Oath on the Koran

Nope. He can break campaign promises just as well as any politician, regardless of what book they use to swear not to.

 

Of what value is there to a Muslim swearing on a book that he believes is invalid? The United States does not have a government established religion, much less denomination. For some time it has not been necessary to swear on the Bible to testify at a trial. Why would you expect this to be different?

The man is a Muslim, not a Christian. The voters chose him.

 

It means nothing to most people who swear on the bible anyway, elected officals who swore on the bible took prayer out of school and made bortion legal, and lie and cheap while in office. I don't see that it matters which book they swore on.

 

I don't think a Koran, a Talmud, a Zohar, or any other antichrist book belongs anywhere near a court room or a swearing in ceremony. Further, I don't think it wise for a Christian nation to select the heathen to rule over them.

As to the Holy Bible, it should be opened and used as the foundation for law but I think it improper to swear upon it.

"But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation." - James 5:12​

 

We have a secular constitution which requires that there be no religious tests for public office. Swearing on any holy book is up to the politician. It is not required by the Constitution of the United States. For that matter, the phrase "so help me God" is NOT part of the Presidential oath of office proscribed in the Constitution either, and is not required.

 

We are rapidly becoming the country of the anti-christ . . . .

 

Yep, first a foothold, next a stronghold. :tear:

 

Turns out that an elected official can use any religious book, or none at all, when taking the oath of office. I suppose he'd be more serious about it, if he used the book he believed.

I know I would.

 

Thanks for the welcome, LadyEagle.

Yes, you're right, but if Elison takes his oath on the Koran, he will be the first Congressman ever not to have taken it on the Bible.

There have been many Jews that didn't insist the NT be removed before they took the oath, Elison is not doing much at all to reassure Americans that he's not beholden to CAIR and the Nation of Islam.

 

I have no problem with him using the Koran.

 

Streaks are meant to be broken.

 

The only problem I can see with swearing on the koran is that it's a little like taking an oath to lie and kill "infidels".:jesus:

It's the same as not taking an oath at all, so why bother?

 

That's probably true, but what is your source?

Are you saying that there have been some who did?

 

I would rather each take the oath on the "Bible" of his religion. It breaks down at the Muslim religion, because the Koran instructs them to lie if necessary in dealings with infidels. So Ellison can take the oath with a smile on his face and murder in his heart.

 

Oh puh-leeze! You know his heart? The answer is no, you don't.

 

My point was Elison should be distancing himself from CAIR and the Nation of Islam.

The article I posted was the source. This:

Also, here:

 

He doesn't have to know his heart to know he "can" have murder in his heart, but he also may not have murder in his heart.

On the other hand , if Elison knows the koran, which I assume he does, he may know that by swearing on it, that clears the way for him to lie to us infidels and work in concert with those of his brethren that wish us dead without breaking his oath.

I'd rather he not take an oath at all.

 

I didn't say I know his heart. I said "he can," not that he would or could.

Do you think Islam is good? In any way? Please elucidate. I would prefer an athiest any time.

 

What were the voters in MN thinking? :tear: