What do you think: Oath of office on the Koran?
From Townhall.com:
Related: Jennifer left the link to her husband's article written earlier this year which provides an interesting analogy between child training and political correctness. Definitely some food for thought.
Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.Read the full article by Dennis Praeger and then I'd love to hear what you think and why.
Related: Jennifer left the link to her husband's article written earlier this year which provides an interesting analogy between child training and political correctness. Definitely some food for thought.
posted by Crystal Paine at 7:37 AM
45 Comments:
Oh my! Words fail... this is unimaginable and I can't believe they are allowing it. If one wants to take an oath of office on the Koran, one should not be holding an office in the United States.
Beyond the simple fact that one should not be able to choose any book other than the Bible to take an oath of office, is the point that Islam is out to destroy our country. To allow a muslim to take an oath of American office on a book which calls for our demise is absolutly shocking and downright traitorous. The really sad part is that not only is this happening right under our noses and out in the open... it's actually being condoned! Doesn't seem quite fair to Benedict Arnold.
It is mind boggling to think that in five short years since the worst attack in the history of our country we have a congressman being sworn into office on the actual guidebook of the very religion that attacked us. How can this possibly happen?
This grieves me on many levels. In New York you can choose your own gender and now you can choose what book to take an oath of office on? Yet another absolute being removed, thereby opening the door for who knows what. What would our founding fathers think of this? I can only begin to imagine. May the Lord help us.
Jennifer
P.S. My husband wrote a short article that touches on similar points as the article you linked to (which was excellent)http://www.old-paths.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=135&Itemid=39
I respect and appreciate Mr. Ellison's honoring of the Christian Scriptures in this way.
His decision to make his oath of office on the Koran is a reminder that these texts are the sacred canons of distinct faith traditions, that bind their adherents to certain codes of conduct that in turn effect their communities. The Bible is not the USA's tool nor legal document, and to treat is as such is to denigrate its sanctity as the Word of GOD. Mr. Ellison has refused to relativize the Christian Scriptures, just as he has refused to relativize the Koran. I applaud him.
I see his point, but I think he's taking it too far. First, what does it matter that elected officials take their oaths on the Bible? IT DOESN'T MATTER TO THEM. If they did, we'd certainly see many differences in how the government is run. Political maneuvering would be a thing of the past - instead, everyone would "consider others as more important than himself." Party fights would look more like, "No, I think YOU have the interest of the American people better in mind."
"It is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- my culture trumps America's culture," Mr. Praeger says. Well, yeah, for the believer, our culture DOES trump America's culture. And Mr. Praeger thinks America holds the Bible as its holiest book? I'm sorry - which country is he living in? It's certainly not the same one I'm living in.
He almost got me with the whole "what if a racist wanted to swear on Mein Kampf?" argument, but then I thought: Let's just stop swearing on books at all. It doesn't mean anything to anyone but the believer; for everyone else it's a mockery of a holy God and His holy Word, because it's done without thought. It's meaningless vanity, and to most people, those oaths aren't worth they paper they're sworn on.
Ok, this might be an extremely unpopular opinion, but I think it is the right thing for the government to allow it. Here is my reasoning:
We are a nation of freedom of religion. That right is protected in the first ammendment. Therefore the practice of Islam (while horrible and pagan and so obviously false) is not illegal. I think it is his constitutional right to be able to take an oath of office on his own religious text.
Think of the Christians who believe based on Matthew 5:33-37 that swearing or taking an oath is sinful. Should they be forced to swear by the Bible when they believe that it is wrong to take an oath at all? No, I think any instance where the government reaffirms the right to freedom of religion is a good thing.
If we have a problem with a Muslim taking office by swearing by the Koran, we should not be upset at our government for allowing it, but rather make it our duty or goal to bring all of these Muslims to belief in Jesus.
i'd rather see him pledge on a book he believes in and if people are pledging their word on the bible and dont believe in it, i'd rather they dont touch it...
i dont think the bible is a tool of america and i honour the man for not being a hypocrite..as well i dont think the koran is out to destroy america...i think militants are....
celina in canada
Religious tolerance is one of the basic building blocks of this country. Many of the settlers came here to escape religious persecution. It's these freedoms that not only allow people to follow their own religion, but allow people to write articles such as this.
If you want to be technical, a person swearing on something they don't believe in can't be held to their statements. "I know I swore on the Bible, I don't believe in it."
