Politics and Culture

Link: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2006/11/28/america,_not_keith_ellison,_decides_what_book_a_congressman_takes_his_oath_on

Noel, from Maganasquids, gave me the following article in reply to Prager's article which I've linked to and can be read after the "more."

The article and my reply:

Dennis Prager - Hateful and Wrong - Updated
Nov 28, 2006 -- 8:48 AM CST
Robin Marty

In a recent Townhall article Conservative Talk Show Host and Columnist Dennis Prager states that Congressman-elect Keith Ellison (MN 5) should not be allowed to take the oath of office on the Koran because "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."
Besides playing on the racist fears of his readers by comparing taking the oath of office on the Koran to "a racist elected to Congress" being allowed to "choose Hitler's 'Mein Kampf,' the Nazis' Bible," Prager is completely wrong when he states that "all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book."

First of all, it's not at all fair to say that Prager is "hateful" for expressing an opinion and defending an American tradition. You might as well say that Ellison is hateful of American tradition.

In our country's history, four presidents have been inaugurated without swearing an oath on the Bible. Franklin Pierce was affirmed, and swore no oath, Rutherford Hayes initially had a private ceremony with no Bible before his public ceremony, Theodore Roosevelt had no Bible at his ceremony, and Lyndon Johnson used a missal during his first term.
Despite Prager's insistence that "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," it is clear that he is wrong. Linda Lingle, Governor of Hawaii, took the oath of office on a Torah in 2001. Madeleine Kunin, a Jewish Immigrant and Governor of Vermont "rested her left hand on a stack of old prayer books that had belonged to her mother, grandparents, and great grandfather" as "a physical expression of the weight of Jewish history."

Not bad points. The presidents are irrelevant as they didn't refuse the Bible. Pierce used a Bible but didn't swear an oath. Nobody is going to make Ellison swear an oath. For Hayes, it would have been redundant. Theodore Roosavelt may not have had a Bible, but he didn't make a point to reject it and Johnson was sworn during an emergency and a Bible could not be found. Now, if, in fact, the US House of Representatives allow for this, he should be able to do it. I don't, however, think that's the case as none of the examples he cites are representatives, but are, in fact, governors.

And in North Carolina, the Notary Public has a written code for swearing in:

"A person taking an oath should place one hand on the Holy Scriptures. This book will vary depending on the person's religious beliefs: Christians should use the New Testament or the Bible; Jews, the Torah or the Old Testament; Moslems, the Koran; Hindus, the Bhagavad-Gita; etc."
Perhaps Prager would be best benefited if he spent less time writing columns, and more re-reading Article VI of the Constitution:

This is for North Carolina so, therefore, irrelevant.

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.

Irrelevant again as nobody is insisting that Ellison convert. He will say, "under God," not "under Jesus."

Minnesota Monitor will be continuing to look at religion and public oaths of office in the upcoming weeks
Update The National Jewish Democratic Council Blog offers this info about Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz:
U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) made headlines earlier this month when she could not find a Hebrew Bible for her swearing in; she refused the Christian Bible proffered by House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and eventually borrowed one from Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.).

Well, maybe Wasserman should have used the first Bible available. I don't think it was Prager's point to pick only on Muslims. In fact, he praises those Jews who recognize the Christian character of the nation.

Prager's two unarguable points are that it is a finger in the eye of American tradition to refuse to acknowledge its traditions and that if the nation allows people to choose the book upon which they wish to swear, they might as well get rid of swearing altogether which actually may be the goal of those on the left who are complaining about Prager's article. I would challenge anybody who makes a case for allowing Ellison to choose his swearing-in book to argue against David Duke, God forbid, choosing Mein Kampf on his swearing-in. Let's face it, if we change the rules, it won't be long before people are searing on their signed copy of Hegemony.

Follow up:

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.