America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on

TownHall ^ | Tuesday, November 28, 2006 | Dennis Prager

[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.

[Rummyfan]

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.

Exactly!

[vigilante2]

what do you bet he gets away with it?

[relictele]

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.

[Racer1]

Guess he won't be taking office then.

[TankerKC]

If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress.

I've never heard or read Prager, but folks have told me he is smart.

I guess they were wrong.

[Nam Vet]

The thing about this that frosts me is that the book of bound KYBO tickets that he wants to be sworn in on teaches moose limbs that it is proper to LIE to the 'unbelievers' if it furthers the religion. That is pure, unmitigated BS. Swearing in on a book that OKs lying.

Nam Vet

[conservative in nyc]

This Prager article has been posted a number of times. It was factually inaccurate the first three times it was posted, and is still factually inaccurate.

There is absolutely no Constitutional requirement for House members or even the President to swear on the Bible when taking his oath of office - while Presidents have traditionally done so, it's not clear that any oath needs to be with one hand on the Bible to qualify as an oath (it likely doesn't), and under the Constitution, office holders can take an affirmation of office of office instead of an oath anyway. In fact, President Teddy Roosevelt didn't swear on the Bible when he became President after McKinley's death in 1901. One simply might not have been available at the time. He still became President. And Franklin Pierce (and according to some historians, Herbert Hoover) affirmed his oath of office instead of swearing it. President Pierce's faith was shaken after he and his wife were involved in a fatal train accident - they saw their own son die before their eyes. Some sources claim Pierce made his affirmation with his hand on a law book, not the Bible.

House members are traditionally sworn in en masse by the Speaker on the first day of Congress immediately after the Speaker of the House is elected and sworn in. The 2005 swearing in ceremony is available on C-SPAN's website here. The Speaker is sworn in around 2:13:30 by the Dean of the House; the rest of Congress is sworn in shortly thereafter.

All Speaker Hastert asked members to do was raise their right hands while being sworn in. As a practical matter, the House floor normally seats 448 (they somehow squeeze in more seats for the State of the Union address), and there are up to 439 other members of the House (including non-voting members from the territories and the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico) that need to be sworn in at that time. There isn't that much room on the floor for aides or family members to hold the Bible for Congressmen to swear on. So, as you can see from the video, most Congressmen appear to raise their right hand and put their left hand on nothing, at least during this ceremonial swearing in.

Now, there may be a chance for members to have a ceremonial one-on-one swearing in for photo-op purposes (or if the Member is not present at the opening of Congress or is later elected). For example, Congressman Rothman (D-NJ) has a picture of him being "sworn in" with his hand on what appears to be the Bible on his House website. This is when Ellison might swear on the Koran - for a photo-op.

[ChiMark]

Excellent view from Mr.Prager.

[TOWER]

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.

[ButThreeLeftsDo]

You must be getting tired of having to straighten this out!!


;-)

[xtinct]

Does Keith Ellison expect to practice Islamic law while serving as a US Congressman?

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.

[johnthebaptistmoore]

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!

[Mr. K]

I am so glad the democraps are showing their true colors

keep doing more of this for the next two years~!

[RWB Patriot]

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.

[gdani]

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

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.

[conservative in nyc]

While this may anger many, I don't think they have a case.

If pointing out the fact of what Article VI of the Constitution says angers anyone, they simply can't be reasoned with.

[airborne]

America doesn't have the guts to make a stand on this.

[Non-Sequitur]

Anyone who's watched the first session of a new Congress on CSPAN knows that they all take the oath in the House chambers. None of them have their hands on anything, not a Bible, not a paperback, nothing.

Damn Prager's dumb.

[middie]

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.