Keerist on a Krutch.

If I ever get elected to congress, I am going to flatly refuse to swear on any religious text. The practice is utterly absurd, both in that there is no religious basis for it and because, even if there were, it would be completely precluded by amendment 1.

This is completely absurd, and the author of this article should be mocked incessantly.

"Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness (vain) in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts; and He is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing." Surah 2:225

supported by: 3:28
Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming.

and 16:106
He who disbelieves in Allah after his having believed, not he who is compelled while his heart is at rest on account of faith, but he who opens (his) breast to disbelief-- on these is the wrath of Allah, and they shall have a grievous chastisement.

More moderate muslims take this to mean it's okay to lie to preserve your life, like sloth_DC said. That's kind of funny from a book that chatises people for loving this life more than the next, but hey, it's there.

Islamists take those passages to pretty much mean that you can lie to infidels to advance Islam in any way possible, and it's not that much of a stretch from the text.

Online english Koran here.

Mohommed was the L. Ron Hubbard of his time.

I'd love to sneak one of those harry potter books with the fangs and crap on the podium.
DO you solomely swe--SNAP SNAP!

SurfaceTension: From TFA:

If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress.

From the Constitution of the United States:

"no religious test" clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, section 3, and states that:

"...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

This man has no argument.

QFT.
Article VI, US Constitution:
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.

muninsfire: Oh, wait, Wiki answers all.

*snicker*

You were already on the short list for a cabinet position. ;)

/Please excuse me for a little bit, I need to break a few more mountain climbing records before my big chess match.

Seriously, though, you should put your hand on the mumbojumbo book and raise your right hand out of respect, as long as they respect your right to extend only one finger of your choice when you do.
That is a diplomatic solution.
I will not swear on a bible, and if a court holds me in contempt for refusing to, it will be the Carlisle School all over again.
Lame when they shove the dead guy on a stick down your throat in the name of justice for all.

coitophonic: god I hate slash trendies who have no idea what a slash means


well I hate people who think things have one meaning that never changes.

/free slashies for everybody
//||\\

Frater N.S.: You were already on the short list for a cabinet position. ;)

Booyeah!

I'll swear in on a book appropriate to the position.

De Bello Gallico if I get Defence; Common Sense for State; On the Wealth of Nations for Treasury....

Put DsRsF last bit in place of the last bit of my last post. Sneaky, them hiding that in Article VI with me looking for it in Article I.

Whoever wrote this is an asshole.

harryjrf: Someone show me a serious issue that arises by anyone swearing on a bible.

The last time I swore on a Bible, I wasn't able to jerk off for a month because of the burns on my right hand.

coitophonic: god I hate slash trendies who have no idea what a slash means


//
//
//
//
//

So why aren't we swearing on the Constitution? I can honestly say that I would trust someone who swears on the foundation of our country much more than...well...any other document we currently have. We live in America, and regardless of what we think we want...we have to consider everybody when it comes to public office. We have to keep the Muslims, and Buddhists, and Wiccans in mind in all levels of government. We'll all be alot happier when we start celebrating our differences, and stop raising one group's ideals above all others. We the People, baby...oh yeah!

trappedspirit: I might be wrong but I thought that speech was a pretty innocuous olympic opening ceremony speech.

It was the sight of all those humans hanging on Hitler's every word that scared the Elders. They didn't have any other context, nor did they grok German. You see, on my home planet, every individual does his own thing. If one person steps on another's rights, he gets his ass kicked. After the ass-kicking, things settle down and everybody goes back to doing their own thing.

/had to come to Earth to learn how to hold a grudge.

Oath is a daughter of Eris.

Everyone, obviously, should swear their oath on the Principia Discordia.

chronarchy: Oath is a daughter of Eris.

Everyone, obviously, should swear their oath on the Principia Discordia.

Not me.

As a Pope, I can declare that I will swear on a hot-dog-bun.

He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

Well, I've had my daily dose of whacko.

/at least until ericjohnson0 gets here.

Bush put his paw on a Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.

See how well THAT worked out.

/Prager is a master asshatter

SurfaceTension

From TFA:
If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress.

From the constitution:
"...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Worth repeating!

Speaking of, when did they let any asshole with spell check become a syndicated columnist for townHall.com. Wait. Answered my own question

As a Pope, I can declare that I will swear on a hot-dog-bun.

Damn Discordians. They're all so feckin' difficult. :)

Ni!:

Bacon. They should just place their hand on a slab af bacon and swear on that. Everyone can get behind and believe in bacon.

Or pie. Pie's good too.

You win teh intarwebz.

/Mmmmm, pie.
//Also love the Monty Python reference.

Dear Mr. Prager,

I recently read your article on Keith Ellison and his oath of office. I took exception to several of your claims, and I would like to refresh your memory on a few important topics.

You claim that Ellison and his supporters "are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book."

If so, what they are saying is correct. The Establishment Clause within the First Amendment clearly forbids the federal government from establishing a state religion. Because of this, it is of little importance that most Americans see the Bible as its holiest book; Our government, officially, does not view it as such.

