First Muslim Elected to Congress

Dennis Prager, conservative columnist at townhall.com, writes in his column at townhall.com:

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.

My response follows:

There is perhaps a powerful American tradition of swearing in upon a Bible. However, there is no American law insisting on the use of a Bible, and even if this was made a requirement, it would be unconstitutional as an establishment of religion by the state under the First Amendment. It's not that you can't use a Bible; it's just that you can't make somebody use a Bible.

While it is possible to imagine fairly ridiculous books being used for swearing in, I hope, Mr. Prager, that you are not implying that the Koran is one of them; there are over 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, second only to Christianity, according to adherents.com. While the ratio of Muslims to Christians in the USA is much smaller, this nation was supposed to have been founded in large part on principles of equality and of religious freedom -- many of our early settlers were religious minorities, albeit largely variants of Christianity, fleeing oppression in Europe. And this freedom of religion is embodied in the First Amendment.

Now, if someone was actually to attempt to be sworn in on, as Mr. Prager suggests, a copy of 'Mein Kampf', I hope that the people would have the good sense to vote him out next time around.

But no matter the book, the oath is to the Constitution of the United States of America, not to the religion contained in the book, and is binding as such. You of course realize that when Joe Lieberman, who is Jewish, swears in to the Senate as he has done several times, he too is swearing an oath to the Constitution, not to Jesus or Christianity, even if his hand is upon the New Testament. Placing one's hand on a book is symbolically an indication that one is swearing before that which one considers the holiest, and therefore takes the oath seriously. If we are going to be that attached to the symbolism, perhaps we SHOULD ask Mr. Lieberman to use a Torah instead, since that is presumably the religious document closest to his heart.

Somehow, though, I suspect that if Mr. Ellison, as a Muslim, had decided to take his oath upon the Bible, you or some other fearmongering commentator would have protested against that instead, as though the act had a taint upon it. "He can't swear upon our Bible, he doesn't accept it as the ultimate truth!" Looking at the issue from another angle, what advice would you give to a Christian, called as a witness in a Saudi Arabian court of law and asked to swear in upon a Koran? Would you say, "when in Rome..." or would you would be yowling against it?

If what we are seeking is unanimity, perhaps we should have elected officials swear in upon a copy of the Constitution itself, since this is the loyalty we are supposed to be trying to elicit.

Personally, I am not a member of any particular religion. Should I ever run and be elected to any office (and I am sure you would work against me doing so), I will inform you, Mr. Prager, about what book or books I swear in on. I find much of value in many religions, so perhaps I will bring a stack of them. This would also serve as a symbol that I intended to represent all of the people, not just Christians or Jews, or Muslims, or Buddhists, or Atheists, or Scientologists. Although Mr. Ellison has instead chosen a single book, I believe that this is also what he intends to do. --RavingModerate.com

Added the following a couple of days later in response to those who are paranoid about the proselytizing aspects of Islam:

I think it's worth noting that a significant number of Christians think we should all be following Christian laws, that this is or should be a Christian state, that the Bible is a higher law than the Constitution etc. I think that the Constitution allows one to hold such beliefs, even act upon them, but within limits. Freedom of religion and separation of church and state, taken together with other laws, are a way of saying you can be who you want to at the deepest level, but you have to also allow others the same freedom. I think this is what we should be working toward, and this is how the Constitution protects the religious and general freedom of both Christians and Muslims in this country, while also protecting those who wish to follow other paths.