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.
I am willing to bet that over the years numerous atheists (mostly Democrats) have placed their hand on the Bible and gone through the motion of swearing allegiance. They do so to avoid a confrontation and to help insure that they get reelected. They then turn around and call Republican's hypocrites for occassionally failing to live up to the standards established in the Bible.
I would agree.
You are swearing before God that you will uphold the constitution- making an oath as God as your witness so help you should you break that oath. Personally- I don't think people should be swearing on the Koran or on playboy or anything else- The God of this world is the judge that peopel Must face should they break their oath that they swore before Him- and whether you beleive in Him or not isn't the issue- the issue is that we as a Christian nation do take VERY seriously the fact that it is God who blesses this nations and who will judge those who break their oaths- you don't have to beleive in Him to make that oath- but the oath IS binding in God';s eyes regardless, and that is what we as Am,ericans hold sincere. Either see it our way or don't run for office. Pretty simple! The job of office is a serious business as you are elcted to represent the best interests of those who elected you- as such we Beleive it is imperative that a person swear before God & we shouldn't be allowing people who refuse to hold office-
<< It should be the Bible or nothing. Substitutions should not be allowed. >>
And were it other than a direst attack upon that to which the congressman will be pretending to swear his allegiance, he will have no difficulty nor genuine religious objection to swearing on the Holy Bible. Given that the book the islamists call the "holy" Koran states in the first person in which it all written: (it's their "god" speaking)
"This (koran) is given to prove the veracity of all that was given before (The Holy Bible) but which is "misunderstood" by "the sects;" (Jews and Christians)
So let him swear upon the Holy Bible and if he understands it and we do not? Well -- bully for him! I can handle that! (And keep on seeking understanding, too!)
They just have to swear to uphold the Constitution
What's the point? I mean, they all (Ron Paul may be the exception) fail to uphold the constitution when they vote 'Yea' in favor of passing unconstitutional laws.
The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause
How stare decisis Subverts the Law:
...It is difficult to estimate how many unconstitutional legislative provisions are adopted each year by Congress, but a plausible number is more than 20,000, or about as many as the number of bills introduced each year. There is simply no way that the federal courts can handle all the cases that might arise under that many provisions. They are almost forced to rely on the presumption of constitutionality of statutes, but members of Congress are increasingly reluctant to restrain themselves from adopting legislation they know to be unconstitutional, but which is supported by some of their constituents, and passing the duty to the federal courts of striking legislation that should never have been passed in the first place.
I haven't read the whole article of Prager's, but doesn't the Koran allow a lie if it leads to the destruction of an enemy?
The logical extension of your position is that only Christians should be elected to office. I don't buy that.
After thinking this over, it seems more appropriate for someone elected to federal office to put their hand on the Constitution and swear allegiance to it. That is what they are supposed to abide by, enforce and safeguard, isn't it? Not the Bible, the Koran, the Buddhist scrolls, or the flame of Zoroaster.
I looked at this topic because the headline did not make sense. It is missing a comma and the word "decides."
I agree with Dennis. In fact, I love Dennis when he is on the subjects of faith and patriotism. His heart is in the right place.
If Keith Ellison swears on the Koran, he is swearing fidelity to jihad, ergo, he is not needed or wanted in the U.S. Congress. Buh-bye.
He's probably fearing for his life. To take the oath on the Bible will warrant him to be beheaded by his fellow Muslims.
Actually, no.
You don't need a book to take an oath. I used to administer oaths for National Guard enlistees. I did not use a bible to do so.
An oath is a pledge where you ask God to witness what you say is true. Breaking the oath is more serious since it makes your word sacred.
Quakers don't even take oaths, following Jesus' advice that if you are honest, taking an oath is not necessary, and if you aren't honest, taking an oath is ridiculous.
That POS raghead can go straight to hell. Between al Queda, the Palis and Iranians, my tolerance for Islam has grown very thin...
"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."
Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking.
GREAT points about Jews, secular humanists and Mormons in this piece. Sad thing is, he'll get away with his anti-Christian deed.
Totally legal, right?
Finally someone asked the right question. No, you won't find a requirement to place your hand upon the bible or take a religious oath anywhere in the U.S. Constitution or in the U.S. Code. It's merely an INFORMAL traditionl.
Your post would have meaning if being a Christian actually meant that your word was automatically good. Unfortunately, Christians fall short of that lofty goal as well as non-Christians.
I was an atheist for many, many years, and my word was as good then as it is now. That had more to do with my upbringing than my faith.
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.