I'd swear on a stack of Bibles...

[Enzo]

But...

So Keith Ellison becomes the first Muslim sworn member of congress, and after all the Hue and Cry over it in radio talk shows and elsewhere, he did it on a Koran after all. Not just any Koran, but one from Thomas Jefferson's shelves. It was a 1764 edition published in London. I love it.

He was born in Detroit. Damned Motor City troublemakers. He's in Minn. these days.

[pmcolt]

I almost read this as "I'd swear on a stack of pancakes." Mmmm. Pancakes.

No big deal to me. I prefer that people swear on something they believe in. I heard on the news that we have a couple Buddhists representatives now. Anyone know what (if anything) they chose to swear/affirm on?

[Enzo]

Mmmm, pancakes. I am off to breakfast...

Good question about the Buds.

That was the overall theme of the call in show blather, "Them people ought to use OUR book. This is OUR contry after all." I had always though the point was a meaningful oath sworn on something revered by the swearee. Apparently I am wrong. I have a good condition copy of the manual for WIndows 3.1, they could use that if they liked.

[hippietrekx]

I'd make a long and thought out post about this, but I'm in the middle of writing an essay on it for my writing class.

I'll post it in here when I'm finished. (Should be polished on Monday night.)

--hippie

[Мастер]

Just as long as they don't swear in on a chaos theory book.

[Enzo]

Or a book about cursing.

[The Beer Slayer]

He can swear on the Necronomicon for all I care. His loyalty better be to this country and its constitution. That goes for everyone. Christian, Jew, FSM worshippers...

[Enzo]

If he worships FSM, maybe he could swear on Mario Batali.

[teri tait]

He can swear on the Necronomicon for all I care. His loyalty better be to this country and its constitution. That goes for everyone. Christian, Jew, FSM worshippers...

I agree with CR, they can swear in on whatever they believe as long as they uphold the constitution. One of the freedoms of this country is freedom of religion and certainly a representative should utilize the book of their faith. I wonder what the athiests use in this instance?

[Enzo]

They swear or affirm without the use of a book.

[hippietrekx]

Keith Ellison, a man recently elected to serve on the House of Representatives, is a rather remarkable politician. He is the first African American person to represent Minnesota in the House and ran an election campaign free from mudslinging at his candidate. His show of respect for his opponent is a rare find in the politicians of today’s he-said, she-said era of campaigns. What’s more unusual than even his clean campaign is his religion. Mr. Ellison is a Muslim, the first Muslim to ever serve in the House of Representatives. The election of a Muslim comes as no surprise; the Islamic faith has grown in the United States in recent decades. What has stirred up the most controversy over Mr. Ellison is not his religion its self, but the possibility that he could swear an oath to our government on a Koran instead of a Bible.

Opponents of swearing on the Koran fear that Ellison would be making an oath to Islam, not the United States. They point out that many Jewish, atheist, agnostic, and Mormon representatives take oaths on the Bible when they begin their terms in office even though they have different books of worship. The Bible is a traditional part of the swearing-in process that dates back to the founding fathers, who wove the fabric of our government with Christian morals. Many opponents say that the Koran is not a part of American culture, and Ellison swearing on it would be undermining all of our values. They fear that taking an oath with the Koran will send the message to the rest of the Islam world that they are winning in their conquest of America.

Since when has a little diversity meant that America was being invaded? The very first colonists to settle America made their journey from Europe to flee from religious persecution. Every grade-school child has been taught this. Ask these children what idea the government is based on, and they’ll quote The Pledge of Allegiance, “Liberty and justice for all.” If Christianity is so vital to the survival of our government, then why are we teaching our youngest children about equality and freedom of religion? Yes, the founders of our country were Christian men, and they wrote the Constitution and Declaration of Independence with Christian overtones. But they did not declare Christianity the official, sole religion of the United States of America.

What about the rest of the Islamic world and their strides to spread Islam into America? Are all Muslims plotting to control this country? The people in poverty? The middle class? Farmers? Teachers? Ordinary Muslims? Or is it just the extremists? Believers of Islam are not evil, are not a plague. Even if some of the extremists think that this is the first step to destroying the American culture, what does it matter what they think? Ellison was a man elected by the citizens of this district to serve them based on his platforms, not his religion. So long as he does his duty to them, he is doing his duty to America, not to Islam. When Keith Ellison carries out his duties to America, the Islamic radicals will have falsely seen his election as a small victory. With the way our government works, if Ellison does not act in the way that pleases the people who elected him, he can be removed from office in two years by voting in a new Representative.

In all actuality, new Representatives don’t even take an oath on any religious book. The swearing in process involves the newly elected officials saying an oath as a group led by the Speaker of the House. No Bibles (or Korans for that matter) are even in the room. All the photos of Congressmen with their hands on the Bible which are smeared across the television after every election are really just mock ceremonies. These mock ceremonies are photo opportunities for the Representatives, a chance to make themselves look great to the people that elected them. But why is this publicity stunt about swearing on the Bible? Why not just group shots of few Congressmen or a new official standing in front of an American flag?

The answer is simple: to the majority of Americans, some one who will swear on the Bible (that is: pledge on their very souls) would appear to be an upright, honest, moral person who will act in only the ways that are in the best interests of the American people. The majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians, even though many don’t attend church regularly or wouldn’t pin themselves as “religious.” Congressmen are elected into office by the majority of voters in their districts. The majority seems to be a key factor in swearing on the Bible (even it isn’t technically swearing). These Congressmen want to please as many voters as they can in order to keep their seat in the next election, so through the Bible they make themselves look wholesome. Someone who swears on a Bible after claiming to believe in its text will ultimately be pledging on their own souls to act as the voters intended them to. After all, who would damn their own souls for all eternity just to pass a few crooked laws that would only benefit themselves for the relatively short period of their life? That’s how the politicians think the Bible blitz looks to the Christian Americans, anyway.

