Keith Ellison and the Qu’ran
I generally had some respect for Dennis Prager, he seemed thoughtful and earnest and not sensational. That all changed when I read this piece at townhall.com:
“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.”
He doesn’t explain how this simple act will do that. Since we’ve already brought in Mr. Straw Man, let’s see what he will do next:
“First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalism activism — my culture trumps America’s culture.”
Gosh Dennis, you are going to have to tell me what “American culture” you are referring to. We used to get the “melting pot” analogy thrown at us in school; you know how America is better because of its diversity. More:
“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.”
This is the USA. The last time I looked, we didn’t have a “holiest book.” More:
“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.”
First of all, Mr. Ellison never said the Qu’ran was his favorite book, it was the book of his religion. For all I know, his favorite book is “The DaVinci Code.” Second, America is not only interested in the Bible. Third, and now we are getting to the meat of the argument I think, is that Mr. Prager is appealing to authority and tradition, basically “Since everybody else did it this way, so should you!” America doesn’t decide what book a person takes an oath on, the Constitution already has that covered:
“US CONSTITUTION Article VI, Para. 3: 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.”
In other words, no book is required to take an oath. More:
” 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?”
Choosing to equate the Qu,ran, or any other religious work with “Mein Kampf” is the height of ignorance and only serves to muddy the argument. More:
“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.”
Look at what you just wrote, Dennis! You are asking for an oath of fealty to the US based on a lie. The guy clearly wants to swear an oath based on the religion of his choice (which, the last time I looked, we were still allowed to make in this country) and here you are claiming that a lie is better than the truth. You who used to speak so eloquently about ethics.
Dennis, really; Jews have taken their oaths on the bible for “all American history?” Do you know how to use Google, Dennis? I direct you to Linda Lingle, the Governor of Hawaii, Madeline Kunin, the Governor of Vermont, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Rep. D-FL) who borrowed a Hebrew Bible from Gary Ackerman, Congressman from Illinois. As far as I know, the fabric of US society hasn’t broken down yet.
In fact, Congressmen and Senators taking their oaths on a book is no more than a photo op. Every year, the session starts with the members all in the same room taking the real oath with their right hands raised, and their left hands… wherever they want.
The rest of Prager’s article goes on about us lefties wanting this because we are trying to appeal to Muslims, so that more of them will like us and less of them will bomb us.
Do you think we’re galactically stupid Dennis? If you hadn’t brought this up in the first place, I don’t think anyone would have cared one way or the other. I support Mr. Ellison because he is an American and has rights guaranteed under the law, not because I want to appeal to American hating Muslims. They are gonna do what they are are gonna do and it won’t matter if Rep. Ellison takes his oath on the bible, the Qu’ran, or Fantastic Four #76.
Anyone who thinks this country was founded on “Judeo-Christian” principles better get their noses out of the bible and read James Madison:
“Mysterious indeed! But mysteries belong to religion, not to government; to the ways of the Almighty, not to the works of man. And in religion itself there is nothing mysterious to its author; the mystery lies in the dimness of the human sight. So in the institutions of man let there be no mystery, unless for those inferior beings endowed with a ray perhaps of the twilight vouchsafed to the first order of terrestrial creation.”
