Yes, it’s truly heartening that in future, candidates of alternative religions will be rigourously judged on what book they’re going to use in a photo op, rather than, like, policies and shit. Man, we really dodged a bullet there!
And if you think he was not talking about the revelation in the bible we have this:
– Letter to General Alexander Smyth, on the book of Revelation (or The Apocalypse of St. John the Divine) (Jan. 17, 1825)
I think Ellison is even more brilliant for using the Koran of Jefferson, anyone that bothers to investigate will then learn that the founding father could be considered today to be a conservative Unitarian, IMO this maneuver shows Prager to be an even bigger fool.
Considering the source this email is probably not true. Especially considering my congressman is Perter Roskam, not James R. Newhell, though it’s a great name. However, I thought I’d share and, as it is a press release, I assume it is free of all copyright encumbrances and I can post it in full, especially since it doesn’t appear to be copyrighted:
Dropzone, I’ve subscribed to The Door for many years now, and I’d bet my lunch money it’s not true, but it is good. That was in the latest issue of The Door, along with various other good stuff.
It gives us more information about the candidate. If a person doesn’t have to swear on any book, but chooses to, I think it is of great importance to him. And that is of importance to me as a voter.
Why? Is there any framer of the Constitution or contributor to the birth of our nation who held that a man’s religion or lack thereof should have any bearing on his suitability to hold public office? I linked to this in my above post, but it bears requoting:
That he is willing to throw away American tradition in favor of his religion. Especially sinceh is doing so was voluntary. That is certainly his right. And it is our right to know, which we do. Some will be fine with that (if they know in advance). Others won’t. The people will decide.
Yet, that is not what the Constitution says. Since what you cite predates the Constitution—and I think it’s fair to assume that Madison and the other founders were aware of the Virginia Statute—they actively chose to not use such expressive language. If that is what they intended, why did they deviate from perfectly good language penned by the master himself?
There is The Estasblishment Clause which ensures anyone can practice the religion they desire, and the no religous test clause in Article 6, which means that someone cannot be barred from office because of his religion.
It does not say we have to vote for anyone in spite of their religion. If a Scientologist was running for office many on this board would not vote for him for that reason. Is that a violation of Article 6? I don’t think so.
If, in the Ellison case, he was required to swear on a book, you’d have a stronger arguement. But it was totally voluntary. So there was no religious doctrine dictating his action. It was a choice he made and we are free to assess him on that choice.
And probably copyrighted there. Since I only receive their emails and not the hard copy and since the email was NOT copyrighted I’m pleading ignorance. I’m sure The Door would like the publicity, anyway.
Piffle. He actually reinforced American tradition: he used his photo-op to demonstrate that he was a man of faith who was willing to make a commitment to integrity by publicly demonstrating that he held his religious faith as a high principle that governs his actions. That is exactly the tradition established by George Washington.
Given the significant number of elected officials who have chosen to pledge their intentions by swearing on other texts, not even all religious, it would be utterly foolish to claim that the “tradition” is that of using the particular Christian bible. That “tradition” was broken years ago.