Michael
Of course he should be made to swear on the bible! Why should an exception to the rules for this man? That's kind of like saying if you don't like the stop sign at the corner, complain and they'll change it to a yield sign!
Interestingly, it apparently is not a requirement for the President to take the oath of office by a hand being placed on the Bible as a few Presidents reportedly have not. The President does take the actual oath before we see the photo-op public oath, correct? The Congress takes the oath as a group and without the requirement of a Bible for individuals(though "so help me God" is at the end of the Congressional Oath yet not at the end of the Presidential though it is often tacked on by Presidents)??? So maybe this Muslim gent is speaking of the private photo-op?
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pibible.html
I think the United States been on a slippery slope for years when it comes to the separation of Church and state(foundationally speaking, state is to stay out of the Church of God of the Bible, not the other way around); this is just one more thing showing us how far we've come from our early beginnings(Puritan movement versus tolerance of anything and everything under the heading of promoting peace).
I can respect someone admitting that if he swore on the Bible it would only be a lie because the Bible means nothing to him better than those who swear on it and proceed as if it means nothing to him. Not all Muslims take the Koran literally just as not all Christians take the Bible literally so assuming that the man is treasonous and wanting to do away with all us infidels is a little extreme. I guess the quesion is should we just kick every Muslim out of the US because some think that all Muslim are out to kill us? Do we live in a county where there is a freedom to worship however you choose or is only that everyone should worship as we want them to?
This situation is so much deeper than somone placing their hand on the Bible or the koran. As Americans, we have allowed...even welcomed, the "fox into the chicken house"! Moslems , if they follow their koran, do not want Christians to live. Their death is celebrated. So haven't we just voted in someone into office who is going to work for our country's destruction? When you stop and think of all the secret documents and information this man will be able to give to the "enemy" and our government will just be handing it to him! Aren't we just asking for another 9-11? WAKE UP, AMERICA!!
Ruth, PA
Unless there is a law stating no one can take office without swearing on the Bible,then I guess it is okay for Ellison to use the Koran.
... the law on point is the First Amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
So I guess the question we really need to ask is "Should a Muslim be allowed to be a Congressman?" Do any here really belive that a Muslim should pledge an oath over the Bible? What would that oath mean? Isn't that blasphame. Wouldn't he be mocking our Bible to do so?
I have a different take on this. I don’t think anyone elected to office (or anywhere else) should swear on anything at all. Christ was very clear about that, in my opinion.
Matthew 5:33-35
“Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.’ But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.
I think this could easily be extended to HIS word. When a man gives his word, it should be enough.
James 5:12
“But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath. But let your “Yes” be “Yes,” and your “No,” “No,” lest you fall into judgment.”
While swearing on the Bible might seem like a nice tradition, it shouldn’t be necessary for anyone to use a specific book. His word should be enough.
And since, Mr. Ellis doesn’t believe in the Bible, it would mean even less to him. I don’t think Mr. Ellis is more or less honest because he uses the Koran. I have a problem that he was elected at all, especially since he is of a religion that states it is his duty to kill Christians and “infidels”. But Mary made a good point. Just because he is a Muslim, doesn’t mean that he believes everything in it. Just as people who call themselves Christians, don’t believe everything in the Bible.
I guess we will just have to watch and see.
Just my two cents.
This is a very interesting topic. Thanks for bring it up, Crystal. Helps us all sharpen our "swords" so to speak :)
I hope everyone has a great day.
Leigh
Should a Muslim...or someone of any faith other than Christianity...be a Congressman?
According to what I read on Wikipedia, the Constitution specifies in Article VI, clause 3:
"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."
This allows for affirmation(a person's yes means yes and no means no) rather than swearing/oath taking for those of that faith conviction.
Regardless of the direction the U.S. has taken since the 1700's, government was still instituted by God, still has leadership in place according to His sovereinty, still is accountable to Him concerning upholding righteousness, and still has a place in the overall picture being worked toward His glory and the good(being conformed to the image of Christ/God) of those that are His. Got His Word on it so no point in the Sheep doing other than resting in the Shepherd; He still leads beside still waters when the going gets rough. An oath of office, the Qur'an, a Muslim...none of those things has taken Him by surprise concerning current times in the United States(even sorely divided).
