Religious Freedom? Not if you're a Muslim in Congress

Publius · 12-01-2006, 05:37 PM

At least that's what Dennis Prager says...

Newly elected Muslim lawmaker under fire - USATODAY.com

WASHINGTON — The first Muslim elected to Congress hasn't been sworn into office yet, but his act of allegiance has already been criticized by a conservative commentator.
In a column posted Tuesday on the conservative website Townhall.com, Dennis Prager blasted Minnesota Democrat Keith Ellison's decision to take the oath of office Jan. 4 with his hand on a Quran, the Muslim holy book.

"He should not be allowed to do so," Prager wrote, "not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American culture."

He said Ellison, a convert from Catholicism, should swear on a Christian Bible — which "America holds as its holiest book. … If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress."

The post generated nearly 800 comments on Townhall.com and sparked a tempest in the conservative blogosphere. 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.

Dave Colling, Ellison's spokesman, said he was unavailable for comment. Earlier, Ellison told the online Minnesota Monitor, "The Constitution guarantees for everyone to take the oath of office on whichever book they prefer. And that's what the freedom of religion is all about."

Colling said 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,' " Colling said.

"Requiring somebody to take an oath of office on a religious text that's not his" violates the Constitution, said Kevin Hasson, president of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

Members of the House of Representatives traditionally raise their right hands and are sworn in together on the floor of the chamber. The ritual sometimes seen as the swearing-in is actually a ceremonial photo op with the speaker of the House that usually involves a Bible.

"They can bring in whatever they want," says Fred Beuttler, deputy historian of the House.

Prager, who is Jewish, wrote that no Mormon elected official has "demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon." But Republican Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon, carried a volume of Mormon scriptures that included the Bible and the Book of Mormon at his swearing-in ceremony in 1997.

Prager, who hosts a radio talk show, could not be reached for comment.

As I posted on YoungCitizen.com, Representative Ellison is an American citizen and has every right to take his oath on whatever religious book he wants. This sort of bigoted hatred is going too far.

DosEquis · 12-01-2006, 05:39 PM

I think dpakman played a clip of savage or someone interviewing him... and the interviewer basically asked him since he was a muslim and a democrat, how can we trust that he is not working with terrorists.

Publius · 12-01-2006, 05:51 PM

Let's just toss out this part of Article VI of the Constitution guys, amirite!?

"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."

7960 · 12-01-2006, 05:59 PM

He (and everyone, IMO) should swear on the constitution, not the bible or quran or any other holy book.

garbagemanlb · 12-01-2006, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

He (and everyone, IMO) should swear on the constitution, not the bible or quran or any other holy book.

Agreed.

With that said, I think it makes sense to have the man swear on something he actually BELIEVES in, as opposed to forcing him to swear on something he doesn't. That seems like the best way to keep the oath sacred to each individual.

Publius · 12-01-2006, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

He (and everyone, IMO) should swear on the constitution, not the bible or quran or any other holy book.

I agree.

R-Type · 12-01-2006, 06:09 PM

I wonder how many centuries will have to go by before we stop using the already out of date 'swearing to make-believe deities' as a means of ensuring integrity. Talk about lame-brained 'security.' People just don't fear religious 'punishment' the way they did back then, and even then I'm sure people lied under oath. Today, it's a joke. Recent events alone have proven that.

RMNIXON · 12-01-2006, 06:10 PM

Funny how Liberals all tell us how we must repect the culture and traditions of other Nations no matter how repressive. Mormons, Jews, ect...have all taken oath on a bible or no book at all. I have no objection to the latter. There is no repression of this mans religious beliefs. In all the history of mankind the United States is one of the greatest examples of religious tolerance.

I would rather offend the liberal (anti-Christian) crowd of this nation than inspire the Islamic (no seperation of church and state) outisders who will view this as a victory of their faith, not of religious tolerance.

RMNIXON · 12-01-2006, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

Agreed.

With that said, I think it makes sense to have the man swear on something he actually BELIEVES in, as opposed to forcing him to swear on something he doesn't. That seems like the best way to keep the oath sacred to each individual.

