Posted on 11/30/2006 1:23:15 PM PST by Checkers
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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).
But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible. In fact, the opposite is more likely: Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America.
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.
Exactly!
what do you bet he gets away with it?
The drumbeat should be struck up: is Ellison a uniter or a divider? The lapdog press should ask him and his supporters that every hour on the hour; use the Dems' beat-em-down media tactics against them.
Guess he won't be taking office then.
I've never heard or read Prager, but folks have told me he is smart.
I guess they were wrong.
Nam Vet
Excellent view from Mr.Prager.
While this may anger many, I don't think they have a case.
"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 while it might be tradition to swear on the bible, the Consititution does not require it.
You must be getting tired of having to straighten this out!!
;-)
Swearing to uphold the laws of the United States of America is done with the Bible. Keith Ellison needs to decide now what law he plans to uphold... if it's Islamic Law, he needs to resign immediately.
The '08 elections could be interesting in his Congressional district if he becomes too controversial for most people. Then again, look at how many very controversial politicians end up becoming "very safe" for as long as they want to stay in politics? Cynthia McKinney is the only politician that I'm aware of to break such a streak, and she did so by losing her Congressional seat twice!
I am so glad the democraps are showing their true colors
keep doing more of this for the next two years~!
A few years ago, I couldn't see it being allowed. Now, with the PC crap towards Islam and the Koran, it wouldn't surprise me if the dems tried to enact some new law or rule that allowed it.
Like it makes one iota of difference.
Unless the author is so delusional he thinks those who have taken oaths with the Bible have never, ever engaged in fraud, deception, theft, etc, etc.
America doesn't have the guts to make a stand on this.
Damn Prager's dumb.
The fuss is much ado about nothing. All that's required is either an agreement to swear an oath or affirm it. No person is required to have his hand on any book. He could affirm or swear his oath on a Marvel comic book or a copy of Gone With the Wind or Green Eggs and Ham. Stop the run away irrationality, please.
Unless you're giving big odds, I'll pass.
I have very carefully read the Constitution: I see no requirement for an oath of office to be sworn on a Bible. Perhaps someone can point out where that requirement is stated.
I suggest that somehow, most Americans couldn't give a hoot about this "issue". It's the oath that is important, not what book is used.
This is bad press for the dems. Add it to the list at the next election. Let's ask The Hildabeast what she thought of this when she in election mode.
Thanks for posting the facts on the swearing-in ceremony.
"America is interested in only one book, the Bible."
I don't think so.
You do realize the Constitution does not mention the Bible when it talks about the oath of office, don't you?
bttt need to keep this alive
Thanks for the details. I was pretty sure this was the case, because all the way back in the seventeenth century there were Quakers and other Protestants who believed that it was sinful to swear on the Bible. So the custom of allowing some other form of oath, or even excusing the oath for those who could not in good conscience swear by anything, is an old one.
Hmmm... If he takes an oath on something he doesn't even believe in, then is not an oath at all. Why hold him to what he considers a meaningless act?
It is entirely appropriate that a Bolshecrat take the oath on the Koran. It is a book upon which lying to an infidel is not a sin. In fact, it is not clear who it is that cannot be lied to. What do you expect of a religion founded by a used camel salesman and fornicator. All Bolshecrats should use the Koran, thereby, not violating their oath of office.
In fact, the Constitution forbids requiring it.
As a matter of fact, Article VI, para 3 would appear to forbid such a requirement: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
I think that the Congressmen just stand on the Capitol steps and raise their hands en mass, no Bibles are used!
Clearly, the terrorist factions have philosophical support in the mainstream muslim communities.
What did Senator Shumer put his hand on?
Great going voters, this is just the beginning of the trouble you started.
What sense would it make to require someone to take an oath on a Bible when the person doesn't believe the Bible is THE holy book? Its not as if the person would feel more obliged to act properly!
More importantly...the oath is a joke. Every Congressman and the President take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..."
What a laugh...how many congressmen have ever actually read the Constitution? How many are faithful to it? Answer: maybe one...Ron Paul...if there are any others, I'm not aware of it.
99.9% of today's federal government operates without any Constitutional authority.
Consider this carefully. In that the Koran instructs Muslims to practice deceit against non-Muslims, there is absolutely no way an oath on the Koran could be deemed valid.
Send an email to the Whitehouse about this. I did.
I'm ashamed that my fellow Americans put this guy in office in the first place. Don't they know better?
Stupid question, never mind.
Why Not!Spector wanted and did use Scottish law to get Clinton out of an Impeachment conviction.
Well, if you swear to uphold American laws on a book that encourages you to lie to infidels, just what are you swearing to do, exactly? ;)
They swear to kill infidels. You and me. Us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.