Thanks for the interesting dialogue on this. Keep the thoughts coming! My husband and I have been having some good discussion on this and right now, I can't say either of us have any concluding thoughts. Part of me thinks, "Ick! I don't want someone swearing on the Koran - why do we always have to be so PC?" The other part of me thinks, "Isn't it blasphemy to swear on a Bible when you don't believe in the Bible?"
One of the biggest problems lies, I think, in how lightly vows are taken nowadays - from marriage vows, to court oaths, and likewise. Vows and oaths have lost the grave significance they once have. In addition, our country has moved so far from its original foundations that I'm surprised anyone ever swears on a Bible at all. We might as well swear on a book on humanism, since that is the all-prevailing religion.
Just some raw thoughts - my brain is still grappling with this from a legal and Constitutional standpoint, but more importantly, a Biblical standpoint.
There long has been a battle waging concerning truth, Crystal...absolute and relative. Those of us that genuinely know God know real freedom is in the absoluteness of His Truth. Always has been. Always will be. He never changes and His ways are still relative to the times.
This country, if it remains on the current course heading, is destined for enslavement as a result of those fostering and gaining strongholds of liberal values(void of Him); in grave error too many have perceived winking at sin as freedom. We all know the demise history shares of peoples that likewise didn't bless the Lord. It's well with the soul, though...we have the Book with the beginning through to the end of the story(and, surprise to some, the nation that always has been His favored isn't the U.S., nor does the story revolve around the U.S.). God is good and He still requires leaders to be honored with love and prayer.
I am in the same boat as Crystal. I don't think we should be swearing on anything. However, this tradition of taking an oath is from our Judeo-Christian heritage. Our country was founded on the values of the Judeo-Christian religions and the Bible is the foundation for those values. The Koran is not. Just look at the countries that were founded with the values held in the Koran. They are some of the most backward countries in the world.
I think the Bible swearing is done partly, with respect to our culture and history. The bible is a big part of American history and culture, whether you believe in it or not. To remove it and replace it with a Koran seems disrespectful to Americans and our history. Would a Christian be able to swear on a Bible in Iraq before he took office? No.
As far as the argument about the US appearing more tolerant to other countries, yah, right! Muslims would still want Americans dead no matter how "tolerant" we look. Look at how the pope has been groveling after his remarks. He is trying so hard to be a peacemaker(even praying in a mosque) and there is still protesting in Turkey. A "secular" Muslim country, too. I don't see too many Muslim leaders going around appologizing to our leaders for 9/11 in Christian churches. Maybe if we started rioting to prove how peaceful we are we would see more of them.
But I digress...
I guess my short I-haven't-thought-it-through answer would be, to that Muslim elected official, NO! This is Amercia. You use the Bible. Respect our traditions or get out!
Of course, I might need to exercise a little tolerance myself.; )
I'm in Canada and the Member of Parliament (kindof like Congressman) for my riding is a Muslim. I don't think it's ever been an issue. He's been re-elected term after term.
I think at the bottom line, it comes down to the Golden Rule. In a country with a Muslim majority but a significant Christian minority (Turkey or Ethiopia for example) how would you feel about a Christian being forced to swear on the Koran?
I don't get the PC comment or reference. Are you saying "He's in America now so he needs to use our Bible, he has to give up his religion?"
Let me add this history note - Franklin Pierce the 14th President did not swear on anything but simply affirmed the oath.
Neither Teddy Roosevelt nor Calvin Coolidge took their oaths of office on the Bible, and I'm pretty sure that John Quincy Adams didn't, either. There is precedent for using something other than the Bible.
The Constitution says that there will be no religious test to hold office in the United States, and forcing non-Christians to be sworn in on the Christian holy book seems to violate that. This is not a Christian country, no matter how much we may wish it to be, and acting as if it is seems kind of silly.
I am Anonymous who questioned why we want to label this about political correctness. I haven't been able to sign in with my blogger account for some reason. sorry.
Mary
I am shocked and appalled that you think there is something wrong with this. The whole point of the United States is for people to have personal freedome, particularly when it comes to religion. If one chooses not to believe in Christianity, the Bible has no relevance for them or their beliefs. Presumably the reason for taking an oath on the Bible at all is that Christians would view it as swearing to God to do whatever it is and that it brings in another level of loyalty. Would one take an oath sworn on say, the dictionary as seriously as an oath on the Bible? From your responses here, I would assume not. But for a non-Christian, swearing on the Bible would be just as meaningless.
