This is special. The first Muslim elected into Congress is requesting to take his oath on the Quran instead of on the Bible. Which would make sense, given that a Muslim taking an oath on the Bible would be both (1) meaningless, and (2) counter to his religious beliefs. It’s not such a big deal to just switch the book, right? No skin off anyone’s nose. Except, apparently, the people who haven’t bothered to read the Constitution and think that America is a Christian theocracy.
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.
If all it takes is one Quran to undermine American civilization, then we should all be very, very worried.
First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism — my culture trumps America’s culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.
He’s not saying that his culture trumps American culture; he’s saying that his religious belief, for him, trumps Christianity. The religious beliefs of elected Christian officials, for them, trump Islam. And that’s good and fine.
This either/or perspective seems pretty common from the American right. If you maintain your own culture, you’re saying that it’s better than American culture. If you fight for equal rights, you’re saying that you want special rights.
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.
Interesting. Last time I checked “America” doesn’t decide anything. The American people can decide things, but I have no recollection of voting on the issue of which book Congresspeople should take their oath on.
However, I have it on pretty good word that Congress isn’t supposed to privilege one religion over another, or establish religion in government. So this idea that religious establishment only matters in one’s personal life is pretty wrong, given that the whole point of the Bill of Rights is to limit what the federal government can do. It would seem to me that requiring all Congresspeople to take an oath on one religious text, and not allowing the use of other religious texts, is a pretty clear violation of the First Amendment. But Dennis still doesn’t really get it:
Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler’s “Mein Kampf,” the Nazis’ bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison’s right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?
Mein Kampf isn’t a religious text. This isn’t about “favorite books,” and it’s not as if Ellison is asking for the right to say his oath over Jurassic Park. It’s a question of governmental religious establishment. Done.
Of course, Ellison’s defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either. Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible. Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of “Dianetics” by L. Ron Hubbard.
So why are we allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done — choose his own most revered book for his oath?
Because, well, he’s asking to. And because it would be counter to the most important American text — the Constitution — to not let him.
The answer is obvious — Ellison is a Muslim. And whoever decides these matters, not to mention virtually every editorial page in America, is not going to offend a Muslim. In fact, many of these people argue it will be a good thing because Muslims around the world will see what an open society America is and how much Americans honor Muslims and the Koran.
This argument appeals to all those who believe that one of the greatest goals of America is to be loved by the world, and especially by Muslims because then fewer Muslims will hate us (and therefore fewer will bomb us).
Actually, no, we’ve pretty much accepted that a whole lot of people are going to hate us so long as we continue to invade their countries, kill their citizens, and destroy their communities. What I’m personally concerned about is preventing the federal government from establishing Christianity as the national religion, and requiring all elected officials to declare their allegiance to a Christian God, regardless of their own religious traditions (or lack thereof).
When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11. It is hard to believe that this is the legacy most Muslim Americans want to bequeath to America. But if it is, it is not only Europe that is in trouble.
I would invite Mr. Prager to take a stroll through lower Manhattan and tell me that one Congressman taking his oath on the Quran will damage American more than the 9/11 hijackers.
If we want our Congresspeople to take an oath over the same document, I would suggest that they take it on the U.S. Constitution. After all, that is our “unifying document,” is it not? And isn’t it quite un-American to argue in favor of violating the First Amendment?
Conclusion: Dennis Prager hates America.