Gov. Linda Lingle (R-HI) takes the oath of office upon a Jewish Torah on December 2, 2002, at the Hawaii State Capitol rotunda by Hawaii State Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald Moon.
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.
ah, the sweet amorous embrace of multiculturalism.
So if a Scientologist ever is elected to Congress, what will they use, a copy of 'Dianetics?'
Swearing on a Bible is taken to mean that you will abide by the tenants taught in the Bible. Foremost among them is being truthful.
You are saying, "God, be my witness, I am telling the truth."
The Koran, and the teachings of Mohammed do NOT teach Moslems to be truthful when dealing with non-Moslems. Any Imam who says that it does is lying.
Ellison is saying, "Allah, be my witness, I will do what you want."
However, since muslims also live by taqiya, it really doesn't matter what he swears on.
The Koran is ANTITHETICAL to the US Constitution.
For evidence, I offer the Mohammetan "democracies" of Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Kazakhistan, etc ...
He may as well take his oath on a copy of Marx's "DAS KAPITAL" or Mao Zedong's "THOUGHTS OF CHAIRMAN MAO".
.
The Constitution specifically says that you are wrong. Like it or not, the Constitution itself lays out an alternative to swearing before God. Blame the founders if you don't like it, but it's in black and white.
Then you need to live in an area of the States where the constituency is 100% red-blooded Caucasian Christians. Otherwise someone not meeting your requirements might be elected to represent you.
And I think it's up to other localities to determine who represents them, not you.
As I seem to recall, that's the way democracy works.
not exactly Melas- by serving in this country- you either swear an oath or Affirm (you are affirming before the people as your witness) that you agree to be bound by by oath before God- so help you God as the oath ends in. The affirmation was a way around the actual oath for the quakers who didn't make the oath directly to God, but would agree to be bound by the oath before God- it was a technicality that exempted quakers from making direct oaths to God which they were against. The understanding however was still that they were bound by the oath and would suffer the consequences, both earthly and heavenly if they broke their word.
Not that ANY of this even makes a differnecei n this society today because people simply don't care (at least not here on earth) if they break their oaths any longer. There is no shame anymore, and matters of seriousness such as swearing before God no longer have the importance they once did- But I assure you all those who swore and broke their word will be held accountable in the end. The fact that it doesn't happen immediately on this earth (as it used to) has caused many people to feel they are safe if they break their word- however, the reality will be quite a shock when they meet the One they broke their word to. The shamlessness that we have sunk to is quite frankly despicable and unpatriotic.
Bryan you asre exactly right, but sadly, our shameless society allows it unfortunately- howeverm even though they swear by Allah, God is watching and they are still swearin in His presence and are bound by His authority and law despite the fact that they might not beleive so. Originally we revered God enough to request that He be witness to our oaths- but sadly our culture ahs so disregarded Him that they no longer felt the need and made exceptions to the oath process to accomodate others- prefering man's opinion over God's- and quite frankly, man's opinion is worthless as we've seen by the continual breaking of oaths by members of Congress who repeatedly vow to attack the constitution by citing bogus 'interpretation differences' twisting the original to mean things it never was meant to.
It boils down to a simple understanding that the founders had, but some today apparently lack.
No man can really change the conscience of another. Forced conversions are never really conversions, and adherence to religious observance under penalty of law is rarely sincere. A true understand of the above concept would show any but the most hardy of fools the folly in compelling a religious oath.
The people of Minnesota have chosen this death cult member. They elected him. He's their Representative. I do hope they don't expect real Americans to recognize him as anything other than a threat to America.
Glad to hear it. Did you know that Jefferson referred to himself as a Christian? ;)
He makes the point that our Government is based on the Bible among other things.
He should not be allowed to take office unless he uses a Christian Bible. No exceptions.
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.