Yes, but that dosen't happen. We are not forcing anyone to swear on a bible, nor should we. But that is not the issue. The issue is the substitution of our tradional bible with the Koran. That is not representation of the religious history and culture of this country.

kinggovernor · 12-01-2006, 06:33 PM

swearing on Constitution > swearing on a book

R-Type · 12-01-2006, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Yes, but that dosen't happen. We are not forcing anyone to swear on a bible, nor should we. But that is not the issue. The issue is the substitution of our tradional bible with the Koran. That is not representation of the religious history and culture of this country.

Neither is ignoring the constitution whenever it gets in the way of christian protectionism. Assuming we even accept the rationality and legitimacy of swearing-in ceremonies in the first place, forcing a nonchristian to swear in on a bible is a perfect example of unspoken government establishment of christianity as the 'official' state religion.

On symbolic grounds, I like the idea of using the constitution. That's what these people should be swearing allegiance to anyway.. not some made up deity that is assumed to be a 'higher power'.. remember what happens when a country's leaders decide they answer to 'higher powers'?

RMNIXON · 12-01-2006, 06:42 PM

Elected Officials are not forced to be sworn on a bible. How many post before we even get that clear?

R-Type · 12-01-2006, 06:44 PM

well apparently one of your conservative brethren disagrees with that concept..and tha'ts the basis of this thread.

hsmith · 12-01-2006, 07:53 PM

"swearing" is a stupid institution from way back when that has no purpose today.

Galactic Gigolo · 12-02-2006, 03:03 AM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Funny how Liberals all tell us how we must repect the culture and traditions of other Nations no matter how repressive. Mormons, Jews, ect...have all taken oath on a bible or no book at all. I have no objection to the latter. There is no repression of this mans religious beliefs. In all the history of mankind the United States is one of the greatest examples of religious tolerance.

I would rather offend the liberal (anti-Christian) crowd of this nation than inspire the Islamic (no seperation of church and state) outisders who will view this as a victory of their faith, not of religious tolerance.

God damn liberals and their discrimination against discrimination.

How is him swearing on the Koran going to affect us negatively? An Islamic terrorist would likely view Ellison as being nearly as evil as Christian Americans. And even if they did like him, what kind of impact would Islamic outsiders viewing this as a victory for their faith going to have?

I find it hard to imagine an almost defeated Islamic terrorist suddenly deciding that the war is worth fighting because one of the 535 members of Congress swore on the Koran.

RMNIXON · 12-02-2006, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by GalacticGigolo

God damn liberals and their discrimination against discrimination.

How is him swearing on the Koran going to affect us negatively? An Islamic terrorist would likely view Ellison as being nearly as evil as Christian Americans. And even if they did like him, what kind of impact would Islamic outsiders viewing this as a victory for their faith going to have?

I find it hard to imagine an almost defeated Islamic terrorist suddenly deciding that the war is worth fighting because one of the 535 members of Congress swore on the Koran.

It is not an institution of our government to do so. He could swear on a copy of Hustler magazine with that logic. How would that be a negative? How about having some respect for our national institutions? That is all I ask. I don't want to convert the man to christianity or make him swear on a bible, but there is no right to force his own religious culture into the picture. Your argument is meant to negate any cultural history in this country under the banner of non judgemental tollerance. Lets just have a big "free for all" on everything.

RMNIXON · 12-02-2006, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by hsmith

"swearing" is a stupid institution from way back when that has no purpose today.

I will respect that argument. I don't respect the right to substitute the Koran.

Galactic Gigolo · 12-03-2006, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

How about having some respect for our national institutions? That is all I ask. I don't want to convert the man to christianity or make him swear on a bible, but there is no right to force his own religious culture into the picture. Your argument is meant to negate any cultural history in this country under the banner of non judgemental tollerance. Lets just have a big "free for all" on everything.

Replace a few words in your argument and you have the classic one used against gay marriage.

And if he swore on a copy of Hustler it would be fantastic because it may encourage a move to not swearing at all.

hsmith · 12-03-2006, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

I will respect that argument. I don't respect the right to substitute the Koran.

right, because one fairy tale book is better than another fairy tale book

Scrum · 12-03-2006, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by hsmith

right, because one fairy tale book is better than another fairy tale book