Probably as much good as a Muslim oath on the Koran to support a Christian (infidel), or secular (infidel), nation. 
Posted on 11/28/2006 6:35:48 PM PST by 13Sisters76
it is painfully obvious that Dennis Prager and some people on this thread need some constitutional lessons
forcing someone to swear on a Bible is a religious test and is expressly prohibited in the constitution. period
Let me correct you slightly, the constitution does not prescribe an oath specifically for congressman, only for the President. Also you err when you say that Article VI is explicit that any "tome" can be used. Article VI is explicit only about religious tests, not about books or tomes.
However, the development of the current oath has an interesting twist.... It was simple at first but enhanced to focus on loyalty to the US at a period when loyalty could be in doubt. We may be entering another period when members of our government's loyalty will need to be ascertained.
Per the US Senate website:
The Constitution contains an oath of office only for the president. For other officials, including members of Congress, that document specifies only that they "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution." In 1789, the First Congress reworked this requirement into a simple fourteen-word oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."
For nearly three-quarters of a century, that oath served nicely, although to the modern ear it sounds woefully incomplete. Missing are the soaring references to bearing "true faith and allegiance;" to taking "this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;" and to "well and faithfully" discharging the duties of the office.
The outbreak of the Civil War quickly transformed the routine act of oath-taking into one of enormous significance. In April of 1861, a time of uncertain and shifting loyalties, President Abraham Lincoln ordered all federal civilian employees within the executive branch to take an expanded oath. When Congress convened for a brief emergency session in July, members echoed the president's action by enacting legislation requiring employees to take the expanded oath in support of the Union. This oath is the earliest direct predecessor of the modern oath.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Oath_Office.htm
NO democrat intends to uphold the oath of their office.
way to quote me on something I didn't actually say. That took skill...
*shaking head at what this forum is turning into*
Probably as much good as a Muslim oath on the Koran to support a Christian (infidel), or secular (infidel), nation.
The Koran? Not even close. From what I can gather, it's a compilation of 'teachings' of Mohammaed. He didn't write it; I believe he was illiterate. It was written after his death to carry on what he began. He 'borrowed' teachings and ideas from various religions in the Middle East, including Judaism, Christianity, and even Zoroastrianism from Persia.
As someone who live in the 5th CD, a couple of points
1 Ellison has more than enough skeletons in his closet (support for cop killers, support for thr SLA, driving w/o a licence, failure to pay tickets, failure to pay taxes, his Association with the naition of Islam, and failure to speakout on their anti-semitism.
2 If he were a Baptist and held the above positions I'd take him to task, and speak out against him. Hawk1976 maybe you'd like to change the 1st amendment?
3 He's a Muslim, what did you expect him to swear on, the Bhagavad Gita?
"He has a freedom to choose whatever traditions HE holds. That's what the TRADITION of freedom is"
Well said Mike, I Couldn't put it any better.
Jim Wright, Dan Rostenkowsky and "Duke" Cunningham all swore an oath of office on the Holy Bible. Did it matter?
way to quote me on something I didn't actually say. That took skill...
false.....here the "quote".....originally typed and posted by YOU in YOUR post #38:
"This forum needs to look to other things to bash this guy on. "
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1745518/posts?page=38#38
That's totally irrelevant.
Exactly. It's no coincidence that the Religious Test Clause and the Oath or Affirmation Clause are both in the same sentence. Prager is out of his mind.
Somehow I suspect that it's more of a tradition than an official House Rule, and in any case, the House leadership on Jan 3 isn't about to have a problem with it.
That being said, I wonder what will happen when Ellison starts w/ the Arabic when taking the oath?
House members are traditionally sworn in en masse by the Speaker on the first day of Congress immediately after the Speaker of the House is elected and sworn in.
Perhaps you should write Mr Keith "I'm a Muslim" Ellison and inform him of this fact.
The refs to Roosevelt and others not swearing on the bible are worthless. This idiot isn't just "affirming" he's using the Koran. Or perhaps the US would have looked on Teddy favorably had he also swore his oath of office on the Koran.
So the Speaker is elected by a bunch of yet-to-be-sworn-in Representatives? Sounds odd.
House members are traditionally sworn in en masse by the Speaker on the first day of Congress immediately after the Speaker of the House is elected and sworn in.
The House couldn't make such a requirement. The Constitution forbids it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.