Home > Political Insider > Archives > 2006 > December > 27 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USIt’s not what you take the oath on, it’s whether you mean it
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
While we were away, there was a furor over the comments by Rep. Virgil Goode (R-Va.) objecting to newly elected Rep. Keith Ellison’s intention to use the Koran for his swearing-in ceremony. Ellison is the first Muslim ever elected to Congress.
All this got us to wondering what Hank Johnson, the newly elected congressman from the 4th District, was going to take his oath on.
Although it has received a lot less attention, Johnson and a Democrat from Hawaii, Mazie Hirono, this year became the nation’s first Buddhists to be elected to Congress.
“Hank won’t talk about his religion. He never has. He considers it a private matter,” his press secretary, Deb Speights, said.
But Speights did tell us that Johnson plans to use a traditional Bible to take his oath of office.
Actually, the members don’t put their hands on anything for their formal oath, which they do in a group, Speights said. But they use Bibles – and Ellison will use the Koran – for the photos they use to record the momentous occasion.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Fulton
December 27, 2006 3:10 PM | Link to this
Well it’s certainly obvious from past experiences, that taking an oath on a Bible has no bearing on the future behavior of those in office.
An ‘Athiest’ swearing on a Bible would have no meaning whatsoever.
Since it’s simply a symbolic ritual, the contents within should only matter to that particular individual.
By Lewis
December 27, 2006 3:24 PM | Link to this
I hear that Buddhists get nekkid when they become Buddhists. I want to be there when Jessica Simpson becomes Buddhist.
By Zell Murphy
December 27, 2006 3:28 PM | Link to this
It seems obvious to me that Sonny has done run afoul of the tax laws. See, his buddies in the General Assembly can’t fix the federal problem for him in overpaying a political supporter for useless swampland. Say this thing gets exposed for the corruption it is, will anything happen to him in Republican Georgia?
By MrLiberty
December 27, 2006 6:43 PM | Link to this
Fulton has hit the nail on the head. What difference does it make what they swear on, they begin disobeying their oath to the constitution the minute they take their first vote.
I’ve seen Congressman Johnson’s platform and it is obvious that he has little respect for the limits imposed by the constitution on the federal branch of government. Remember Mr. Bush? He took an oath too. He hasn’t cared about that oath since taking office either.
I would rather these guys be honest about the way they plan to behave in office.
Maybe it would be more appropriate for all Congresspersons, whether democrat or Republican (Except for the Constitutionalist Ron Paul of Texas) to swear on a copy of Mad Magazine, or the National Enquirer. Then they can get their photos taken wiping their backsides with a copy of the bill of rights and the constitution.
That would certainly be more in keeping with the behavior of our two parties when they get elected.
As a fellow Buddhist, I hold out about as much hope for Mr. Johnson and his integrity as I would for the evangelical reprobates in the GOP if I were Christian.
By Lynn
December 27, 2006 6:45 PM | Link to this
I don’t see what the controversy is about. In fact, anti-immigrant folks like Virgil Goode should be happy that Keith Ellison would use a book that has more meaning for him when taking an oath to fulfill his duty. After all, to him, the Koran is more authentically the word of God than the Bible, and his oath to serve the people in his constituency would have more meaning when taken with a book that he believes in.
By Jeremy
December 27, 2006 8:50 PM | Link to this
The scary thing that Goode said is that it would be detrimental if more Muslims see this (the Koran swearing) and get elected to congress. It goes to show that in his mind, Muslim=Terrorist. Why do the ignorant beleive that having the Bible and Ten Commandments intertwined into government is good? Do they know nothing of history? Do they not see that our country is great because the Bible or Koran or Bhagavad Vita or Tao Te Ching or whatever is not affiliated with the government? Maybe we should change the swearing in to use a copy of People or Us. That is where most of the country’s values seem to lie today.
By Virgil.Is.Not.Goode
December 27, 2006 10:47 PM | Link to this
Wow! Virgil just doesn’t get it, does he? He wants EVERYONE to think as he does and believe the same way HE does. That’s NOT what our country is about. I just want honest elected officials…NOT christians, buddhists, hindus, jews, muslims. Practice whatever faith you choose, but just be honest and fair when you get to DC. And the same goes for the supreme court. Don’t be right or left, christian or not. Just be honest and fair. That’s all we should ask. And pray for.
By Charles
December 28, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this
It’s not what you take the oath on, it’s whether you mean it
Hold on just a minute mister. Hold on just a minute. Hold on just a minute.
Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe that it matters what you take the oath on, and it matters whether you mean it.
By Steve
December 28, 2006 5:50 PM | Link to this
I agree with the majority - the book you have your hand on while taking the oath is, at best, symbolic. Buddists and Muslims have a bigger problem, in that they will pay a much larger price for following their sham (and still quite dead) “gods.”
