Keith Ellison

[Phil]

Congressman elect Keith Ellison of Minnesota has not taken his oath yet because he wants to swear on a Koran and not a bible. Ellison is a Muslem.

I have no problem with his choice of religion. But the bible has always been the book to swear upon for trial and for talking solid oath.

Even non religious lawmakers have bound the bible as the foundation for civil laws ane accept it as that agreeing that even if you don't belive in God and religion that is the book that based civil law and so you swear upon it when taking an oath.

Congressman elect Ellison knew that when he ran for that position therefore he should be responsible to swear on a bible.

If he were a witness I could see another side, in that case I could see letting him swear on both because the law is based on the bible and the Koran is what bonds him.

Ellison knew about the oath before he sought that position so he needs to do the right thing now.

[Kimm]

I dont understand when things are in place for years and years and years people come out and think you should change the rules for them.

Its almost like this guy thinks the law doesnt apply to him.

Im all about Religious freedom thats 1 of the things our country was founded upon and his practice of Muslomism is entirely his decision fine on all sides.

If he feels that strongly about it why doesnt he swear in like normal with the bible and have his religious elders swear him in seperately with a Koran?

[Vanilla Ice]

Slavery was in place for a very very long time. People came out and said they should be changed.

Maybe, like white supremacy was ended, Christianity's stranglehold on what's right should be ended.

The point of swearing on the Bible was that practically everyone was a Christian when the country started so it had some actual incentive to stop people from lying.

If swearing on The Bible serves no other purpose than tradition than it really serves no purpose at all.

If America is about equality and freedom of religion, then there should be no set religion to swear on, in fact, it might make more sense for people to choose something to swear upon. Their own soul, wife, family, the country itself (the equivalent of their Bible). It would make a hell of a lot more sense.

I don't think tradition is a reason to make someone swear on the Bible. Imagine . . . the senator is allowed to swear upon the Koran, and besides maybe 100-million offended Christians, nothing bad would come of it. I don't see any real reasons (ones that would have a negative effect on the future) for this not to happen.

Post Script

It's Muslim.

[Kimm]

I have no problem with him swearing on a Koran but the bible is the formality whether he embraces Christianity or not the bible is the source of the constitution. Cival laws are based on biblical laws there are plenty of secular stories in the bible.

I dont think the procedure should be changed to accomodate this situation.

[skier1]

kimm said:

I have no problem with him swearing on a Koran but the bible is the formality whether he embraces Christianity or not the bible is the source of the constitution. Cival laws are based on biblical laws there are plenty of secular stories in the bible.

I don't think the procedure should be changed to accommodate this situation.

Not true.

Historical influences
In 1957 the American Bar Association acknowledged the debt American law and constitutionalism had to the Magna Carta by erecting a monument at Runnymede, England.

In some instances historians disagree on the specific international influences on the overall development of the Constitution, possibly because of the large variety of sources that are available. Many argue that several of the ideas in the Constitution were new, and that a large number of ideas were drawn from Classical Antiquity and the British governmental tradition of mixed government, which was in practice among 12 of the 13 states. Many historians do not specifically consider other sources, but the ideas advocated by the writings of Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu are prominent among the contenders of non-British European influences. A number of historians also note the direct influence of the Republic of the United Provinces, which had itself a Constitution in place for two centuries by 1781 with many similarities to the American Constitution — some of their ideas though were also drawn from Classical Antiquity.

Not surprisingly, the influence of the United Kingdom is considered more prominent than other contemporary European influences. John Locke is known to be a mild influence, and the due process clause of the United States Constitution was partly based on ideas from Article 39 from the Magna Carta of 1215 which states that:

United States Constitution
No free man shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or deprived of his property, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor shall we go against him or send against him, unless by legal judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land.

United States Constitution

The English Bill of Rights (1689) also acted as a source of ideas for the United States Constitution. For example, like the English Bill of Rights, the U.S. Constitution requires jury trials, contains a right to bear arms, and prohibits excessive bail and of “cruel and unusual punishments.”

Liberties guaranteed by Magna Carta and the 1689 English Bill of Rights were directly incorporated into state statutes and the Virginia Declaration of Rights, and many were then further incorporated into the Constitution and the United States Bill of Rights.

Unless the British Constitution is the Holy texts of Christianity, or John Locke is secretly Jesus, then that doesn't seem to be cited from the Bible. There may be similarities between the Bible and Constitution, but that doesn't mean anything. The Soviet Constitution and US Constitution are almost identical, yet the natures of the states and their associated religions (Russia was officially atheist) differ greatly. It is the common set of morals that have always been used to govern man, since the times of Hammurabi.

In light of this, I see no reason why someone shouldn't be able to swear on the Koran. It isn't that different from the Bible as it is... And what would the reaction be if someone wanted to swear on the Torah? That's just the old Testament, but it's not the entire Christian Bible.

[Classicblast]

I think you're missing Kim's point a little bit too.

Where do you suppose the Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta dirived from?

I also don't see Kim calling John Locke Jesus or the British Constitution as the Holy text of Christianity. But the Anglocan Church was under the King's rule.

Suggesting that biblical infulence has had an impact on civil law doesn't in any way suggest either of the sarcastic remarks made over this.


There are regulations and that doesn't mean that there are no ways of changing them.

I have had temmates from South America, Doninican Republics and sometimes even Japan and Korea. A large number of those guys don't speak English well and some don't speak it at all.

They have to learn the language.

Should the players union make it so all of their provisions were in their native language?

Well to a degree that does happen. Their agents interpret when need be. Often is the time the agent is not able and a hired interprer has to be used. Contracts are often in both languages. But not just in Spanish, they can't refuse their contract also be printed in English.

To Ellison the Bible might not be anything more than a phone book but it's procedure. If he wants to use a Koran as well I would see no problem with that.

Sometimes people of different Religions get married and the ceremony is done through joint clergy.
So why not do something close to that to swear in Keith Ellison

[Kimm]

Everyones taken my post a little off its mark. Non bible subscribers probably dont believe Adam and Eve as the 1st man and woman. But in any case the human race is often called "Children of Adam and Eve."

I guess I could say "My parents are not named Adam or Eve, theyre Frank and Susan." That doesnt make my dad secretly Adam and my mom secretly Eve.

[skier1]

kimm said:

Everyones taken my post a little off its mark. Non bible subscribers probably dont believe Adam and Eve as the 1st man and woman. But in any case the human race is often called "Children of Adam and Eve."

I guess I could say "My parents are not named Adam or Eve, theyre Frank and Susan." That doesnt make my dad secretly Adam and my mom secretly Eve.

I'm sorry, I don't understand; how does this relate to the issue at hand again?

Where do you suppose the Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta dirived from?

The Magna Carta derived from the British nobles wanting more power. So, they held the King at swordpoint and forced him to give them a couple more powers. A bit of research on both documents shows no reference to the Bible as a source. I think I've made my case; the Bible and Constitution may be similar, but that doesn't automatically mean one is based on the other.

[Kimm]

You have and we dont funny agree. But thats ok.

Then you dont think Keith Ellison should swear in on a bible even though everybody else has? If the law needs to be modified, he should be the precident, or he should swear in on a bible and then go through and see about possible changes?

I think he should swear in on a bible and he could use both I wouldnt mind that.

How the other parallel relates is that making John Locke Jesus would be the same as making my parents Adam and Eve. And for the record I didnt do either.