I would also like to point out the 1796 Treaty with Tripoli, in which President John Adams approved a document which included the phrase "...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This re-affirms what the founders of our nation believed when they drafted the Bill of Rights. And I, for one, strongly believe in an originalist interpretation of our Constitution.

Furthermore, Article VI, Section 3 of our Constitution states that "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." Keith Ellison is not bound by our Constitution to swear on a Bible; in fact, the section seems to suggest that *forcing* him to explicitly swear on the Bible would be unconstitutional.

Regarding another argument you provided: If a Jewish politician wanted to swear on the Tanakh, an atheist politician wanted to swear on the works of Nietzsche, or a Nazi politician wanted to swear on Mein Kampf, they should be allowed to -- as ridiculous as the latter two scenarios may be. Their oath of office and their voting record are public knowledge; if the people who democratically elected such a representative have a problem with either of these, they can later vote him out of office. And since the politician's religion and personal beliefs would likely be made public before their first election to office, voters would already know what to expect if they elected an atheist or Nazi.

(As an aside, I found it rather ridiculous that you seemed to imply some connection between the Koran and "Mein Kampf," but that is outside the scope of my letter.)

Despite your opinions regarding Keith Ellison and his religion, the people of his district have spoken. His religion and his history were in the spotlight during the campaign, and he was elected regardless. I would think the people who voted for him assumed that he, as a Muslim, would want to swear on a Koran rather than a Bible.

I would also expect a Jewish politician to swear on the Hebrew Scriptures or a Mormon politician to swear on the Book of Mormon. It is the most honest thing to do in either situation.

In conclusion, I think your article was not only factually incorrect, but a clear example of overreaction.

Sincerely,
[elchip]

Today seems to be Get Upset Over Non-Issues Day.

NobleHam:
What does it matter what he pledges on, so long as he holds the pledge?

Because, it wouldn't be Christian for him to swear on the book of a competing religion, and as we all know and acept, this country is a Christian theocracy. Duh!

/yes, this is the line of thinking held by the ignorant twats that are up in arms over this, whether or not they admit it explicitly

Ni!: Bacon. They should just place their hand on a slab af bacon and swear on that. Everyone can get behind and believe in bacon.

Or pie. Pie's good too.

Yes, no self-respecting Muslim would have any problem at all taking an oath on a slab of pork.......

Well said elchip!

SkinnyHead:
But there is a law that requires that the oath taker state at the conclusion of the oath: "So help me God." (5 USC 3331)

Heh. That would hold up for all of 23 seconds in front of the Supreme Court, as it's blatantly unconstitutional. Stuff like that only holds so long as no one contests it.

dukefluke [TotalFark]

"...you may as well use a copy of Juggs magazine."

I think we have our solution here.

"E Pleb Neesta!"


/obscure?
//probably not on fark.

trappedspirit: God doesn't heal amputees because this is not a disease to be healed.

OK, then why doesn't god cure/heal diseases (or prevent them) in good honest christians?

archichris


I just love the arrogant dismissal of thousands of years of human spirituality.

This despite the fact that spiritual civilizations.....no matter what their beliefs are more successful and peaceful overall than atheist civilizations.

Communism has a 100 million + death toll. All non combatants.

Thats laughable, the 25 most successful countries in the world are all majority atheist, with the exception of 2: America and Ireland.

Now, forced atheist states are always bad (and most of those "atheist" states deify their leaders like NK). Now, looking at the bottom 25 on the spectrum, you have the most religious countries in the world(besides the forced atheist states which aren't even really atheist).

If 99% of the U.S. population decided to convert to Islam tomorrow, that is 100% their personal choice, as guaranteed by the constitution.

And being a secular state, that shouldn't change the government.

omg_gay: Thats laughable, the 25 most successful countries in the world are all majority atheist, with the exception of 2: America and Ireland.

I just quickly looked at the CIA world factbook for the United Kingdom and it's 71% Christian... Germany is 68%... Japan is 84% Shinto or Buddhist.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Does the Tanakh or Book of Mormon count?

Mega-Lomein-ia: So why aren't we swearing on the Constitution?


That would create an infinite loop. We should just be swearing on our understanding that if we're lying, we'll be prosecuted for perjury (or false swearing, as your laws may dictate).

danny_kay

They really should have a proprietary tag like that.

Makes the font color red, uses a bloody typeface, stuff like that..

Farking History lesson:

The farking founders of our farking country left their farking country because they wanted to do their own farking spiritual/religious thing.

So now, a few hundred farking years later, our new farking nation that held religious farking freedom as one of their primary tenest, has devolved to the same farking thing?

I'm going home...

Probably been said a hundred times already:
The constitution states explicitly that no test of faith is required (and is illegal to do so) to hold public office. So suck it idiot journalists. Atheists are allowed to give testimony in courts of law by swearing on their own words too (no Bible required.) Prescedent on these matters are well established. But do not let facts and reality get in the way of your opinions...