Now I don't make a secret of the fact that I am not a big fan of Islam. Indeed, it concerns me that more Muslims and Islamic institutions don't stand up and take a hardline stance against terrorism. And I certainly opposed the election of Keith Ellison, a Muslim, to the US Congress -- though my reason was his history of anti-Semitic activity and his refusal to be truthful about those activities.

However, Ellison was was elected by the voters of his district. And Ellison, as a Muslim, has every right to choose to take his oath of office with his hand on a Koran.

Unfortunately, talk-show host and syndicated columnist Dennis Prager disagrees.

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.

Uh, Dennis -- the United States Constitution has a little thing called the First Amendment that was added to is about 215 years ago, And said provision includes the free exercise of religion and precludes the establishment of religion. That should demolish your entire position right there -- but it seems to me that you do not give a damn about little niceties like freedom of religion. In that regard, I could argue that it is you who are out to do even graver damage to this country than you allege Ellison's use of his holy book will do -- but I won't engage in rhetoric quite as heated as yours.

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?

I'm no PC or multi-culti fanatic, but I am a believer in the notion that we as a people do not compel a religious act against someone's will. That is why I support the right of people to opt-out of the Pledge of Allegiance over the words "under God" because they are atheists. I do not believe that their free exercise of (non-)religion is a threat to America. Neither is the practice of permitting individuals who will not take an oath to "affirm" their truthfulness before a court, or the common practice of allowing a book other than the Bible to be used. Oh, and to answer your question -- if some moron wants to use "Mein Kampf", more power to him or her. Such an individual will not last long in office -- and might not even make it through his or her term before being forced out.

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.

Frankly, I'd have great admiration for any Jew who chose to bring the family Torah for their swearing-in -- it would indicate an integrity that is sadly lacking in politics today. Ditto a Mormon who chose to use the Book of Mormon (which I believe to be no more inspired than the Koran) -- though since Mormons accept the Bible, I understand why it has never been an issue. And if someone wants to use take their oath on Dianetics, which is at the heart of L. Ron Hubbard's fraud upon the gullible and over-privileged, they can do so. Indeed, if someone chooses to take the oath on no book whatsoever -- and omit the customary "so help me God" at the end, I am troubled not in the least. The reality is that our founding document encourages such pluralism. Frankly, my preference would be that every public official take their oath of office upon an open copy of the US Constitution in the hope of inspiring fidelity to THAT document.

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.

No, you sanctimonious twit -- the reason is the First Amendment.

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).

No, it is because the greatest goal of America ought to be to be a beacon of freedom, faithful to the words of the Constitution. I don't give a damn if Muslims love us, like us, or hate our guts. Frankly, I want Muslims to FEAR us, and to be aware that in the event that jihadis continue to attack us (and other Muslims explicitly or implicitly give them support) we will see to it that Islam ceases to exist on any significant scale anywhere in the world if that is what is necessary to safeguard American lives and freedom.

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.

Perhaps then you should suggest that Ellison should be forbidden from serving in Congress at all, given that his presence there will also be seen as a step towards the Islamicization of America by those same deranged followers of the false prophet Muhammad.

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.

Gee, Dennis, a similar argument was made in the 19th Century about allowing Catholic school children to use a Catholic translation of the Bible instead of the KJV in public schools back during the 19th century. After all, the KJV was seen as the source of the underlying value system of America -- and use of the Douay-Rhiems was seen as a step towards establishing Papal Tyranny over America. Your argument is no less offensive and bigoted than that of the nativists who burned convents, ransacked churches and trampled the Eucharist in response to such a reasonable demand by Catholics.

Oh, and by the way, Dennis -- if you check Article VI of the Constitution, no book is required for any oath of office, but a religious test for office is forbidden. How do you plan on getting around THAT unifying value as you seek to impose the Bible upon Keith Ellison?

UPDATE: Eugene Volokh refutes Prager well at National Review.

UPDATE II: A great piece on the matter in the Star Tribune presents the issue more or less as i see it -- and refutes the claim of left-wing bloggers that Prager made up the claim that Ellison wanted to use the Koran for his oath.

Ellison, who told the Star Tribune shortly after his election victory that he planned to use the Qur'an, was attending meetings in Washington on Thursday and could not be reached for comment, according to Dave Colling, his spokesman. But Ellison defended his plan to use the Qur'an, Islam's holiest book, in an interview with Abdi Aynte, a reporter from Minneapolis who writes for the Minnesota Monitor, an independently produced political news blog.

"The Constitution guarantees for everyone to take the oath of office on whichever book they prefer," Ellison was quoted as saying. "And that's what the freedom of religion is all about."

And I'd like to point out to my liberal friends that many conservatives are piling on prager over his outrageous column -- including folks like Rep. Tom Tancredo, who is among the most conservative folks in Congress.

MORE AT: Stop the ACLU, The Liberty Papers, Riehl World View, Kobayashi Maru, Andrew Sullivan, Politics & Culture, Minnesota Monitor, PolGeek, America vs. The World, One Country Voice, Outside The Beltway, Bullwinkle Blog, Noisy Room, Taylor Marsh, What Is The War?, Mahablog, California Conservative, Professor Bainbridge, A Newer World, Gina Cobb, Let Freedom Ring, Sister Toldjah, Tammy Bruce, Lifelike Pundits, Hot Air, Wake Up America, Conservative Blog Therapy, Shelbinator, Resonance, WritingUp, Florida Masochist, Shape of Days, Eclectic Times, Cox Family, Christifideles, Where I Stand, The Agitator

Posted by: Greg at 03:04 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 1901 words, total size 15 kb.