Good for him!

[draconis]

According to this AP news story, Keith Ellison will take his oath of office using a copy of the Quran once owned by Thomas Jefferson.

A lot of people are in an uproar over this, but personally, I am all in favor of it. If the gentleman is going to be asked to swear upon a holy book, shouldn't it be a book that is holy to him?

Comments

[shrewreader.livejournal.com]

Really, I rather like John Adams' (or was it John Q. Adams'?) approach to the whole business. He swore his oath by a volume of law.

[jcbdragon.livejournal.com]

I like it!

Can you substantiate that, BTW? I have a cow-orker who really needs to be shown that. His opinion re: Ellison was that his "... refusing to follow Congressional customs is an affront to all citizens ... it's thumbing his nose at the rest of us," that he is "disrespecting the office" and "[he] (personally) would prevent him from taking office."

I will confess, I take a certain amount of wicked glee in showing him things like this, and then twisting him up with inconvenient little things like mere documentable facts. ::G::

[shrewreader.livejournal.com]

Presidential oath of office, Quincy, Volume of law, Constitution & American laws. "There's an interesting thing about John Adams and John Quincy Adams -- they were both very religious men, and John Quincy Adams were so religious that he is one of probably only one or two American presidents who did not take the Oath of Allegiance on a Bible. Now, it's kind of ironic that John Quincy Adams, being such a religious man, would not have used the Bible, but he said that he thought the Bible should be reserved for strictly religious purposes. So he took the Oath of Office on a book of laws, the Constitution and American laws. That's really what he was swearing allegiance to was the Constitution, so he didn't use the Bible."

Dr. Donald R. Kennon, Chief Historian, US Capitol Historical Society, speaking at a press conference prior to Shrub's 2nd innaugural, 13, 2005. This is the gentleman I heard speaking regarding this issue on NPR this week, and I begin to suspect he did his dissertation on the Federalists, given the way he works it into every press opportunity.

http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/40871.htm

[rhi]

Er. Does this yahoo (and I use it in the Jonathan Swift meaning) not know about Google and the U.S. Constitution?

Article VI, paragraph iii: (italics mine)
"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."

[saxononyx.livejournal.com]

As co-worker of both the above, I can tell you with certainty the yahoo in question would interpret the constitution as meaning no religious test as long as the person is Christian. He would happily kick all non Christians out of the country. After all By his belief all other religions are just cults and not real religions and so do not count.

[jcbdragon.livejournal.com]

Jewish, actually, but he tolerates the Christians. Any others, of course, are a completely different matter.

He makes quite a big deal out how persecuted all Jews always are (including him, by association).

Another example of his unique dictionary:
"the Jews are uniformly condemned if they do anything, unlike the Muslims, which kill and maim without any rebuffing"

However, the recent incidents where the Israelis had to remove settlers from a particular area? That territory was rightfully taken in battle, in response to an unprovoked attack. But the attackers were not rebuffed.

And having the might of the most powerful military in the world turned on you apparently doesn't count as a rebuff, either.

Oh... and the UN exists solely at the whim of our gov't, too. They know it, and whether or not they like it, they are powerless to stop it.

You know, I really should get him one of those jongleur's caps. He makes such a wonderful Court Jester for our office -- if you can overlook the fact that he actually believes that sewage he spouts. But the way he dances around such obstacles as logic, facts, and consistency makes for a highly amusing show.

Although I often wish that he would add another string to his lute -- knowing in advance that he will resort to ad hominem attacks on anyone disputing his opinions does grow rather tiresome after a while. He really should expand his repertoire. ::G::

[jcbdragon.livejournal.com]

Oh, he most assuredly knows about it, for I have shown it to him.

In the truly fascinating (in the manner of a train wreck) dictionary of his world, requiring someone to swear an oath on a particular religion's holy book does not constitute a "religious test."

In his world, this phrase means that you cannot make practicing a particular religion a qualification for running for office. However, if elected, you should still have to swear your oath upon a predetermined religion's holy book.

In his exact words, transcribed from chat session:
"it meant that you can't keep someone from running based on their religion, but they still have to take the oath/affirmation to assume office ... and the oath is to the office (and by extension) the country ... the rule is if you can't take the oath, then you can't take the office - not that you have to go against your beliefs - it is VOLUNTARY to run, not required"

I have no doubt that all of you can see the errors here -- they are fairly typical of him, I'm afraid.

[rhi]

::winces:: Yeah. No logic, no vocabulary. ::sigh:: {{hugs}}