An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Should Keith Ellison Be Sworn In With the Quran?
Keith Ellison, who will become the first Muslim member of Congress next month, has ignited a firestorm in the conservative blogosphere by planning to use the Quran during his ceremonial swearing-in.
Dennis Prager, who writes at Townhall.com, is leading the torch-and-pitchfork crowd with angry denunciations against the Minnesota Democrat for using the Muslim holy book instead of the Bible.
Writes Prager:
“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.”
And:
“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?”
Heaven forbid that I agree with anything that Prager (who happens to be Jewish) writes, but my initial thought was that Ellison ought to use the Bible like everyone else.
My second thought was that religious freedom is a fundamental and cherished right in America.
So I’m with Ellison.
More here.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
30 Responses to “Should Keith Ellison Be Sworn In With the Quran?”
Really, you should swear on something sacred to you. If the Bible holds no meaning for you, what good is a promise made upon it?
Perhaps agnostics should swear on the Constitution. Yes, I think maybe we could agree that all congress men/women should hold the Constitution sacred. Only a few religions are ‘religions of the book’ anyway.
Your initial thought is ridiculous and wrong, not to mention historically inaccurate, unconsitutional, and plainly offensive.
According to the Clerk of the House, no religious book is ever used in the swearing in of House members.
According to the Clerk of the House, no religious book is ever used in the swearing in of House members.
If that is the case, I agree that the Quran is not appropriate.
The religious text (or whatever… the Constitution has also been used) is used for a pre-swearing in photo op. In the actual swearing in, the members are in the chamber and all recite the oath together with their hands raised, IIRC.
I thought I read that the Constitution makes to mention of swearing on the Bible.
Nevertheless I don’t care what God they swear to as long as it is not in conflict with the rights and processes in the Constitution and it still allows for consequences of perjury.
In fact this might be the perfect opportunity for officers to begin a new ritual of swearing on a copy of the Constitution in addition or instead of. That would mean more to me than someone’s alligence to Wiccans.
Darryl and Gary:
The key word here is that the Quran will be used during Ellison’s ceremonial swearing-in.
This was addressed by the NJDC on 11/28/2006. Prager’s written some good books and articles but he’s been really goofy the last couple of years.
This is a silly. I don’t care if he takes the oath of office with his hand on Popular Mechanics.
So let me get this straight –
1) No actual book is used during the offical, legal swearing in
2) Any photographs with a book are made during the ceremonial/unofficial swearing in for publicity purposes
3) Not only have a variety of books been used over the years but sometimes no book is used during the photo-op
4) Our Constitution (rightly) prohibits any religious test being used to bar someone from public office
So 1+2+3+4 = there is nothing to this story except a half-cocked, manufactured controversy based on inaccurate and false assertions which are easily checked and discredited (say ten minutes with google and a US civics textbook).
Why is anyone wasting their time on this?
Welcome to Republican politics.
My own feeling about this is that it’s an example of 21st Century polarization, posturing politics. Parties use it to whip up the base; radio hosts use it to get audiences and callers going. I use it to look at people who do this and consider arguments — mostly the ones that they OPPOSE. I turns me off and almost always makes me decide on the side of the people who they are demonizing. I can’t tell you how much I detest it. And with a name like “Gandelman” I ain’t a Muslim..
I was going to write something about this; but Eural wrote it much better than I ever could.
Why is this a story? Who is pushing this?
THERE IS NO BOOK USED DURING THE OFFICIAL SWEARING IN..STOP…END OF STORY…STOP
Shaun Mullen, please respond.
When Prager asks which book a hypothetical racist would use to swear in, is he ignoring all the advocates of slavery and Jim Crow? In that case, the answer would be the bible.
Another point of view is that Prager and others are sincere.
What would you say to them if they were in front of you and a dozen reporters?
How would you craft your language to be persuasive and mininimize confrontation?
Dennis, this is an increasingly diverse and multicultural society. History has confirmed that we are stronger and more resilient when we embrace honorable, industrious and devout people to join our society. It is in our interest that moderate Muslim around the world are convinced that we respect and honor their spiritual choices. As long as their personal spiritual path is not in conflict with our Constitution why would it be important that the Bible be a test of their suitability to serve the constituents who elected them?
