Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

In the 110th US Congress there is a new Muslim Representative from Minnesota named Keith Ellison. He has stated that he wishes to be sworn into Congress on the Quran. In doing this, the evil monster of Racism has shown its ugly head again. This time it is from Conservative Pundit, Dennis Prager and Republican Congressman Virgil Goode(Gude). Goode has put his foot in his mouth by saying that Ellison's use of the Quran in an unofficial swearing in would spark a "Muslim Invasion."

Here is the Wikipedia Article on this.
NBC's Report.
Virgil Goode on Fox News.

In my opinion, you should be allowed to be sworn in on whatever holy book you wish. That's why we have the 1st Amendment, so we are allowed to do this.

What are your thoughts?

_________________

I agree with you, Gravy. The First Amendment mandates that all religions are treated equally (if they are applied in the first place), so Congress must be allowed to swear in members on the Quran as well as the Bible.

_________________

I, for one, could care less what someone is sworn in with. It's not like ethics are high value on Capital Hill, anyway.

The whole point of using the Bible is that there's an idea that people would not lie with their hand on a holy book. It's pretty naive, but that's the general idea.

I would think that, if he's going to swear on some book that he'll do his best to do what's best for the country, it'd make more sense to make him take his oath on a book he believes (although much of the Quran and Bible are very similar).

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

I agree with you %110 right there Rad. It shouldn't matter at all, but Goode and Prager are just making a mountain out of a mole hill.

_________________

Ugh, Virgil Goode is the worst thing about living here. They stuck my town in his district to water down our hippie tendencies. Every two years we vote for some other guy (the last two times the Democrat's name has actually been "Weed") and everyone else votes for Gooooooooode. From VA's 5th district: a heartfelt waddayagonnado. We'll keep trying.

Also, the swearing in involving religious books of various kinds is apparently an unofficial swearing in for the cameras. I heard the real swearing in doesn't include religious books. Also, there are two Buddhists this time around. It's interesting that no one cares what book they're being unofficially sworn in on, but one Muslim gets in Congress and people say "see what immigration does!!" when the guy's not from a recent immigrant family at all. He just converted. Like of his own free will. None of it makes any sense.

_________________
ATTN: LOWER BOARD USERS HAVE MOVED TO ANOTHER FORUM. COME JOIN THE FUN!

Agreed as well here. If other officials are allowed the privalege to be sworn in on the Bible, then a Muslim should be allowed to be sworn in using the Qu'ran, a Jew on the Torah...even perhaps a High Priest of Wicca on his own Book of Shadows (though I don't see that one happening, really, as the Book of Shadows is typically a very private and personal thing in Wicca). And maybe an Atheist on Charles Darwins' The Origins of Species?

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

Wouldn't atheists be sworn in on a science book?
What about Scientologists? A dollar bill? Dianetics?

Seriously, though, if someone's choice of religious book is the biggest problem in DC, we're doin' pretty good.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

That's a pretty good point - what the b'jaysus would us non-religious freaks swear by?

Let's see, if I were to choose......... I think I'd swear by the Constitution of Ireland. Yeah...... that would be meaningful for me.

As for this fuss about swearing on the Qur'an - Lord, the only thing that these eejits need to worry about is whether the swearer will take the pledge seriously or not. That's the purpose of swearing on the [insert exalted document here]. And if he's a proper Muslim or Christian or Irish patriot (Hello!), he won't.

And as far as I'm aware, it's not an actual religious rite - though I may be mistaken.

I dont believe that people should swear upon holy books. I am catholic, but I dont think it's right that people swear on bibles. I tihnk people should swear on a law book. It makes sense.

If someone swears on a religious book, then changes religions, then isnt it like as if the swearing didnt even happen? It would be best to avoid that situation altogether.

_________________

But the process with swearing in on the book is wholly ceremonial, whereas the true swearing in uses no book. So wouldn't it make it a moot point?

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

This is a little off topic, but if I'm an athiest, can I just be sworn in on a...like guitar world or something?

Or actually, let me rephrase that...

How would you swear in an athiest elected official?

_________________

yes. the "religious" part of the ceremony is wholly for show and cameras and teevee and the like. this is because the constitution stiplates that no person must be made to pass a religious test in order to achieve public office. so basically, the whole dang thing is for show because it would be unconstitutional to make someone go through a religious ceremony of any type as a passage into their office.

but as far as reality and media and te like go, of course i support anyone's right to be sworn in on their religion's holy text, as the tradition indicates (some Jewish politicians have chosen to use Torahs or other Jewish texts instead of the Bible).