Probably as much good as a Muslim oath on the Koran to support a Christian (infidel), or secular (infidel), nation. 
Posted on 11/28/2006 6:35:48 PM PST by 13Sisters76
America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on By Dennis Prager Tuesday, November 28, 2006
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.
Dennis Prager is a radio show host, contributing columinst for Townhall.com, and author of 4 books including Happiness Is a Serious Problem: A Human Nature Repair Manual.
Be the first to read Dennis Prager's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox. Sign up today
Copyright © 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
it is painfully obvious that Dennis Prager and some people on this thread need some constitutional lessons
forcing someone to swear on a Bible is a religious test and is expressly prohibited in the constitution. period
Let me correct you slightly, the constitution does not prescribe an oath specifically for congressman, only for the President. Also you err when you say that Article VI is explicit that any "tome" can be used. Article VI is explicit only about religious tests, not about books or tomes.
However, the development of the current oath has an interesting twist.... It was simple at first but enhanced to focus on loyalty to the US at a period when loyalty could be in doubt. We may be entering another period when members of our government's loyalty will need to be ascertained.
Per the US Senate website:
The Constitution contains an oath of office only for the president. For other officials, including members of Congress, that document specifies only that they "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution." In 1789, the First Congress reworked this requirement into a simple fourteen-word oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."
For nearly three-quarters of a century, that oath served nicely, although to the modern ear it sounds woefully incomplete. Missing are the soaring references to bearing "true faith and allegiance;" to taking "this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;" and to "well and faithfully" discharging the duties of the office.
The outbreak of the Civil War quickly transformed the routine act of oath-taking into one of enormous significance. In April of 1861, a time of uncertain and shifting loyalties, President Abraham Lincoln ordered all federal civilian employees within the executive branch to take an expanded oath. When Congress convened for a brief emergency session in July, members echoed the president's action by enacting legislation requiring employees to take the expanded oath in support of the Union. This oath is the earliest direct predecessor of the modern oath.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Oath_Office.htm
NO democrat intends to uphold the oath of their office.
way to quote me on something I didn't actually say. That took skill...
*shaking head at what this forum is turning into*
Probably as much good as a Muslim oath on the Koran to support a Christian (infidel), or secular (infidel), nation.
The Koran? Not even close. From what I can gather, it's a compilation of 'teachings' of Mohammaed. He didn't write it; I believe he was illiterate. It was written after his death to carry on what he began. He 'borrowed' teachings and ideas from various religions in the Middle East, including Judaism, Christianity, and even Zoroastrianism from Persia.
As someone who live in the 5th CD, a couple of points
1 Ellison has more than enough skeletons in his closet (support for cop killers, support for thr SLA, driving w/o a licence, failure to pay tickets, failure to pay taxes, his Association with the naition of Islam, and failure to speakout on their anti-semitism.
2 If he were a Baptist and held the above positions I'd take him to task, and speak out against him. Hawk1976 maybe you'd like to change the 1st amendment?
3 He's a Muslim, what did you expect him to swear on, the Bhagavad Gita?
"He has a freedom to choose whatever traditions HE holds. That's what the TRADITION of freedom is"
Well said Mike, I Couldn't put it any better.
Jim Wright, Dan Rostenkowsky and "Duke" Cunningham all swore an oath of office on the Holy Bible. Did it matter?
way to quote me on something I didn't actually say. That took skill...
false.....here the "quote".....originally typed and posted by YOU in YOUR post #38:
"This forum needs to look to other things to bash this guy on. "
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1745518/posts?page=38#38
That's totally irrelevant.
Exactly. It's no coincidence that the Religious Test Clause and the Oath or Affirmation Clause are both in the same sentence. Prager is out of his mind.
Somehow I suspect that it's more of a tradition than an official House Rule, and in any case, the House leadership on Jan 3 isn't about to have a problem with it.
That being said, I wonder what will happen when Ellison starts w/ the Arabic when taking the oath?
House members are traditionally sworn in en masse by the Speaker on the first day of Congress immediately after the Speaker of the House is elected and sworn in.
Perhaps you should write Mr Keith "I'm a Muslim" Ellison and inform him of this fact.
The refs to Roosevelt and others not swearing on the bible are worthless. This idiot isn't just "affirming" he's using the Koran. Or perhaps the US would have looked on Teddy favorably had he also swore his oath of office on the Koran.
So the Speaker is elected by a bunch of yet-to-be-sworn-in Representatives? Sounds odd.
House members are traditionally sworn in en masse by the Speaker on the first day of Congress immediately after the Speaker of the House is elected and sworn in.
The House couldn't make such a requirement. The Constitution forbids it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.