Personally I don't think the Koran or the Bible or the Torah or Bhagavad Vita or the Tao Te Ching or whatever should be involved in anything government related.
Actually, Anonymous, the Bible has relevance for everyone but some will not admit it until the day when "every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord." Without the Bible and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, we have no basis for morality. Whether non-believers want to own up to it or not, our country was founded upon Biblical principles. All of our founding documents point to God - the God of the Bible. Even though our country has tried to run from God and sought to root out all evidences of Christianity and replace it with humanism, God's Word and God's Truth still stands. And it will stand forever.
With all that said, though, I'm still not sure what I think about someone swearing on a Bible - God's Word - which they completely and utterly disregard, have no respect for, and are living their life in opposition to.
Mary: Were you referring to my PC comment? If so, I think I was a bit vague - what I was referring to is how sometimes it really irks me when the government, mainstream media, and other entities bend over backwards to accomodate minorities or supposed "minorities." For instance, if you are a Caucasian male, you have a much harder time getting into law school, getting scholarships, and getting good grades. Law schools are purposely pandering to females, those of other ethnic backgrounds than Caucasian, and sodomites. And they will often publically say this - even though most law schools have more females than males attending! As a Caucasian male, my husband spent all of his law school as an "underdog."
This is just one tiny example of something which happens in almost every realm. We've taken the whole politically correct thing to astonishing levels of bizarity in my opinion and I wonder when or if it will ever stop.
In the same way, it seems the PC thing to do right now is to pander to Moslems - to bend over backwards to accomodate them when Caucasian Christians (or even just Caucasians) would never get the same treatment. People are always so worried about being PC - we never want to offend anyone. Oh, but Christians or Caucasians - who cares about offending them?
You are so right about male Caucasions being the underdog in college, now. My husband came from a poor family, but he was not able to get any scholarships for college because of his sex and color. His friend, who is whiter than me (my eyes are brown and his are blue)had a Spanish sounding name and got endless calls for scholarships because of his "ethnic" heritage.
It's racism if you ask me. Didn't want to get off the subject.
I think I spelled "Caucasian" wrong. ooops. It's really late.
I suppose my take on this, as a Born-again believer..is..who cares? If leaders are swearing on the Bible, let me tell you, it's a farce. If a person tries to compare Biblical principles and the fallen, corrupt, human government of the USA, they are sorely mistaken. This is the American government, not the kingdom of God.
Although I realize that certain people like to act like this country should be a theocracy, it shouldnt. Our founders were trying to escape a theocracy, not start a new one. On a personal note, I never want the government telling me how to worship, and I shudder at the thought. Therefore, I'd not want them telling others how to worship or limiting their religious freedoms. I would be a hypocrite if I did.
One final note, on the subject of Christians being offended. It seems as if many believers I know are incensed at the idea of people other than themselves being recognized or protected. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isnt this backward? Followers of Christ are to be humble and servant minded, not worrying about their rights & freedoms and getting upset and ' offended' when they feel they have been slighted.
But imo, thats a huge problem today- far too much involvement with religion/politics in the American church, and Christians being way too concerned about ' their rights.'
One of the contributors at my blog raised these really excellent issues in a post from yesterday:
I'm curious about this from a Muslim perspective. Can a good Muslim, in good faith, take an oath to serve a country that does not follow Muslim law? Given all of the fatwas pronounced against the U.S. by Muslim imams, is Ellison compromising his faith by serving the U.S. government?
And here is another question: What kind of Qu'ran are they going to use? My understanding is that the only true Qu'ran is one written in Arabic, but no non-Muslim is allowed to touch one of these. Will they use an English translation of the Qu'ran? And if so, is that really taking a vow on the Qu'ran?
Food for thought...
By the way, just to clarify my statements, I'm in no way surprised that Christians are not given the same rights and privileges other religions are - it is clear from Scripture that we will be hated of all men for the sake of Christ and the Gospel. However, I was just giving that as an example of how warped the whole "PC" thing is.
MM, those were very interesting questions brought up. Thanks for mentioning them.
I suppose I just dont understand Christians being concerned about ' their rights', at all. Throughout Scripture, Jesus isnt concerned about being persecuted, He doesnt bash those who are persecuting Him.
In fact, He loved them.
