It raises a whole lot of questions, doesn't it Anglo?  But I see nothing wrong with it.  If his faith is in the words of the Koran and he chooses to be sworn in using it, that's his privilege.  The problem would be if he weren't allowed to be sworn in on it.

It'll definitely be a first............

The severe cold up there in the winter must kill brain cells or something. Didn't they elect a Wrastler for Governer awhile back?

These days, electing a Mislem is like electing a Nazzi in the 1940's. In general, it seems like a fairly off-the-wall endeavor..............Whatever............

Let me see..........  The Koran in one hand,  Mien Kamph in the other. 

I choose neither.  I want to swear on a Dick and Jane primer.

AudreyB,

LOL!

If the swearing in ceremony is held at the same time as others using the Bible and the ratio of Christians to Muslims is lets say 10 to 1 are we pushing Christianity on the first [non traditional Jason] Muslim.  I agree with Dgrealish it just raises a lot of questions.  I wonder if the legal Organization mentioned here often will come to  his aid if he feels uncomfortable with all the Biblical invocations in his presence.  Honestly everyone I just wonder about  the long term implications. Do we abandon swearing in ceremonies using religious preferences altogether, I don't know.  It is a new world.

Audrey I know what one is but who is Jane?

There are all kinds of ways to take an oath.  I haven't been sworn-in to testify for about 15 years, but I recall the "so help me God" in the oath, but I replied "I do" to the first part, about telling the truth.  Didn't need any help.

Cecil Adams once did a bit on the various alternative oaths, some of which involve shattering crockery (no, I'm not kidding).  Can't seem to find it, though.

The Presidential oath of office is described in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Oaths of office for other federal and state officials are described in Article VI of the Constitution:

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.

Gee, Pete, I don't see any mention that "so help me God" *OR* a Bible must be there.  Do you think it was left out for a reason?

.

Mattloch, remember the scene in "Oh, God!" in which George Burns takes the stand and swears to tell the truth "So help Me, Me"?

Joseph Story, an early Justice of the Supreme Court and the author of the first detailed commentary on the United States Constitution, comments on the oath or affirmation clause of the Constitution as follows:

Oaths have a solemn obligation upon the minds of all reflecting men, and especially upon those who feel a deep sense of accountability to a Supreme being. If, in the ordinary administration of justice in cases of private rights, or personal claims, oaths are required of those, who try, as well as of those, who give testimony, to guard against malice, falsehood, and evasion, surely like guards ought to be to be interposed in the administration of high public trusts, and especially in such, as may concern the welfare and safety of the whole community. But there are know denominations of men, who are conscientiously scrupulous of taking oaths (among which is that pure and distinguished sect of Christians, commonly called Friends, or Quakers,) and therefore, to prevent any unjustifiable exclusion from office, the constitution has permitted a solemn affirmation to be made instead of an oath, and as its equivalent (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833, pp. 1838ff.).

In other words, the Constitution guarantees all federal and state officials the right to avoid taking oaths of office. Further, the Constitution guarantees that there will be no religious tests for federal office. In the words of Joseph Story, the effect of these provisions is to "cut off for ever every pretense of any alliance between church and state in the national government." Additionally, these clauses moved the Constitution well beyond contemporary state constitutions in terms of their provisions for religious freedom.

How about swearing on your honor?  That has more meaning for me than swearing on a deity.

Turns out there is no Bible involved in Congressional oaths of office.  The right-wing radio host made it all up.

http://thinkprogress.org/20...

Religion has nothing to do with the function of the office. Americans, who are mostly Christians, have the arrogance to think that their religion is the only "true" religion.

The fact that this is even posted as a question is absurd. It seems that every little thing that is different seems to be an issue.

The sun doesn't rise or set on America. It is a good country, the BEST country, but all that we do is right.

Who cares what someone is sweared in with. What possible difference could it make!?

Posted by Drummel:

I'm a little late on this topic BUT

The sole purpose of the oath is to uphold the Constitution. All religion aside.

For the President's oath, "So help me God" was verbally added by George Washington and was traditionally continued there after.

For Senators & Reps, the actual text "So help me God" is in the oath and was voted into law sometime after the Civil War.

This is really interesting to me, if he were Jewish and swore on the Torah, Muslim the Koran, Christian the Bible it is the individual freedom to swear your oath to the laws of this country on the Religious Scriptures of your choice or not.  Pretty amazing isn't it.  As long as they swear to uphold the laws of these U.S. it is their choice.

I just hope the next blog subject isn't about Muslim communities here enforcing Sharia laws and ignoring the laws of the U.S.

I believe that they are "swearing" to uphold the constitution and laws. It is understood, why I don't know, that if someone swears on the bible it has more validity. If that is the case, then a person could swear on what they, not you, believe.

Here's an AOL poll on the topic:

http://articles.news.aol.co...

The results are very disappointing.

I've voiced my criticisms of Islam in the past, but the man was lawfully elected.  I can't think of anything more un-American than telling this man that his holy book of faith is not an acceptable vehicle for taking an oath, and that the book of the "de facto official religion of the United States" must be used instead.

I'd rather see all of them swear, not on the Bible, Quran, Torah, etc..... Instead I'd rather see them swear on

THE CONSTITUTION