Posted on 11/27/2006 9:43:24 PM PST by goldstategop
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.
bump
;)
Yuck. I can't stand the thought of a the Koran being in the halls of Congress . . .
You are correct but as I stated earlier I think it should Bible or nothing. Not pick n choose.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."
Seeing how seriously most members of congress take this oath (or affirmation), I don't think it really matters how it is given.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
What if a member of Congress was an atheist? Would they also be obligated to be sworn in on the Bible?
Agree.
Someone should just slip the cover of the Koran on a copy of the Constitution. Highly unlikely he's read either or could tell the difference.
'Fraid I've gotta ask... Will an Infidel be holding that Koran upon which el-Ellison places his hand to take the oath, or will it be the on-call Iman?
I got the year wrong - Roosevelt was sworn in without a Bible in 1901, not 1903.
I think atheists are clueless about the Constitution. What article of faith can they use so the rest of us can believe they swear allegiance?
this is factually incorrect---no one has to swear an oath on the Bible. It is a tradition among most, but it is not required. They just have to swear to uphold the Constitution
To force an officeholder to swear an oath on the Bible is prohibited in the constitution, as that could be construed as a religious litmus test as to someone's eligibility for office.
WOW. What happened there? Sorry.
Sorry to say, I am in agreement with you.
how about the constitution itself?
So Atheists, agnostics, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and, yes Muslims, can't "show actual patriotism?" Not to mention Christian sects like Jehovah's Witnesses and Quakers whose beliefs prohibit oaths.
The Constitution provides for oath or affirmation -- a recognition that even in 1787, there were enough people in the US that the Framers found that worth addressing.
As far as I'm concerned, an elected (or appointed) official can take the oath with his hand on the Bible, Torah, Koran, Baghavad Gita, Atlas Shrugged, or their kids' photo album. Better yet, I'd like to see officials take the oath or affirmation with their left hands on a copy of the Constitution, since that, and not any religious text, is what we expect them to be true to.
Sorry...doesn't work for me...as atheists are diligently working against the document.
LOL. No problem, it happens.
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.