Somehow, it seems highly unlikely that Jesus would have ever formed focus groups or groups dedicated to protecting ' Christian rights', nor would He have ranted & raved and projecting hatred on those who disagreed with Him. This attempt to Christianize the nation through attempting to only elect so-called "Christian" politicians ( I use that term loosely as politicans lovvve to throw that term Christian around to get people to vote for them), passing " Christian" laws ( again, use the term loosely), have teams of lawyers and lobbyists...Im sorry, but something is wrong here.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Jesus wasnt all that concerned with humanistic governments, He was concerned with the people. More specifically, concerned with radically demonstrating sacrificial, servant-minded love and winning over their hearts.
As a white female college student, I am always taken aback when race is t hrown into the mix. I've heard people talk about how the white race is endangered, all of these awful evil other races are going to take over and we'll be persecuted, etc..all kinds of inflammatory fear mongering. Funny, I had no problem getting into college, and I've had none since.Neither have my white male counterparts. My thoughts are this- I'm fairly certain the white race is in no danger of becoming extinct. However, if it did, who cares? My identity isnt in a skin color, its not in a sector of the population, it is in Jesus Christ and Him alone.
I wonder what would happen if the American church backed off politics, left them to be personal opinions, not religious/nationalistic agendas, and instead spent the time and billions of dollars normally thrown at lobbyists ...to love people? To demonstrate in tangible, physical ways the sacrifice Jesus made for all of us- and attempted to mimic His actions and live as He did?
Just a thought.
Btw, I'm not trying to be anonymous, I just have a xanga account and not one here. On xanga I am snowangl84.
You never can believe what commentors say unless you check the info yourself.
Calvin Coolidge DID, indeed, use a Bible when he was sworn into office. It was the family Bible, for he was at home in VT when he got the info that the President had died. Coolidge is from my home state and I remember visiting the room where he was standing in when he was sworn in. I distinctly remember that they used the family Bible. Here is a link to back-up my comment or you can drive up to VT to visit his homestead. A very nice place for a visit, I might add, especially, during leaf season.
Here's the link:
ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/schramm.html
I guess I don't see this as a PC thing since this is a right protected by the constitution. Since when is upholding the rights guaranteed under the constitution PC.
As far as the whole law school thing - married to a lawer and still making payments on student loans. My husband graduated summa cum laud from a very good school but could get nothing in the way of scholarships for law school. Free rides were given to minorities who did not do as well as him in undergrad and got lower LSAT scores.
Thanks, Crystal.
Regarding being "PC"... I think we have to remember that "politically correct" measures or standards of behavior in our society are not merely arbitrary; rather, they almost always emerge to correct a serious (real or percieved) imbalance of justice for classes of people. In as much as injustice is corrected, God is pleased- Scripture is clear that God hates injustice.
ALL human persons- including Muslims and members of the gay community- are entitled to have their society and their neighbors respect their intrinsic dignity (and their ensuing rights) to the utmost, whether in the form of social opportunities or in the language that we are expected to use when we speak of them.
There is simply no reason for Christians, of all people, to be rude or to begrudge others their freedoms and opportunities. Unless it causes us to sin, "political correctness" is simply not necessarily an enemy- in fact, it may be our challenge to greater righteousness and mercy.
... that's my two cents.
I wanted to add (after doing a simple google search) that Teddy Roosevelt did not use the Bible for swearing in the first time. He was the vice President and they were in a hurry to swear him in after the President McKinnley's assasination/death. When Teddy was re-elected for a second term (or first, however you look at it, for he was eligible to run again) he did use a Bible to swear on. JQ. Adams did not use the Bible. He was a very devout Christian and thought that he should be swearing on the Constitution, which he did. Franklin Pierce was a devout Christian from a very Calvinist background. His wife and son had died in a train accident prior to his inaguaration. He felt this was a judgment from God and did not use the Bible but affirmed his oath. Kennedy swore on the Catholic bible as did his vice President (after Kennedy's assasination) even though he wasn't Catholic (probably due to urgency and time like TR).
Some of the Presidents swore on an open Bible. Calvin Coolidge opened the family Bible to John 1:1. Others swore on a closed Bible. FDR forgot to say, "So help me God" because he was anxious to give his speech ("we have nothing to fear but fear itself," speech).
Washington added, "So help me God" because it was taken for granted that the church would support the government not the government support the church. He wanted God's help. Smart man. The Bible swearing was taken from English tradition.
