Keith Ellison Wants to Take Oath on Koran, Not Bible

Dennis Prager, radio show host and author, wrote the following rambles in a recent article:

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. He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

[…]

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison’s favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

[Source: Townhall]

I think this is very stupid and absurd. The whole idea of taking an oath on a sacred book is to somehow oblige the person to honor that oath, so naturally the book on which he takes the oath should be the book that is held sacred in his religion so that it has the effect they're aiming at.

Plus the third paragraph of Article VI of the Constitution of the United States specifically states the following:

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.

So there's no mention there that the oath should be taken on the Bible, in fact doing so would be considered as a religious test.

Finally, it's incredible how some people always hang on to the dumbest and stupidest of tiny details and make a big fuss out of them.

[Via: Outside the beltway]

Related Entries
Ads
Comments

Nice post. This first muslim in the Congress strongly starts.

Posted by: kaiser at November 30, 2006 01:04 PM

I wonder if the same ritual is true as well to our legislative bodies, Chamber of Deputies and Conucilors, and if it is true, I wonder if Mr. R.Bismuth had to make an oath on the quran or the Torah???

Posted by: Hannibal at November 30, 2006 03:58 PM

Where is Prager getting his information from? Did he make this up, or what? He’s full of crap (as usual). The swearing-in ceremony for the House of Representatives never includes a religious book.

An oath is not required either, as the Constitution in all instances includes the option of affirming rather than swearing an oath, since many Christians (Quakers and Mennonites, for example) believe that Jesus fordabe the taking of oaths (Matthew 23:16-22).

Why are so many Americans (especially the right wing pundit types) so ignorant of their own Constitution and traditions?

What happened to the principle of religious liberty? It’s not really liberty if one can be coerced into conforming to a belief one doesn’t share, is it? Prager’s outrage is simple bigotry, nothing more, nothing less. It’s disgusting and un-American.

Posted by: A Hermit at November 30, 2006 10:18 PM

Where is Prager getting his information from? Did he make this up, or what? He’s full of crap (as usual). The swearing-in ceremony for the House of Representatives never includes a religious book.

Posted by: A Hermit at November 30, 2006 10:21 PM

And as usual, subzero is jumping on the first opportunity to criticize americans. endorsed by a totally false story...

Posted by: simcha at December 1, 2006 12:55 AM

Don't ask me how I know, but as far as I understand it, for a Muslim, swearing by anything except for God (Allah), is almost blasphemic, as the Oneness of God (tawhid?) is core to the Islamic belief.

Does that apply to the Quran also?

P.S. Unrelated to this post, but I'm looking for help on my Middle East internet project - I promise it would be worth it - any ideas anyone?

Posted by: Luke Cholerton-Bozier at December 1, 2006 02:18 AM

Simcha has clearly elucidated for us the great failure of American conservatism: it is, at its heart, irrational. And irrationality, as Plato reminds us, is ultimately self-destructive--one has but to look to the results of the recent U.S. elections to see the proof of this. After six years of attacking as traitors any of their fellow citizens who disagreed with them, the Republican party lies in tatters. It seems, at the end, most of us felt betrayed.

Simcha's is a fine, albeit brief, example of their failed technique: recognizing that no logical defense of such mindless and unAmerican bigotry is possible, he attacks subzero's motives and impugns subzero's source of information. This base appeal to baser emotions attempts to strip reason from dialogue and has worked for some time in U.S. elections. Here this demagogic device fails, as it's crafted to appeal to a right-wing Christian, American audience. (The "base" the Republicans recently so dramatically failed to mobilize.) Its use with a mostly non-American, mostly Muslim audience would be laughable if weren't so pathetic and, well, irrational. Unfortunately, this mindlessness has become manifest as American foreign policy and has to date laid waste at least one large country and hundreds of thousands of people. A bit late in the day to restore reason to government, but typically the later a counter-reformation comes, the more thorough and cleansing it is. (Could you spare us a few serviceable guillotines, Hannibal? :) )

Posted by: Jimbo at December 1, 2006 02:43 AM
Post a comment





(Email will remain hidden)




Remember personal info?









Search
 
Web
subzeroblue.com
Categories
Recommended Reads
Archives