Last week, radio host Dennis Prager posted a lengthy blog at the conservative Townhall.com, about the decision of the United States’ first Muslim congressman, Keith Ellison, to take his oath of office on the Koran.
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.
Wow.
-- No, really.
Wow.
Unsurprisingly, people have jumped all over Prager, with at least 226 articles having been written on the subject in the past four days. Last time I looked, his blog had received 1040 comments, although according to USA Today these have ranged from messages of support to messages of protest:
Many who posted comments called the United States a Christian country and said Muslims are beginning to gain too much influence. Others wrote about the separation of church and state and said the Constitution protects all religions.
(Unfortunately, I couldn’t check for myself because Internet Explorer crashed every time I tried to open the comments section.)
I wouldn’t be so concerned if it was a case of just one loon with some crazy ideas about democracy, but sadly USA Today also reported that Ellison’s office has received
hundreds of "very bigoted and racist" e-mails and phone calls since Prager's column appeared. "The vast majority said, 'You should resign from office if you're not willing to use the book our country was founded on,' " [Ellison’s spokesman] said.
Now, I am not going to pretend to be a constitutional scholar, but I feel pretty confident that the United States of America were founded on principals that went beyond the Bible.
Indeed, my invaluable roommate led me to the following anecdote:
Culbert Olson (Nov. 7, 1876): Served as California's 29th Governor, 1939-1943. Gov. Olson was an outspoken and unapologetic atheist who took the responsibility of church-state separation seriously, even refusing to be sworn into office with a Bible. This otherwise trivial and wholly constitutional action caused a furor across the state for some 3 days while legislators and self-declared religious moralists and clergy wrung their hands until the California Chief Justice agreed that it would not disqualify him from serving.
A couple of months ago I blogged on the Redeker case, which involved a respected French daily publishing an article by a philosophy teacher arguing that “Jesus is a master of love, and Mohammed a master of hate.†Then I argued that the article needlessly and harmfully further polarized an already polarized debate. This is what Prager has done, lashing out in his bigoted delusions not only at Islam as a whole but also at American values, instead of the Islamic fundamentalists he clearly has in mind:
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.
When paranoia sets in, it seems that there is only one solution: fight fascism with fascism.
Conor Friedersdorf @ December 3, 2006 - 4:40pm
I wonder whether those who want Keith Ellison to put his hand on the Bible realize that part of the reason we use a holy book to administer an oath of office is the idea that someone is less likely to break an oath sworn on what they believe to be God's word.
As a Christian I'd be far more uneasy breaking an oath I swore on the Bible than one I swore on the Koran, or the Communist Manifesto, or some other text whose tenets I don't believe in.
I realize it's unlikely that the deciding factor in whether someone upholds their oath of office is the book on which they swore their oath.
Still, it makes no sense at all to ask someone to swear on a book that they don't believe in.
It seems to me a bit like like asking someone to swear not on their own mother's grave, but on the grave of someone else's mother they haven't even met.
Whatever book Keith Ellison holds most dear and is least likely to want to betray, that's the book I want him to be sworn in on.
»