Fact or Fiction

Dispelling popular myths, misperceptions, and urban legends with logic (and humor)

Identifying misleading arguments and statistics and searching for pragmatic solutions

The place for critical thinkers, skeptics, and political centrists

Politics                                        Business
Issues                                              Taxes
Life                                              Research
Health                                         Questions
Entertainment                               The Truth
Media                                The Whole Story

Do you swear on the Bible? the Quran? the Constitution?

Print the article

This entry was posted on 12/3/2006 4:37 AM and is filed under Politics.

I didn't know that Dennis Prager was still around.  I also didn't realize what a right-wing extremist he is either.  Maybe this is why we haven't heard much from him recently, even though apparently he still has a radio show and blogs at Townhall.com.  But, alas, he is making headlines now.  In his blog entry last week, he argues that Keith Ellison, the first Muslim member of Congress should not be able to use the Quran for his oath of office.

Prager says, "America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress." and "Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath."

His statements are fiction.  First of all, the official oath of office is apparently taken with hands in the air and without any book of any kind, religious or otherwise.  The unofficial oath, which is basically a photo opportunity, may be taken with a book of choice or with nothing.  Information about the swearing-in ceremony may be found at the Clerk of the House website.  According to some bloggers, the Clerk defines the difference between the official and unofficial ceremonies, but I couldn't find it.  I did find the oath, itself:

"I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

America, in fact, does not determine upon which book a member of Congress takes the oath.  The oath is to support and defend the Constitution and nothing else.  The actual oath is not even taken on a book.  My personal opinion is that the vast majority of Americans don't care whether a Congressman uses a certain religious book for the ceremonial (and unofficial) oath.  And, my understanding and opinion is that our goverment explicitely is not "based on Judeo-Christian values," as one blog commenter asserted.  It is not based on the Quran either.  It is actually based on the freedom to worship and express either or any religious values or none...seriously...read the Constitution. 

Who cares what text someone uses, if any? It doesn't matter to me, and it should't matter to you. That's what freedom is all about.

Links:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2006/11/28/america,_not_keith_ellison,_decides_what_book_a_congressman_takes_his_oath_on
http://www.themoderatevoice.com/posts/1165078870.shtml
http://clerk.house.gov/index.html
 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
Trackback specific URL for this entry
  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Comments
    Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

    • 12/5/2006 12:56 AM Ken Pirok wrote:
      Where he digs himself in deeper:

      http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DennisPrager/2006/12/05/a_response_to_my_many_critics_-_and_a_solution

      Reply to this
    • 12/6/2006 12:28 AM Craig Hampel wrote:
      I cant personally recall the last time, if ever, I saw a public official swear an oath while using the bible. It is also a misconception that witnesses in court swear on the bible. According to a well versed friend, who is a lawyer, this practice can only be found in the deep south.
      At any rate, the point of this post is that I would submit that one could make the argument that our government IS founded on "Judeo-Christian" values. (Of course, this is different from saying that we are a "Christian" nation.)
      But one item of proof concerning the value part of it would be the following.
      Signer of the Declaration Richard Henry Lee declared that the Declaration itself was “copied from Locke's Treatise on Government.” This is just one quote but it signals the point that the founding fathers relied heavily on Locke's work. For those who dont know, John Locke was a well known political philosopher in the 17th century and his most well known work is "The Two Treatises of Government." If you read the first treatise you will find over 1300 invocations of the bible. The second treatise has several hundred as well.
      This book was probably the most influential existing piece of work relied upon for both the Declaration and the Constitution.
      The values The Two Treatises relies on are clearly the same as Judeo-Christian. It is no stretch at all to extend those values to the other works that it so heavily influenced.
      Reply to this
      1. 12/6/2006 1:29 AM Ken Pirok wrote:
        Thanks for the post. Interesting that the last person to make a similar argument during a discussion with me was a close relative of yours.

        Regarding Christianity and the founders of our country...Weren't those who traveled here on the Mayflower definitely religious, but at the same time weren't they seeking religious freedom?

        Similarly, there's no doubt that many of the founders, individually, were deeply religious. Their religion and Locke may likely have even influenced their ideas and opinions about government. But, that fact doesn't necessarily make our country's founding or the government, itself, based upon religion or Christianity. They valued freedom; that's what the Declaration of Independence discusses.

        The Declaration of Independence was just that, a declaration, while the Constitution is the actual rule of law. I read over the Declaration of Independence, and it barely makes mention of anything religious at all, and Christianity or any reference to a Christian God is definitely not in there.

        I believe there's also been some debate about the "religiousness" and Christianity of Thomas Jefferson and some others.
        Reply to this
    • 12/6/2006 2:15 AM Ken Pirok wrote:
      Didn't Thomas Jefferson write all or most of the Declaration of Independence? Google "Thomas Jefferson God" and you'll find very interesting stuff.
      Reply to this
    • 12/7/2006 9:07 AM Craig wrote:
      Thomas Jefferson did write the entire Declaration with the input of the other signers. And it is commonly known that he was considered a Deist. (the case cannot be made that he was athiest if you take into account many of his letters and other writings.) Deist simply have the belief in one God but are either agnostic and/or unbelieving of and sort of New Testament writings. In other words, they dont neccesarily see Christ as the Son of God. (It's kind of like believing the same thing as a Jew but not being a Jew) This, of course, does not imply that they did not adhere to the values. The values of the two would be the same.
      Just to be clear, I am not making the case that either the Declaration or the Constitution contains overt Christian inferences or wording, rather that their intents and framework came from Christian influenced values. For instance, the three branches of government can be traced back to biblical writings. Its not overt. You wont find in the bible where God said, "Ye shall have a Senate, House, and President!", but the framework is there. And considering that the very people who wrote the D&C were seeking to escape the overt and corrupt "religious" oppression of King George, it is easy to see why they would avoid such overt launguage in the two documents. But the influence is there. And both documents (declaration and constitution) relied heavily on John Locke's writings, all of which were written well before the birth of this nation. (he died in 1704).

      There is one point that is often missed when talking about the birth of this nation. And that is that the people who risked their life to come here were seeking freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. There is a difference.

      At any rate, one could easily see why I would have similar arguments as my "close relative" seeing as how I grew up in a house full of original documents, writings, and various other pertinent sources.
      Reply to this
    • 1/4/2007 4:28 PM Ken Pirok wrote:
      I just heard from Wolf Blitzer that the Quran he used for the ceremony was once in the library of one Thomas Jefferson.
      Reply to this
    Leave a comment

    Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

     Name (required)

     Email (will not be published) (required)

     Website

    Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.



      
    Copyright . http://FACTORFICTIONBLOG.COM. All rights reserved.