Multiculturalism In Congress

Apparently the U.S.'s first Muslim Congressman--Keith Ellison--will not swear his oath of office on the Bible.  Instead, he's insisting on swearing on the Quran.  My first thought was, this makes sense given his belief system.  Dennis Prager, however, begs to differ.  As he points out, all elected Christians, Jews, and secularists have always sworn on the Bible.  Why?  Because it is not their belief system that is the key, but rather, America's.  After reading this article, I tend to agree.  It is not about the individual, but the nation.

Prager asserts this point, and the damage to the culture this trend could cause

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?

History is also on Prager's side, as he notes what other elected officials have done, despite their personal beliefs.  He also points out how quickly this can take a unifyling national custom and descend it into foolishness:

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.

The importance of national unity should not be under appreciated.  Removing a time-honored tradition will have consequences.  Prager concludes they will be even more dire than 9-11:

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.

Hard hitting stuff from one of America's finest social commentators.  You should read the entire piece here.

Thomas More

allthesemore@yahoo.com

Comments

[Thomas More]

Thanks to a friend, and golfer, who forwarded this to me.

[mac man]

great article. glad you found this to share with everyone. we can't let our foundation be chipped away at or we'll have nothing left when all is said and done by the chippers.

thanks.

[Philomena]

Yet another example of "It's not about you".

[Thomas Less]

Koran? If you want to make a statement about your devotion to Islam, Mr. Congressman, strap on a backpack with some dynamite and excuse yourself from the ceremony. America needs some new immigration rules. If you come here, you need to take a shower, loose the dress, read the Bible, speak English and eat beef. That would cut down on a lot of the rif-raf that we put up with today.

[Didymus]

Mr. Less,
I don't find your comment funny or helpful in any way.
It is impossible to be "un-Swedish" or "un-French" and the reason is these countries unlike ours were not founded on ideals. They are geographic and/or ethnic entities. Your comments make it sound like we need to look a certain way, dress a certain way,and read a certain book to be America. I disagree. You have reduced America to an ethnic and georgraphic "place." It is not, America is an idea, a set of values. Mr. Ellison certainly misses this point when he insists on swearing on the Koran, but there is a way to eat beef, take a shower and swear on the Bible and be un-American - and you found it here.
Didymus

[Thomas Less]

Didymus,
I'm sorry you did not find the humor in my comment. That was, after all, my only purpose. You sound very sharp; did you really expect something brilliant from a guy named "Thomas Less"? It's true I'm no genius, but I did not miss your saying that it is in fact I that am unamerican. Good luck in your crusade to rid America of those who don't take everything so seriously.

[Didymus]

Thomas Less,

Well thanks, I am kinda sharp at times - but apparently not here. I didn't catch the play on Thomas More's name, I'm sorry.

Assuming you were being serious I thought your points deserved a strong rebuke.

Forgive me for missing that point.

Didymus

[Thomas Less]

Forgiven. It's a charitable ending to the makings of a cat fight. I commend your faith in action.

[Tim]

I'm not sure I agree with the original article. Ellison doesn't represent America - he represents his district, and should be sworn in according to their wishes. If the people of his district wanted their representative to be sworn in on a bible, then they shouldn't have elected a Muslim. (Unless people suddenly discovered he was a Muslim after being elected, but that would be a whole different story.)

How does this extend to the other groups mentioned in the article? Primarily that most elected officials know that if they choose not to be sworn in on a bible, they will be offending a large portion of their constituency. More problematic, for Mormons and Scientoligists, this would also lead to a greater examination of their beliefs and the realization that they are not Christian or not a religion (respectively). The Nazi would (hopefully) not be elected in the first place.

But perhaps we would be better off if the secular officials would swear on something else (my vote would be a copy of the constitution). What does it mean for someone to swear on a bible they don't believe in? Should we Christians be encouraging this or offended at such a blithe use of the bible? Could this even be considered blasphemy?

[Thomas More]

Tim,

Great questions. I had your take on this too, originally. But I think Prager's right on the national-unity theme, and I disagree on the constituency v. nation distinction you make. A Congressman serves the entire nation, while elected from his district. I believe the oath is to uphold the Constitution, not the interests of their district. On the issues relevant to the oath/swearing in that are here debated, I don't think the district is relevant. The question becomes, what does that nation require from its electeds. At least an acknowledgement of the country's norms and traditions seems reasonable--even desirable. If we do it person by person, or district by district, we no longer have "E Pluribus Unum."

[Dimensio]

I am curious as to how those here interprete the meaning of Article VI, Section III of the United States constitution, or if any are under the same mistaken impression as Dennis Prager that all Representatives other than Ellison have been sworn in or will be sworn in on a Christian Bible, when in fact no books are used at all during the formal mass swearing-in ceremony.

[Thomas More]

Dimensio,

Do you mean the "bound by Oath" or "no religious test" portion of Section 3?

If bound by an oath, I'd say that that is what we are talking about: what type of oath--personal or national importance--how the oath is done, what the symbols underlying that oath are, etc.

If you mean "no religious test" the swearing on the Bible is not a religious test as mentioned in the Constitution. There, the Founders were concerned about making a member swear allegiance, or prove membership in, a particular denomination.

In the "separation of church and state" wars, we have lost sight of the fact that during the founding era, states had, and England had, an established state-approved church. Membership in that church could have implications on your public standing. The Founders sought to avoid that at the federal level--but did not do so at the state level, which is why Massachusetts still had an official state (commonwealth really) church into the 1800's.

The mere fact that a Muslim has been elected, and will be sworn in (hence the discussion) is proof that there is no "religious test." Therefore, I do not think the "religious test" portion of the Constitution is a concern in this debate.

I do think the "bound by Oath" portion is, and it makes for an interesting discussion. I would stand with Prager on the value of having national norms and an acknowledgement of authority beyond man--though as Representatives, they are not required to enact laws they feel are contrary to the interests of the nation simply because they feel--or someone says--divine authority requires it. But that is another subject, for another day--my point being, an oath on the Bible does not make a theocracy or a requirement that anyone making the oath believes everything/anything that is in the Bible.