America, Not Keith Ellison What Book A Congressman Takes His Oath On (Dennis Prager Alert)

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.

Either see it our way or don't run for office.

Here's the problem with your thinkging: You falsely believe that those people who comprised the OUR in your post above are in some kind of agreement. Worse, you complete ignore the fact that this guy passed the test and was VOTED IN BY HIS CONSTITUENTS. Congressmen represent districts, not the U.S.A. as a whole. If this guy's district is all about the Koran, then like it or not, those are the values that he's supposed to take to Washington.

Political Correctness:
”A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
By spreading this definition around, perhaps we can employ one of the more effective methods of deflating and defeating the fools who practice and promote it: RIDICULE.
Unless stopped – and soon – PC will DESTROY Western Civilization -- if it hasn’t already.

PASS IT ON!!

"...The logical extension of your position is that only Christians should be elected to office. I don't buy that..."

I DO buy that. I want folks with my values representing me in Congress. I also want folks with my values representing people NOT like me, in Congress also. It's the only way to keep our American culture intact. We owe these foreign running dogs nothing. Nothing, I say!

Seriously, we already have a "Black Congressional Caucus" overtly working against the values, goals and norms of Caucasians, and this is just one more nail in the coffin that is our nation.

no sir Melas- last I checked this is still the U.S.A and as such whether it's a district or not- they STILL represent the U.S.A. The problem with your thinking is that you seem to be saying it's alright to enstate sub nations within a nation- France is right now having to deal with subnations that refuse to obey their laws- Shariia law now trumps French law in france and the authorities are powerless to do anyhting abotu it because of mob mentality. EVERY district has basics in which they must adhere to & one of those is following the greater law of the land and our laws state that people agree to swear before God while taking an oath. As I previously stated and which I stand behind is the fact that a person need not beleive in God, but they must agree to swear before God as being in a Christian nation the majority take very seriously the responsibilities of office & beleive that a person should stand before God and swear oath to both state and country.

While a governor does represent his district as you correctly state, his district does NOT trump national laws or national values- IF it did, there would be NO way to ensure the United in the term United States of America. Again- if a candidate can't agree to that then they have no business running for office in the UNITED States of America

As I previously stated and which I stand behind is the fact that a person need not beleive in God, but they must agree to swear before God as being in a Christian nation the majority take very seriously the responsibilities of office & beleive that a person should stand before God and swear oath to both state and country.

As explained numerous times on this thread, the Constitution doesn't require any Congressman to swear anything before God. All it requires is that he takes an oath (to whom is unspecified) OR affirmation (which has nothing to do with God) that they will support the Constitution. In fact, Article VI specifically says "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States".

And as I noted in Post 51, Congressmen are sworn in en masse by the Speaker on the House Floor, and in 2005, most appear to have just raised their right hand while being sworn in. I didn't see any Bibles in C-SPAN's shot of the House Floor during the swearing in ceremony.

since when is an oath before God a 'religious test'? As I said, the person need not even beleive in God to make the oath, as long as he is in agreement with upholding hte will of the poeple that he swear before God. And as stated before, the person may not beleive in God, but will still be held accountable by God regardless of His beleifs, which we in America take seriously & feel should be required for swearing oath. you're on shaky ground claiming that swearing oath is a 'religious test' an oath isn't in any way a test of one's beleif, but a requirement of office- it doesn't force anyone to believe anything

“Invocation of a supernatural or holy being called to verify the veracity of a statement… An oath was a special appeal, an expression of sincerity backed up by the threat of divine retribution should the uttering prove false–hence the term ‘oath-breaker’. An oathbreaker was assumed to have committed a crime against God or of some divine entity, which would lead to damnation or another form of severe penalty.”

you are swearing an oath TO the constitution BEFORE God- that's the difference here.

An oath is no small matter- it was originally meant ot be given and upheld even unto death- Yes, people are no longer taken at their word- however, that still does not mean oaths have lost their meaning or importance. Here's an interesting link http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/wp-print.php?p=236

This pretty much sums up the seriousness of the oath, but there would be one small change I'd make which I'll note at the end

[Although it would certainly help if the Members of Congress did have a conscience and did take seriously the sacredness of their oath, that’s in no way necessary for the success of the “You Swore on the Bible” strategy.

The strategy of “You Swore on the Bible” is not one of a private communication, in which an appeal to conscience is made. It is an entirely public statement, intended to apply pressure on the Members of Congress by affecting how they are perceived –and thus also how they are regarded– by their constituents.

These people get elected to Congress by persuading the public that they are upright, patriotic, God-fearing people. How can you be God-fearing if you break a promise made before God –if you can commit “a crime against God”– and think nothing of it? How can you be a patriot if –by violating your oath of office– you indifferently commit a treasonous act? How can you be upright if your promises mean nothing?]

the last paragraph Should probably read "These people get elected to Congress by persuading the public that they are upright, patriotic, and that they agree to honor the people's wishes by making their oath before God regardless of whether they beleive in God or not." Although the original would be preferable.

Article VI doesn't even require that a Congressman swear an oath to support the Constitution. He or she can make an affirmation that he will support the Constitution instead. And nothing in the Constitution even states that the oath must be sworn with his or her hand on the Bible.