Dayton:
It is a story if only because there are people like Praeger who need to be called out because they judge people by their faith, and if that faith does not comport with their carefully proscribed views they are considered godless and unpatriotic heathens. Got that?
What is really more important is that our elected leaders do wha they swear to do: defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States.
Yet another example of polarized contemporary politics, making something out of a non-issue. The U.S. Constitution says something about no religious test for office. Although Prager has had some good points in the past, his stance on this one doesn’t suit him.
“Should Keith Ellison Be Sworn In With the Quran?”
Absoloutely, if thats what he chooses.
Personally I’d swear my oath to the constitution being that I’m agnostic. But being that I’m agnostic I doubt I’d have a prayer (hehe joke there) of even getting elected.
The idea behind oath taking on a religious text is that you incur the wrath of the deity if you break your oath. By definition that religious text must be one that has meaning to you. In other words taking an oath on a pad of sticky notes is not going to have that same ramifications as an oath on a Koran or Bible or any other religious text. In short Prager has no idea what he is talking about.
Hmm. So I guess Joe Lieberman should be forced to swear on the New Testament as well? Seems odd Mr. Prager would find anything offensive about the use of the Quran – well, other than the fact that as noted, no book is actually harmed during the swearing in ceremony.
Prager is clearly unfamiliar with the concept of logic.
His brain does not understand how one thing might effect another. HE thinks he gets it, and that’s what’s bothersome.
Idiots need to keep quiet. But he never shuts up.
http://ragsly.blogspot.com
prager is a pseudo intellectual bufoon desperately seeking ratings
The Bible is no longer used to swear in witnesses in court, sworn testimony before Congress (which I’ve done four times) or for swearing in political leaders. Let’s get past this us vs. them mentality. We have a secular form of government, thank God.
Prager is doing this just to harass Ellison because he is muslim. and a democrat. Mostly the last. if he was a republican muslim, prager would defend his rights.
hypocrit. These guys make me sick.
He should not be allowed to swear on the koran. The foundation of this country is based on Judeo-Christian values. Whoever doesn’t like it, can lump it.
My understanding and opinion is that “the foundation of this country is based on” NO certain or specific religion. It explicitely is not based on Judeo-Christian values. It is also not based on the Koran. At the same time, it’s based on the freedom to worship and express either or any religious values…seriously…read the Constitution.
I’m going to research this myself. Sounds like people are believing a lot of myths and popular misconceptions.
But in the end, who cares what text someone uses, if any? It doesn’t matter to me, and it should’t matter to you. That’s what freedom is all about.
It doesn’t matter to you, and it does matter to her. That’s what freedom is all about. It allows for the tolerant and the biggoted. It’s a beautiful thing, but it can get muddy.
Some nominally Christian groups (such as the Religious Society of Friends, aka Quakers, in which I was raised) hold that swearing on a bible is wrong. From the Quaker perspective, the truth is holy and swearing on a bible is “taking the name of the Lord in vain”.
Obviously, you can put your hand on whatever you want for the ceremonial photo-op, but that is not the issue. The issue is that some “conservatives” want everyone to swear on a Judeo-Christian holy book. My perspective (which I get from a Christian upbringing) is that this is wrong, although in our secular society I respect the right of others to do this sort of wrong. I think the underlying “conservative” argument is that people who do not identify as their version of Christian or Jewish should not publicly acknowledge their beliefs.
If this (our US of A) were a Judeo-Christian theocracy run according to my beliefs, many Jews and Christians would find their practices outlawed. Thank God it is not so, eh? Viva tolerance, folks.
pragers comments are a slap in the face to america
he is compleatly out of hand comparing another religions holy book to that of a rascist hate group
lets stop and think for a second. what is the point of being swore in on the bible. it’s because this can almost assure that the people swearing on it will uphold their oath. because of ellisons religious belifs i strongly belive the quran is a better choice. we live in the land of the free, not the land of the christians.