Like Christianity, the Koran, too has a promise of an afterlife. So, should Ellison pretend to swear on a Bible that he doesn’t believe in, or should he pretend to swear on a Koran that he does. I say pretend because the actual oath to our government doesn’t have any religious works in sight. Does it even make a difference of what book he takes a picture with if it’s just that: a picture? And for that matter, why is his choice of photo fodder even an issue at all? Doesn’t the First Amendment guarantee the free exercise of religion? Doesn’t the Declaration of Independence state, “All Men are created equal?” If someone argues that “all men” doesn’t mean absolutely everyone because when that phrase was written it really just meant white men who owned land, then shouldn’t that person also argue that all women and black people be denied rights? Have all of the lawmakers since racial and gender equalities were established been wrong, since they have been upholding these civil rights?

Sure, some morals that are taught in the Koran are different than those taught in the Bible. Islam and Christianity are different religions. But no matter what Keith Ellison is and what he isn’t, he is one thing: an American. Obviously, he was an American with enough patriotism and nationalism to run for the House and win. Minnesota isn’t a state swamped with Muslims. The voters (who would have been mostly Christian) felt that he was who best fit the job, regardless of religion.

And as it turns out, Ellison did use the Koran on his photo op. He stood next to Nancy Pelosi, the new Speaker of the House, and smiled at cameras and news reporters. No swirling vortex of doom loomed over the Capitol Building. Ellison just happened to be a guy that propped his hand of a different sort of book, and in the process he set a precedent and upheld America’s tradition of diversity. He made a fake pledge in a fake ceremony on a Koran that went against the fake Christian face of the government. The government isn’t really Christian. It’s diverse, but it wears a mask in the form of the Bible to appeal to the Christian masses. It’s only fitting that the mask be taken off in a phony ceremony by a guy that pretended to make a religious pledge.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meh, not my best writing. My teacher liked it, which was the point. She's really my only audience on most of my stuff, so I write to her taste. Hey, gotta keep the A's somehow.

Anyway, they don't really swear on Bibles when they take the actual oath. The Bible is just a publicity thing, so the entire issue shouldn't have mattered that much.

--hippie

[Heid the Ba]

Thanks hippie, I wondered how the separation of church and state sat with biblical oaths. Now I know.

What I don't know is how our smug self-serving selection of arsehats get sworn in. We have a number of muslims, a few hindus, a sikh or two, various catholics, proddys and Red Sea pedestrians; not to mention the aethieist and agnostic.

After a quick and very unscientific check: (ok I looked at surnames and a very few biogs) out of 646 MPs-

at least 6 muslims, 2 hindus, a sikh, 4 jews (probably more but there are 2 I knew of who have anglicised names, a Cohen, and the MP for Golders Green).

And then there is Lembit Opik.. If you want something done in a half-arsed way, get a LibDem to do it.

[Мастер]

Red Sea pedestrians

!!!

[Heid the Ba]

Red Sea pedestrians

!!!

Those of the hebrew faith. It crops up occasionally in Monty Python.

[umop ap!sdn]

Had to look it up, but doing so only confirmed what I had guessed.

[Lance]

I'm not too sure KOS's "!!!" meant he didn't understand it.

[Мастер]

I'm not too sure KOS's "!!!" meant he didn't understand it.

I figured it out - hadn't heard it before though :P

I believe the son of a Red Sea pedestrian from Morocco became Prime Minister once. . .

[Lance]

Oh, good. I was concerned that you found it offensive.

[Мастер]

Oh, good. I was concerned that you found it offensive.

Not being one myself, I'll let any RSPs decide on their own if they wish to take offense. . .

[Lance]

I think it's kind of funny, myself. I think I've only heard it once before, but it was a long time ago.

[Мастер]

I think it's kind of funny, myself. I think I've only heard it once before, but it was a long time ago.

Oh, I do too. But so many people these days have no sense of humor. . .

[Enzo]

Foo on them. I think it is a lovely turn of a phrase. Nothing disparaging in it - that being the test in my view.



A while back I discovered: HEEB - the New Jew Review.

It is a magazine for Jews. I passed it along to a friend of that faith to see if they found it offensive. Nah, he already had a subscription. And had let it lapse too.

In fact, being of Scottish heritage, I often wish we had stronger stereotypes to play off. Only so much ewe can do with being miserly and men in skirts.

[Heid the Ba]

I thought KOS understood, but explained anyway. It gets used occasionally over here and I've never seen a jew take offence (though inevitably someone will).

Enzo, don't knock kilts or stereotypes. I regularly wear mine while travelling and it is a guaranteed icebreaker.

[Enzo]

I'm not knocking them, I was wishing we had more of them. Red Sea Pedestrians. We just doon't have anything equivalent about the Scots. I feel like we were left out of the fun.

It is a tough premise to work with. People whose idea of a parade is to hang a dead goat around their necks and blow into one of the feet until noise comesout the other ones, just don't give me much to work with.

Although Mel did give me "FRAYDOM."

Thanks, Mel.

[Heid the Ba]

It is a tough premise to work with. People whose idea of a parade is to hang a dead goat around their necks and blow into one of the feet until noise comesout the other ones, just don't give me much to work with.

But what a wonderful noise it is.

Although Mel did give me "FRAYDOM."

Thanks, Mel.

If only Mel had used the term RSP when he blamed them for plying him with drink and insulting the CHP . . .