By Steve
December 28, 2006 5:55 PM | Link to this
Jeremy - Actually, if you knew history and were no so ignorant, you would know that the first leaders intended that the government be based on Christian principles. Obviously, they did not want an official state religion, but it can’t be argued that the founding fathers intended the US to be a Christian nation. I’d much prefer to have leaders who actually followed those princiles. I definitely agree with you about the general tabloid mentality of the average person.
By Aquagirl
December 28, 2006 8:37 PM | Link to this
Steve—Actually, if you knew history and were, um, no so ignorant, you would know that many of the founding fathers were deists, and didn’t believe that Jesus should be the chair of a political party.
If you think it can’t be argued that they intended the US to be a Christian nation, then please explain why, in all their planning, they did not write such things into our system of government. Such as “anyone taking a political office will be sworn in on a bible”. They had no lack of opportunities to do so.
Jefferson wrote something called The Virginia Statute For Religious Freedom,he was quite proud of it, and it specifically states that someone’s religious beliefs should not “affect their civil capacities”.
That doesn’t sound like a ringing endorsement of a government based on “Christian Principles”, however you may define that.
I hope that helps.
But then, those who think the founders of this nation were early versions of Jerry Falwell seem to have problems with logic that interferes with their Happyworld of Ten Commandments on Parade. The very fact that you think something so nebulous as intentions “can’t be argued” says volumes.
By Steve
December 28, 2006 9:34 PM | Link to this
Aquagirl - Can you read at all? Apparently not. I can’t be credibly disputed that the founding fathers, in large part, viewed the US as a Christian nation. That is crystal clear from the writings and history. The fact that they chose not to elevate it to the state sponsored religion is also crystal clear. The only thing you “helped” is providing another example of someone who doesn’t know basic history and is unable to grasp some rather simple distinctions. That explains why you added the idiotic Falwell comment.
By Aquagirl
December 28, 2006 10:28 PM | Link to this
Oh, I can read. Matter of fact I can read what one of the founding fathers wrote:
“that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever…nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief…”
Or what ‘ol Jeff said about dudes like you who…
“assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infalliable, and as such endevoring to impose them on others…
Sounds to me like Thomas Jefferson saw plenty of tiny minds, and made a serious effort to control the Pod People. And I’m the one who can’t read? That seems like pretty clear text to me.
Forgive me if I’m too ignorant to take your unfounded blanket statement that the founding fathers intended for this to be a Christian nation, instead of believing what Jefferson said. I’m not as likely as you to take the Gospel of Pat Roberson in place of actual writings or—gasp!—- actions of the founding fathers.
Just asserting something as “crystal clear” doesn’t make it so, even if it’s clear in your mind. Outside of BibleLand, you need to have facts, not just donkeylike braying.
But stick to your guns, if you have faith, then reality doesn’t matter. I wouldn’t want to upset your applecart of a Newt G./ Sadie Fields/ Ralph Reed world. It’s fading pretty fast already, all you have left are illusions.
By The72John
December 28, 2006 10:49 PM | Link to this
Steve - you’re an idiot. The Founding Fathers were, as aquagirl has pointed out, primarily Deist. That means they believed in a rational Deity who created the universe based on rational rules and then left it to develop as it would. They embraced the ethical systems of Christianity - basically, the ideal of the Golden Rule - and rejected the silly superstitions that today’s evangelicals are so much in love with.
America is a country built on religious freedom. You people who believe that means “Freedom to be Christian, and everyone else be damned” don’t deserve to live in this country. Burn in the Hell of ignorance, stupidity, xenophobia and religious intolerance that you and yours have created for the rest of us. God bless the diversity that this great nation represents. God damn the fools who would reduce us to a Christian version of Afghanistan under the Taliban.
That means YOU, Steve. In case you are too bloody stupid to read between the lines.
By The72John
December 28, 2006 11:22 PM | Link to this
Oh, by the way Steve…Buddhism isn’t a deistic religion. It doesn’t have “gods”. So, when you say things like “they will pay a much larger price for following their sham (and still quite dead) ‘gods.’” you just show your ignorance yet again.
Then again, why doesn’t that surprise me?
By Tator Tot
December 28, 2006 11:23 PM | Link to this
Steve, are you saying the founding fathers were Christians like Ted Haggard, the Christian minister and Bush counselor who snorted meth off the back of his gay hooker while denouncing homosexuals? That sort of Christian? Or the Ralph Reed tricking Injuns sort of Christian?
Anyway, Bush is Lord, right?
You guys are the best!!!
By Son of Tator Tot
December 28, 2006 11:25 PM | Link to this
Hey, Jim and Tom: I’m glad you lazy swine are back at work after that interminable break.
Bring back Jim Minter to crack the whip on you slackers!
Happy New Year!