Should Congressman-elect Keith Ellison be allowed to take his oath on the Qur'an because he is Muslim?
930516
Absolutely. Being forced to swear on a Bible would violate the Constitution, which forbids religious tests as qualifications for public office.\n\nArticle VI of the Constitution of the United States of America reads, in part:\n\nThe 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.
717561
There is nothing more dangerous than a political leader saying that "God spoke to me."  Kings have done that.  Despots have done that.  That's what Ayatollahs and Imams and muslim cleric/leaders do every single day ... "Allah spoke to me and said ... ."  \n\nI have no problem with a President having private prayers, and perhaps even private conviction that God answers his prayers ... convictions that he shares with his family and his minister.  Who am I to say God did *not* speak to him.  But the danger is not God talking to him privately *as a man* ... but him emerging from his personal sphere and declaring this private conversation with God openly *as the President of the United States*.  When he declares this private conviction openly to the American public ... appealing to their *faith* as justification for supporting him ... then this pits "our American God" against "their false God" ... our faith, our God, is the right one and any opponent who claims to speak to God must be a false.  It gives legitimacy to other religious leaders who do the same with their people.\n\n... and this is the precise recipe for a religious war between fanatical sides.  And there is nothing more long-lasting, or bloody, or unsolvable.\n\nThis is *precisely* why the founders wanted to keep religion as far away from power as possible.  Power, in the hands of someone claiming divine righteousness, is a deadly Holy War waiting to happen.
127832
well, as a muslim myself, i think i would turn him in. he is not a true muslim, because islam is a religion of peaceful coexistance with other religions. I would turn him in because he is a terrorist, and someone who is a leader of a terrorist group, and kills someone should be executed even by islamic law. so i would turn him in.
1045945
"One Muslin [sic] cleric who's doing his best to build bridges between the Western and Muslim worlds is Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, the founder of the Cordoba Initiative, a multi-faith effort to increase understanding and tolerance between Islam and the United States and the West."\n\n[Shhhhhh, the NSA might be listening...]
671234
A branch of Islamic is Muslim, and it's the Muslims that are doing all the stuff in the Middle East. The suiside bombings and stuff like that. I'm not sure if this guy is a Muslim, but the president of Iran wants Isreal blown off of the map. Let's just say that we better not give this guy any uranium!
872672
Yes he has!!!\n\nBush as successfully bypassed Congress over 800 times using what is called executive orders...\n\nSome of those executive orders were for his Faith-Based Initiative programs that clearing violate separation of church and state; therefore, are unconstitutional. The fact that they were unconstitutional in itself constitutes 'too much religion' interwoven in the government.\n\nIE, HR 921 moved the Faith-Based Initiative headquarters within the Homeland Security department. What does that tell you? It tells me that defending against terrorism has something to do with Christianity.\n\nThe only reason no politician has challenged these is because of politics... painting them as anti-religious.
448860
Unfortunately yes, a bill is being reviewed in Congress over the possible ban of religious texts upon public transportation.  Luckily its not a very popular bill.  Seems like a violation of the separation of church and state clause in the constitution.
40450
The first part of the First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"\n\nCongress does not have to pass a law explicitly delcaring a religion a 'National Religion' to establish it. You can establish an official religion de facto by banning the practices of other religions or favoring a religious belief above that of other religious beliefs for the purpose of promoting that religion.\n\nIt is a violation of the establishment clause (and the free exercise clause and the free speech clause of the 1st; and the equal protection clause of the 14th) for the federal government to favor one religious perspective over another unless it is for secular reasons. (like if one religious perspective is against murder and the other is for it) Madison, who is considered the "Father of the Constitution" and Jefferson called this principle the "seperation of church and state."\n\nSince the post-Civil War Amendments, all levels of government are held to the same standard of protecting rights as the federal government.\n\nAll it means is that the government can't play favorites. They have to allow everyone the same ability to express their opinions on religion in the same ways and the same manner. They can't let one group invite speakers to a University and ban another; let one perspective be promoted by government employees in public schools but not another; or erect a religious monument for one view but not another.\n\nMost of the legal debates over the "establishment clause" is whether or not a specific practice is for religious or secular reasons and whether citizens are given special treatment for certain religious speech but not others.\n\nSo the short answer is that if you entangle church and state, you have the government favoring certain religious speech and beliefs above other certain religious speech and beliefs, which establishes religion and impedes free exercise.
859823
probably in the koran somewhere...
860923
It's not in the Quran.  It means that this congressman is bragging about how serious he is about not eating pork.  \nHe should've put it in another way.  It does sound rather offensive. \nIf he were to watch his wife being raped it's just as bad, if not  worse than eating pork.\nMuslim husbands are told in the Quran to respect their wives.
667718
No it's not, I'm a muslim and this is allowed. Islam is a very very very good Faith.
356472
i don't think so, the law shouldn't be affected by the church. and if you're Muslim and want to vote, wouldn't you feel unconfortable in a church?  I think that only Christians would vote if the elections were held in churches, and that isn''t democracy.
614181
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO\n\nread this please:-\n\n"Let There Be No Compulsion in Religion."\nSurah Al Baqarah, verse 256  the holy Quran\nby Sheikh Sami Al-Majid \n(with notes by Sheik Yusuf Estes)\n \nWhat Does Islam Say About "Forcing People in Religion?"\n\nA basic and fundamental truth established by the sacred texts of Islam (Quran and Hadeeth) is that: - "No one can be compelled to accept Islam!"\n\nIt is the duty of the Muslims to establish proof of validity of Islam to the people in order for the truth to be distinct from falsehood. Once that is done, whoever wishes to accept Islam may do so and whoever wishes to continue upon their belief may do so. No one is to be threatened or harmed in any way should they chose not to accept Islam.\n\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nNote: It is not only forbidden to compel someone to accept Islam - it is impossible to do so.\n\n \nread more here in this link\n\nhttp://www.islamtomorrow.com/kill.asp
83142
I do.  Ok, haven't you seen it?  It's true!! And I have read the Koran.  I didn't see where it forbid the depiction of the prophet.\nBut even if it did, why are the muslims trying to make non muslims obey THEIR laws.  They are violently pushing their religion on those that choose not to follow it.\n\nI support the right of anyone to believe, print and draw whatever the heck they want!  And if the muslims are offended, tough, that's life.
884439
I obey the Constitution. No religious test shall be required for holding any public office in the United States and the 1st Amendment guarantee of the free exercise of religion. In the name of obeying our Constitution, using the Koran is perfectly fine by me.
1162331
The wording in the constitution is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".\n\nThere is no statement about freedom FROM religion, with good reason.  One can imagine that one is free from forceful imposition of religion, and therefore can choose "no religion" as your set of beliefs; but we can't enforce a rule that one is free from encountering religion.  In other words, the U.S. government can't establish a church or restrict others from doing so.  It also can't inhibit others from expressing their religion legally, even if it offends others.  That's the nature of freedom.  It works the same way with free speech...we don't restrict it even when people are saying things we don't like.  \n\nFreedom is an incredibly valuable thing, and it is threatened by those who rank their own feelings higher than the principles the nation was founded upon.  Freedom FROM religion, if broadly defined, is a threat to freedom OF religion.  Freedom FROM speech is a serious threat to freedom OF speech. FROM gives authority to restrict speech or religion.  People who don't understand that will lose freedom rapidly.
1067836
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."\n\nThere is nothing in the Constitution about a "separation of church and state." Congress is not allowed to pass laws forcing people to participate in one religion or another, and they are not allowed to stop people from practicing their religion. This does not mean that a politician can not use his religious beliefs to form his opinions, character, and doings.