First Hindu poised for election to United States Congress

[Sahasranama]

There is no need to take an oath on the Bhagavad Gita. This is a stupid western tradition. A Hindu should not take this so lightly. I think it has been adopted as well in Indian courts, if I am correct.

On what book will atheists take oath, on "the origin of species?"

2. Falling into hell? What constitutes hell? Have you ever walked the streets of Amsterdam and seen those prostitutes sitting behind the full length glass with practically nothing on, waiting for customers? Have you ever been to the cafes where marijuana is legally sold and used by people for "recreational" purposes? Till they recently enacted laws to make it unlawful to sell dope to non-citizens, Amsterdam was the favorite place for European tourists to go to for uninhibited weed use. Aren't you currently living in HELL? What sins did you commit in your past and present lives?

I am not sure where your travels have brought you, but I don't live in Amsterdam. At least the Netherlands is not ruled by the Italian Mafia.

All I am saying is that any offences committed after taking an oath on scripture will have amplified negative results. That's why it's idiotic to make politicians and people appearing in court swear on scripture.

[Believer]

Namaste,

I am not sure where your travels have brought you, but I don't live in Amsterdam.

All I am saying is that any offences committed after taking an oath on scripture will have amplified negative results. That's why it's idiotic to make politicians and people appearing in court swear on scripture.

Oh, you are living such a sheltered life my friend. Please get out of your little hamlet and see your country and the rest of the world!

This planet is inhabited by humans, not by gods. Human tradition has established taking the oath on 'some book'. I am still waiting for a practical way out of it. I understand your dilemma but what are the solutions? And who would spearhead the effort to change the established norm?

Pranam.

[Sahasranama]

I am not fond of travelling.

Of course, I know that the earth is populated by humans. That is exactly why people should not swear on scripture. If everyone was infallible, swearing on scripture would not be a problem.

[Believer]

Namaste,

Sahasji, I too would like this tradition to disappear, but it is so deeply ingrained in our culture, that there is no way to get rid of it. And no one has shown me a way to abolish this tradition. We can all point fingers and come up with what is wrong with this world. But no one steps forward to fix things.

Pranam.

[Sahasranama]

Perhaps you can move to Amsterdam. There is no requirement in the Netherlands to take an oath on scripture.

[Jeffery D. Long]

I agree with Sahasranama. One should simply speak the truth. If we held to the satya-yama, an oath would be superfluous. What does placing a hand on a holy book add to our words, except for magnifying the spiritual peril should we render our words false by breaking our promises? The Amish (many of whom live near me) believe this and are exempted from swearing oaths in court.

That being said, I'm very excited to have Tulsi Gabbard in the House of Representatives, and wish her the very best.

[philosoraptor]

I'm also a little uneasy with this idea of swearing an oath on the Gita. Granted, that she did not want to swear on the Bible, but why swear on a religious scripture at all? This is not a feature of Hindu culture.

If anything, I would like our politicians to swear an oath on a copy of the Constitution, since that is the legal document that guarantees our natural rights. The fact that our American politicians are intoxicated with the virtues of an all-powerful State, ever-ready to trample on our rights in order to mean ideologically-driven ends, is more of a concern to me than the religious convictions of any individual politician.

[Jetavan]

U.S. Congresspersons may be sworn in on a sacred text of their choice, on the Constitution, or they may simply make an affirmation without involving any text at all.

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

Vedas were often memorized and conveyed by “speaking” and being “heard”, so the various “sacred texts” (or “books” if you will) were not necessarily in a “book” format (either on leaves, or layers of bark or on parchment or paper and bound) for mass consumption until much later. So there wasn’t really a process of, for example, putting your hand on a sacred book and taking a “contact” with God or oath. But for that matter, that is also true for Christians as well, they didn’t go around putting their “hand on the Bible” and making a contract or oath with the Divine (e.g. a promise) until much, much later.

So this process of “putting your hand on the book to take an oath” is really about taking an oath or contract, and taking an oath certainly is part of Hinduism, and we see that in the Vedas – e.g. we see that in Vedic Mitra who was in the Rig Ved and chief among Adityas who was the Divine of Contracts and Oaths. The word “mitram” is often translated as contract or oath.

So while bound books are “modern”, and “putting the hand on the book” to take an oath thus is modern, it is just another way of doing an oath, and oaths are part of Hindu culture. I don’t see any problem in it.

Om Namah Sivaya