Congressman to take oath of office on Koran
Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress (representing a district of Minneapolis, MN), has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran. Dennis Prager explains why he should not be allowed to do so.
1. First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- my culture trumps America's culture.
2. Plenty of Jewish elected officials (who do not embrace the New Testament) have taken their oaths on the Bible.
3. Plenty of secular officials (even atheists) have taken their oaths on the Bible (though the writings of Voltaire or John Locke might have more accurately represented their deepest convictions).
4. No Mormon has ever requested to take his oath on the Book of Mormon.
5. In his personal life, I (and every American) should fight for his right to prefer any other book. I would even fight for his right to publish cartoons mocking the Bible.
6. Supposing an elected official wanted to take his oath on a copy of Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf (the Nazi Bible), would we allow that? So where do we draw the line? If the Koran, why not the Hindu Vedas?
I agree with Prager not as a Christian (though I am one), but as an American. I do not believe that being a Congressman is a religious office. It is an American office. As Prager notes, "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."
Prager's bottom-line:
Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.
Prager's one-page article is an excellent read.
Comments
I'm not sure what to think. As a Christian, naturally I commend the true Word of God to everyone. But does the Bible really inform and underlie American values, as Mr. Prager insists? That is, do we really live by it, as we conduct our private lives and as our government transacts its official business? Don't forget that our nation's founders were more Freemasons and Deists than true Bible believers. Is it Biblical to start a war based on lies, slaughter innocent civilians, legitimize torture, and run up deficits that future generations will struggle to pay off? (Both parties have unclean hands, in case anyone thinks I am being political.) Our leaders can put their hands on a stack of Bibles, but that won't change the essentially evil nature of our public life.
Mr. Ellison may be more true to the book he swears by than most of our leaders are to the Bible.
Posted by: John | November 29, 2006 11:46 AM
The way public officers take their oaths has changed lately in Peru. Typically the oath is taken with a hand on the Bible, bending the knee and facing a Catholic-style cross (if you know what I mean by that). Although I've seen the cross removed for several congressman/public officers at their request, I don't remember if the Bible was removed too.
Anyways, that is minor stuff compared to what others do: making a circus show out of the ceremony. Because instead of replying with the classical "I do" they have coined creative phrases. Famous case that comes to my mind is one who said "For God and for the money I do"...what a shame!
Posted by: francisco | December 2, 2006 02:43 PM