As a Christian, I worry very much about the religious freedom in my country and intend to remain a loud and annoying voice to those who would want to shut me up and keep Christianity behind closed doors. When Christianity is muzzled, societies become degraded.I don't want my children living in a society that is even more godless than the one I am in now. I am not surprised that Christians are discriminated against. As Crystal mentioned, Christ told us that the world would hate us. The Pilgrims came here to escape religious intolerance. There is a group of people in this country who want to keep Christianity behind closed doors and out of all public domains. This is not tolerance. This is persecution and it is only the beginning. I do think Christians should rejoice when they are persecuted in the name of Christ, but they should not go looking for persecution. Christians should be working to keep their religious freedoms alive and well.
zan, that is interesting about Calvin Coolidge. Wonder why this "should be in the know" site doesn't show that for the year 1923? Makes one understand that not everything online should be taken at face value; I'm grateful for the link!
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pibible.html
This has been an interesting topic!
Have I missed something in this discussion? Is there a chance that those being sworn into office are not going to be allowed to swear in on a Bible? Has that right been taken away?
The topic seemed to be about whether this man should be allowed to swear in on the Koran and the answer according to our constitution is yes. Is it causing you to sin because a congressman is allowed to take an oath on the Koran?
Are Christian's being persecuted in our country? Yes, definately, but does that give us a reason to persecute someone of another faith?
MM, just wanted to say I agree with you whole-heartedly.
I don't mean to keep pounding on this point, but I thought this link was interesting.
historicvermont.org/coolidge/CoolidgeInaugural.html
(I haven't figured out how to copy and paste links. My husband showed me, but it never works when I try.)
On this link you can see a painting of the swearing in of Coolidge. His father swore him in, too.
The historic site in Plymouth Notch is so fun to visit. Long before public nudity, soft punishments for pediphilia, civil unions, Howard Dean, and Bernie Sanders there was a real Vermonter named Calvin Coolidge. There are still a few of them left there today.
*quiet voice* I wouldn't want to be forced to swear on the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita...
We should respect him. It doesn't compromise our Christian faith one bit.
I side with the Constitution this time around...
I haven't been able to read all the comments and I apologize for that, but I did want to offer my opinion to the original post nonetheless. Last I checked, this was a nation of religious freedom and Mr. Ellison should absolutely NOT be forced to take an oath on the Bible if that is not his holy book. Contrary to what many evangelicals think, this is not a Christian nation and it never has been. While we have a good deal of Christian heritage, our nation is not inherently Christian. He should be able to swear his oath on whatever book he pleases or no book if he pleases.
If we restrict his freedom of religion because he is Muslim, they will be coming for us next, guaranteed. We know the truth and we have nothing to fear.
thx for the update. looks like we will need to be viligent in prayer for our nation more now than ever. you know once this happens, all the others will want to do their own thing too. but I hear the voice of the Lord reminding us that these things must happen before the end and we are to fear not. for though the end is near, He is still in control especially if His people would humble themselves and pray.
have a great evening, little mama. ;D
Wow, what an article and great comments. I should have gone to bed but this caught my eye. There are many issues that bounce off this one act. I first wonder what God thinks of this? I am in the middle myself, but it saddens me to see how far away from God our country has gone.
This brings many thoughts and some questions in my mind. God's laws and America's laws are two different things. If swearing on the Bible has not been a requirement than has anyone ever requested another book to swear on before? Since we are a religiously free country, can they swear on any book they desire, or none at all? What does God think about religious freedom?
If an American was being sworn into office in a muslim country, we can assume there would be no question as to what book or how, so does this make us appear weak, or just being "nice"? Will this really make us any safer from terrorism?
Our government was founded upon God and whether everyone agreed at the time, or if no one agreed now, that was and is still a written fact.
Unfortunately these types of issues generally turn Americans more against different peoples/groups.
In my Bible study we are studying Daniel. I am reminded that kings are taken out and replaced by God's hand. In Psalms it says that the kings heart is like a watercourse that God turns this way and that, wherever He wants. This is a comfort, no matter how much we are and will be hated, God is still very much in control of our country.
To zan and others that want to post links here that are clickable, they can follow this example on the Practice Board(replace the url within the quotation marks and replace the website title within the the greater than and less than angle brackets):
Practice Board
Not sure how long that practice site is kept open for viewing so be sure to copy the html code in the box for future reference. Hope this helps!
Post a Comment
<< Home