Try telling a religious Quaker or Jehovah's Witness that swearing an oath isn't a religious test. The Framers allowed Congressmen and other office holders to make an affirmation to support the Constitution instead of swearing an oath precisely because religious Quakers would not take oaths. The Quakers fled England in part because they would be sent to jail under the Quaker Act for failing to take an oath.

mmm yes conservative- we in this country jail people who refuse to take oaths in the presence of God- While there is nothing 'in writing' stating that the oath need be made 'on the bible' doing so on a koran is to state that you do not agree to swear before the Christian God-

An affirmation is STILL confirming that you agree, under penalty of God's judgement, that you will uphold the constitution.[In law, an affirmation can be: A solemn promise or assertion made under the penalties of perjury that has exactly the same legal effect as an oath.]

There is an attempt to trivialize oaths in this country that is unconscionable in the minds of the majority- the office of leadership is a serious undertaking.

Raising the right hand and swearing before the Christian God was meant as a way to 'affirm' that you agree to be held accountable under penalty of both God's judgement, and secondly, under our judicial judgement should you break that oath. Swearing on the Koran or any other book for that matter is an act that clearly shows you do not agree to swear before the Christian God, or even affirm before the Christian God.

You mentioned you didn't see a bible present in the mass swearing in- #1 I'm will to bet there was one- #2 If not- who is to say that they were right in so doing? I'm not real clear on this- but perhaps it is allowable to not use the bible but mearely to pledge an oath or confirmation before God simply by raising the right hand- however, when you introduce 'other books' such as the koran, that is taking a whole different line, and stating that 'I pledge under the God of my home country, and not the God of this country', and it comes down to the people's right to know that their elected officials agree with this country, and not soem other country- showing a pledge of oath to our constitution, instituted and controlled by the God of this country, and not to a god of another country.

A person swearing is making an oath that to break that oath is a sin before our God- it's no small matter & one that should be agreed to should a person desire to lead this country or a state or municipality even if a person doesn't believe in it.

mmm yes conservative- we in this country jail people who refuse to take oaths in the presence of God-

No we don't. We allow them to make affirmations under penalties of perjury instead. This isn't 1660s England or 1660s Massachusetts.

While there is nothing 'in writing' stating that the oath need be made 'on the bible' doing so on a koran is to state that you do not agree to swear before the Christian God

Would you really want a Muslim swearing to tell the truth to a God he doesn't believe in on a Bible he has little regard for? Most states will allow Muslims to swear an oath on the Koran. All will allow Muslims to give an affirmation instead of an oath.

An affirmation is STILL confirming that you agree, under penalty of God's judgement, that you will uphold the constitution.[In law, an affirmation can be: A solemn promise or assertion made under the penalties of perjury that has exactly the same legal effect as an oath.]

An affirmation has nothing to do with God. It is a statement given under penalties of perjury - you may go to jail for perjury, but you've made no direct promise to God about anything.

You mentioned you didn't see a bible present in the mass swearing in- #1 I'm will to bet there was one- #2 If not- who is to say that they were right in so doing?

No, I said that I didn't see most Congressmen swearing their oath of office on the Bible. Most merely raised their right hand, placing their left hand down. There may or may not have been a Bible present somewhere in the House Chamber. As a practical matter, the House floor only seats about 448, and if all Congressmen are present, there's not much room on the floor for aides or family members to hold a bible. Watch the video for yourself. The swearing in ceremony starts at about 2:13:30.

no sir- an affirmation of an oath in this Christian nation DOES have implications of swearing before God. Would I want a Muslim swearing before God if he didn't beleive? Absolutely. A man swearing before God whether he beleives in God or not is a testament that he swears His word is solid, and agrees that if it is not, then even though he doesn't beleive in Christina God, that he will be judged by God for the sin of lying. Thati s somethign we as a Christian nation take seriously.

[Most states will allow Muslims to swear an oath on the Koran. All will allow Muslims to give an affirmation instead of an oath.]

Really? News to me- Last I looked, we abide by oaths of office outlined by the original oaths- and we've already been over the affirmation part- a person affirms that an oath delcares that they shall be bound by God to uphold the law. If not, then the people shall be the judges and convict. They would not only be lying to the people but to God as well. While sidestepping the direct oath to God, an affirmation is still an oath bindment under God- the person agreeing that they shall be bound regardless of their beleif in God.

after looking into this further it would appear that other books can be used, however, the premise is whether you swear an oath or swear an affirmation- you DO agree to make a religiously (Christian religion) agreed upon promise under penalty of BOTH human judgement AND Godly Judgement. The book doesn't matter apparently, but the solenm oath or affirmation to before God does matter- a great deal infact. Whether the person beleives in God or not isn't the issue, the issue is that they agree to be bound by oath or affirmation to uphold the laws, and agree that should they break those laws, they will be subjected to both judgements regardless of whether they beleive or not. They might not htink they shall be judged by God should they break the law, but in the end they shall be unbeknownst to them.

However, I WILL point out that I personally don't think someone SHOULD be making an oath to someone they don't even beleive in as their hearts intent can't be judged as a result. As one judge correctly noted before a trial of an athiest when he refused to swear oath the fella automatically discreditted his word right at the start (it was morei nvovled and better explained judicially than that- just paraphrasing)

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.