuing down it's path to tyranny.
Nobody else has submitted Art. VI of the Constitution, or at least I haven't seen it. And you're right, Bud. Hate is not a requirement for assasination.
Anyway, here's Article VI:
Article VI
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
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.
badbob
Anyway, here's Article VI:
Article VI
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
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.
badbob
Ok, I'll chime in.
First things first -- the constitution has certain prohibitions against the sort of religious bigotry that is being put forth by certain segments of the "Christian Right" pertaining to Rep Ellison taking his oath on the Quran. Something about "no religious tests" and certain passages in the 1st Amendment come to mind. I say this as one of those who would nominally be part of that "Christian Right".
Secondly, the precedent for taking an oath of office using something other than the "Accepted" Christian Bible (notably, the KJV) is well established. Jewish officeholders have taken their oath on the Hebrew Bible, IIRC John Quincy Adams took his oath on a copy of the Constitution and a law book, and Quakers won't swear an oath at all -- that's why the wording was changed to "swear or affirm". That certain parties are trying to make an issue of the use of the Quran by a Moslem is beyond the pale.
What concerns me is that I understand that there is a passage in the Quran that specifies that a devout Muslim must conceal, evade or flat out lie about his intentions to implement Sharia, making the election of such a person to any office in the land suspect in the least. In that respect, I'd find it hard to ever vote for a Muslim, but then again I wasn't given that choice. His constituents did, however. What is called for is diligence when dealing with him as he is not, IMHO, trustworthy. One can raise similar questions when dealing with adherents to other religions, it is not a thing that is limited to Islam. Loyalty to the Constitution, the rule of law, and the people of the US are what is important.
The issue pertaining to Ellison becomes:
Can he separate the secular -- his duties as a Congressman -- from matters of faith -- his devotion to his religion. I have discussed this sort of thing with practicing Muslims before, and have been assured that for the devout Muslim there CAN be no such separation, the secular and the spiritual are one and the same. And THAT is a dangerous combination.
First things first -- the constitution has certain prohibitions against the sort of religious bigotry that is being put forth by certain segments of the "Christian Right" pertaining to Rep Ellison taking his oath on the Quran. Something about "no religious tests" and certain passages in the 1st Amendment come to mind. I say this as one of those who would nominally be part of that "Christian Right".
Secondly, the precedent for taking an oath of office using something other than the "Accepted" Christian Bible (notably, the KJV) is well established. Jewish officeholders have taken their oath on the Hebrew Bible, IIRC John Quincy Adams took his oath on a copy of the Constitution and a law book, and Quakers won't swear an oath at all -- that's why the wording was changed to "swear or affirm". That certain parties are trying to make an issue of the use of the Quran by a Moslem is beyond the pale.
What concerns me is that I understand that there is a passage in the Quran that specifies that a devout Muslim must conceal, evade or flat out lie about his intentions to implement Sharia, making the election of such a person to any office in the land suspect in the least. In that respect, I'd find it hard to ever vote for a Muslim, but then again I wasn't given that choice. His constituents did, however. What is called for is diligence when dealing with him as he is not, IMHO, trustworthy. One can raise similar questions when dealing with adherents to other religions, it is not a thing that is limited to Islam. Loyalty to the Constitution, the rule of law, and the people of the US are what is important.
The issue pertaining to Ellison becomes:
Can he separate the secular -- his duties as a Congressman -- from matters of faith -- his devotion to his religion. I have discussed this sort of thing with practicing Muslims before, and have been assured that for the devout Muslim there CAN be no such separation, the secular and the spiritual are one and the same. And THAT is a dangerous combination.
S
Sgt Snafu
Guest
QUOTE "Well obviuosly someone hated him enough to kill him."
Oh self rightious man of god, you say that like it's a good thing. Don't forget, someone hated Jesus enough to kill him too! So do you have a point to make???
Oh self rightious man of god, you say that like it's a good thing. Don't forget, someone hated Jesus enough to kill him too! So do you have a point to make???
- Status
- Not open for further replies.