I Swear ........... So Help Me God
Democratic Minnesota Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, has requested to use the quran for his swearing in ceremony. This of course has caused a bit of a stir, mainly in conservative circles. For me the question to ask is why do we use the bible for swearing in? Is it because we think that swearing in on a book of ones religious beliefs will make them tend to be more honest, or a better person? Or do we continue to use the bible today simply because its an American tradition?
My opinion is, If its the former, based on religious beliefs and what it may or may not do to and for a person, then yeah, he ought to use the quran, quite simply because what good does it do to have a person swear on a book he or she doesn't believe in? But if its the latter, based simply on American tradition, then no he shouldn't be allowed to use the quran. Far too many American traditions have already gone by the wayside.
I believe originally the thinking was that a person would tend to be better after having sworn on the bible, for the bible was, back in the day, a much more forceful instrument than it is now. I'm not saying that it wouldn't serve that purpose for someone who was a staunch believer, just that there aren't as many people today that have the same fear or respect for the bible that once did.
What do you think?
posted by D. Coder | 10:40 PM
5 Comments:
To Whom It May Concern;
First... "Merry Christmas"!
If you don't like my wishing you a Special Christmas Holiday... then as you so often put it... tough!
As to your question about swearing in on the Koran if you are Muslim, I personally do not have problem with that because, for once, I actually agree with you. If a person doesn't believe in the Bible there isn't much 'force' to their 'vow' or 'oath' that they will uphold the responsibilities of their office just because they lay their hands on a 'book' and say some words.
Let me quote Prof. Scott Hahn from SalvationHistory.com on the meaning of 'swearing an oath' on The Bible.
First, contracts involve promises, covenants involve oaths.
When you enter into a contract, say, to buy a house, you make a promise to the seller, along the lines of: "I give you my word that I will pay you this amount of money for your house." The seller, in turn, makes a promise: "I give you my word that if you pay me the sum we have agreed upon, I will turn over to you the deed to my house."
The "word" you each pledge to the other is your name. And you each sign your name on the contract as a "sign" that you'll uphold your end of the bargain or keep your promise.
Covenants are much different. In a covenant, you elevate and upgrade your promise. Not only do you give your word, you also swear an oath, invoke a higher authority - you call God in as your witness.
Think of the oath we're most familiar with, the oath you swear before taking the witness stand in a courtroom: "I promise to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God."
You've promised, given your word to tell the truth. You've also asked God to help you keep your promise. It's not only you and the judge now. It's you, the judge and God. Now, if you lie under oath, you're not only liable to go to jail, you're liable to be punished by God. The flip side of asking for God's help in an oath is surrendering yourself to God's judgment. You say, in effect, "I'll be damned if I don't tell the truth."
In the old days, we used to have politicians swear on the Bible and the Bible would be opened to the Book of Deuteronomy, Chapter 28, where the blessings and the curses are recorded. We were asking them to swear to uphold the constitution or suffer the curses recorded in those pages.
Even in our highly secularized society, we retain elements of this older understanding of oaths. We make doctors, police officers, military personnel and public officials swear oaths. Why? Because we depend on them; we literally put our lives in their hands. We want them to swear to God that they'll do their jobs. We can't just take their word for it, we want them to know that they'll have to answer to a higher authority.
Incidentally, did you know that the word "oath" translates the Latin word sacramentum, where we get our word "sacraments"? In a future course, we'll look sacraments as oaths. But for now, just keep in mind, as we mentioned earlier, that the notion of covenant and oaths is crucial to understanding the sacraments and our relationship with God.
END SALVATIONHISTORY.COM
Literally when a Christian lays their hands on the Bible and swears to uphold their office or 'tell the truth, so help me God', they are saying that if they tell the truth, by God's Hand they will receive all the blessings contained in the Bible or the reverse is also true. They are saying that if they lie, all the curses contained in the Bible will come upon them.
A heady thought when understood properly.
My problem isn't with the Koran.
But I pose a further question, if we allow the Koran, then we would have to cater to every possible group. For example, The Book of Mormon for Mormons or let's get right to the nitty gritty... perhaps we would have someone who believes in Satan who wants to swear in on a Book of Rituals for Satanic practices.
In a case like that you would have someone promising to ... what? To cause chaos and disruption at every chance... perhaps. Then where would a nation founded on Christian principles be?
I submit that it is dilemma. Maybe we could have an "approved list" of books allowed.
I am wishing for you this day a Happy Christmas! I wish you laughter, pure joy, a merry heart and a clear conscience!
Philip Turgati ("sharing the truth, in love" - Eph. 4:15)
www.iamonetruth.com
WoW, long answer. thanks for it tho. a few things came to mind, yes your right we should or would have to allow all the different believers and nonbelievers to swear on that which they hold most dear. but that also makes alot of sense if we really intend the oath to mean what you say, otherwise as i said to swear on that which you dont believe in is useless. ANd if what the pope say is true and we (christians and muslims) both worship the same god then the books are interchangeable and or meaningless because we arent swearing on the books per se, but to god, and there is only one and they are the same.
when you say in the old days the bible was actually opened to the page of blessings and curses, that just sounds so witchcraft or voodoo-like. It doesnt sound like ANY of todays religions, thank god, pun intended.
if sacrement are oaths to god, then god help all the divorced people in this world. No wonder god cant stop all the bad in the world, he way too busy putting curses on people who divorced!
a part that struck me funny was when you said
"someone swearing on a Book of Rituals for Satanic practices. promising to ... what? To cause chaos and disruption at every chance... perhaps. Then where would a nation founded on Christian principles be?
the answer struck me immediately.
SORRY couldnt help but think of BUSH right off. I mean he fits every word of what you said, chaos and disruption at every chance! Thanks youve explained alot. I now have a better idea of how and why we got stuck with him twice!! Someone "oathed" on a Satanic book! probably him.
Happy holidays to you too, whether it be xmas,christmas, kwanzaa, Ramadan (which isnt occuring at this time this year in case you wanted to know), Chanukka (im begining to think its impossible to MIS-spell that holiday ther are so many variations) OR THE ORIGINAL - WINTER SOLSTICE from which like it or not is how christmas with all its trimmings originated. And happy new year
To Whom It May Concern;
Actually as to someone swearing on the Bible and not believing in it I was thinking of our past reprobate President.
For the real reason behind December 25th.
www.iamonetruth.com
My,My,My from first comment to second only nine hours elapsed, but Oh how you've aged! Or is this a father son team?
Anyway thanks again for the comment. However as expected, i say black, you say white, i say up, you say down, i say Bush you say Clinton, whom i also didnt like but do give some credit to. etc. etc. on and on it goes. So that brinhgs us to the origens of christmas and why Dec. 25th. Both are great points of discussion, but neither are for here. I read the article you linked to and found that they do try to downplay or deny any relationship to pagan celebrations, but offer no proof, only threat as in "The origin of Christmas should not be sought in"......... thats a typical do as your told and never question edict from the catholic church that they are so good at. To offer rebuttal here and now is pointless, as it would settle nothing, and again this isnt the right "post" for it. maybe another time, not for either of our benefits, for sure, since we are both so stuborn, but for those who may want to read both sides and judge for themselves. Evidence abounds for Deities born long before jesus BUT on Dec 25th, as well as much earlier uses of various "traditions" we now use during xmas as well as easter by the way. peace and merry christmas my friend
UPDATE:
http://allworldviews.blogspot.com/2007/01/congressman-to-be-sworn-in-using-quran.html
Post a Comment
<< Home