[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
This whole oath with the Koran could be very interesting. As I understand it, the custom is that one must raise his right hand and place his left hand on the scriptures.
Apparently, in Islam, the left hand is unclean.
From http://www.safarix.com/0131835637/ch05lev1sec3
[/QUOTE]
I don’t care one bit which hand a person places on his holy book. Do you?
And the relevant legal stuff just says they have to swear (or affirm). Not only doesn’t it mention which hand to put on the relevant book, it doesn’t say there has to be a book.
“Custom” is not law, The Flying Dutchman.
To put it another way then, is there no problem with raising your left hand for oath or affirmation ?
I’m not sure if the SCOTUS has weighed in on this, but requiring an elected official to swear in on a particular holy book would almost certainly violate the constitutional ban on religious tests as a condition of holding office.
[QUOTE=hajario]
We have already had four presidents (Pierce, Hayes, T. Roosevelt and L. Johnson) take an oath without the Bible.
[/QUOTE]
LBJ was sworn in on a Roman Catholic Missal, a religious text. There were some at the time who felt that this act was illegal and inexcusable, since a Bible was aavailable on the plane. I did not know about the others! How did the public view these swearing in acts?
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
This whole oath with the Koran could be very interesting. As I understand it, the custom is that one must raise his right hand and place his left hand on the scriptures.
Apparently, in Islam, the left hand is unclean.
From http://www.safarix.com/0131835637/ch05lev1sec3
[/QUOTE]
A custom is not a law. There is no Constitutional requirement that a Congressman “must” do anything but only that they “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.”
There is no specified protocol for how to swear the oath and no religious text is required at all, much less any requirements about which hands to put where. You don’t even have to raise a hand. All you’re actually required to do is say the words.
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
To put it another way then, is there no problem with raising your left hand for oath or affirmation ?
[/QUOTE]
I think that would probably be discriminatory against people without an/both arms. So no.
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
Apparently, in Islam, the left hand is unclean.
[/QUOTE]
I believe that it is also improper to have anything resting on top of the Koran. So the best way might be to hold the Koran in the right hand, and raise the right hand with the Koran in it. (And, as others have said, this is all just custom, and not legally obligated at all.)
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
To put it another way then, is there no problem with raising your left hand for oath or affirmation ?
[/QUOTE]
None whatsoever. You can raise anything you want or nothing at all.
Does anyone know what Max Cleland did? He doesn’t have a right arm.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
None whatsoever. You can raise anything you want or nothing at all.
[/QUOTE]
:dubious:
What did Clinton raise?
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
You can raise anything you want or nothing at all.
[/QUOTE]
That might be facilitated by being sworn in on the Miss January centerfold.
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
To put it another way then, is there no problem with raising your left hand for oath or affirmation ?
[/QUOTE]
What problem would there be?
We do, however, frown on people who raise one hand, and then cross the fingers of the other hand behind their backs. 
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
A custom is not a law. There is no Constitutional requirement that a Congressman “must” do anything but only that they “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.”
There is no specified protocol for how to swear the oath and no religious text is required at all, much less any requirements about which hands to put where. You don’t even have to raise a hand. All you’re actually required to do is say the words.
[/QUOTE]
You can bet one of these stupid religious zealots will try to make it law. They’re no better than the nutcases in the middle east.
[QUOTE=Steve MB]
[ . . . ]
In any case, given Congresscritters’ record for taking the oath of office seriously, they might as well swear them in on a copy of The Book of the Sub-Genius while playing “Yakity Sax”.
[/QUOTE]
If the gummint put that on pay-per-view, they might clear enough to put a sizable dent in the national debt. I know I’d cough up a pretty penny to see it.
I can’t find it in the Archives, but The Master did a column on alternative courtroom oaths. The relevant section:
[QUOTE=OttoDaFe]
If the gummint put that on pay-per-view, they might clear enough to put a sizable dent in the national debt. I know I’d cough up a pretty penny to see it.
I can’t find it in the Archives, but The Master did a column on alternative courtroom oaths. The relevant section:
[/QUOTE]
I agree! The idea that a congressman would WORRY about taking an oath-it is hilarious! as Mark Twain once said (of the US Congress):'..“a remarkable institution..it begins with a prayer and ends with an indictment!” :smack:
Do we really need two (or more) pages to say “Dennis Praeger is a moron”?
If you’re swearing to uphold the Constitution, wouldn’t it be more meaningful to be holding a copy of the Constitution?
[QUOTE=Baldwin]
That’s truly bizarre. Near as I can make it out, the basis for the columnist’s rant is the claim that the Bible is the official American book of swearing-in.
Probably a stupid question – is there any legal basis for that assertion at all? Surely not, and if so, we really oughta fix that.
[/QUOTE]
You actually aren’t required to swear an oath. You can simply publicly affirm that you will do the job to the best of your ability.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
At first, I thought Prager’s column was an amazing exercise in ignorance, inolerance, mindless hatred and stupidity…then I read the comments. :eek:
Have I been living in a bubble? Are Christian conservatives really this insane as a rule? Is the gibbering idiocy and hatred on that board really representative of Christian conservatives in general or is that just the extreme of the extreme? Please tell me the majority aren’t like that. Reading those comments is like reading the Stormfront site.
[/QUOTE]
The Religious Right isn’t an easy group to pin down. After a certain point I have a hard time distinguishing the average conservative christians from the extreme ones. But I might be saying this because of ingroup/outgroup bias.
Anyway, I don’t think Dobson would quite go along with Prager here, but he’d be pretty close. I think he’s just a little to the left of that. He seems to be a good indicator of what most of the religious right thinks about a given topic.