Here is my emailed reply to the author of this article. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2006/11/28/america,_not_keith_ellison,_decides_what_book_a_congressman_takes_his_oath_on
Very interesting article you have written. I enjoyed reading it, but I do not agree with your view. I am not a Muslim, in fact, I am a seminary student seeking ordination. Because of this, the bible is near and dear to my heart. That being said, I would love for every politician to put their hand on the bible when taking an oath, but in reality, its not good for politics.
For the sake of ease, lets look at the people who have been caught in scandal in the past decade. If you had known that they were going to do what they did, would you have let them say that oath on the bible? Would you have let Clinton do it if you knew about his indescritions? I doubt it.
When our politicians manipulate symbols of faith in order to make voters feel comfortable, we all lose. If they really swore on the bible, they would be acting quite differently. I'd rather them just stop the smoke screen, stop acting and start doing what the bible says.
That being stated, a bit less seriousness to my statement. It would probably be better if politicians were made to swear their oaths on different objects depending on what issues they ran on. If you recieved money from PAC's, take your oath with their symbol. If you ran with strong emphasis on enviromentalism, take your oath with a tree. If you ran as a hawkish Christian, take your oath with a bible and a gun. At least that way I know they do not plan on turning their swords into plowshears and spears into pruning hooks.
No comments:
Post a Comment