WASHINGTON (Dec. 1) -- 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.
Talk About It: Post Thoughts
"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.
I predict that the ACLU is going to have a field day sueing Prager even if Ellison lets the Issue slide.
Trying to recall my childhood it seems there was an Athiest congressman back in the 1940's who refused to swear on the bible and he was allowed to select any book he desired. If memory serves me right he chose "Alice in Wonderland"
I don't really understand this. As a conservative and a Christian I think the most important problem in the U.S. is lack of faith, period. I don't think the majority of conservatives would consider this an issue at all. To be honest, perhaps someone taking the oath of office with a hand on the Koran might produce better integrity than all the hundreds of congressmen and congresswomen who have put their hands on the Bible and then been involved with all kinds of corruption and illegal activity.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
Objection to this is one of the stupidest political moves in a long time. I can't imagine ANY liberals being impressed and I can't imagine many conservatives either. He's isolating himself from both sides of the spectrum.
The whole purpose of an oath on the bible (or Quran) is to make somebody fear devine retribution for breaking the oath. The more somebody believes in the holy book the more weight the oath should carry. A muslim (or hindu or athiest or whoever) swearing on a book he doesn't even believe in is meaningless.
Moreover, shouldn't this fellow be more concerned with people who have BROKEN the oath rather than people who want to make it more meaningful to them?
This reminds of me of people claiming that allowing homosexual marriage would destroy the sanctity of marriage while completely ignoring massive divorce rates and drive through marriages of convenience or publicity.
I don't really understand this. As a conservative and a Christian I think the most important problem in the U.S. is lack of faith, period. I don't think the majority of conservatives would consider this an issue at all. To be honest, perhaps someone taking the oath of office with a hand on the Koran might produce better integrity than all the hundreds of congressmen and congresswomen who have put their hands on the Bible and then been involved with all kinds of corruption and illegal activity.
I don't see what Mr Prager's problem is. In a British court of law, for instance, there are all manner of holy books for people to swear oaths on - Bibles, Qurans, Torahs, Guru Granth Sahibs, the Hindu Scriptures whose name escapes me...
I thought your not supposed to swear PERIOD! I dunno.
Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Uthaymeen said:
“Shirk is of two types, major shirk which puts a person beyond the pale of Islam, and lesser shirk.”
The first type, major shirk, is “Every type of shirk which the Lawgiver described as such and which puts a person beyond the pale of his religion” – such as devoting any kind of act of worship which should be for Allaah to someone other than Allaah, such as praying to anyone other than Allaah, fasting for anyone other than Allaah or offering a sacrifice to anyone other than Allaah. It is also a form of major shirk to offer supplication (du’aa’) to anyone other than Allaah, such as calling upon the occupant of a grave or calling upon one who is absent to help one in some way in which no one is able to help except Allaah.
The second type is minor shirk, which means every kind of speech or action that Islam describes as shirk, but it does not put a person beyond the pale of Islam – such as swearing an oath by something other than Allaah, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said that whoever swears an oath by something other than Allaah is guilty of kufr or shirk.”
The one who swears an oath by something other than Allaah but does not believe that anyone other than Allaah has the same greatness as Allah, is a mushrik who is guilty of lesser shirk, regardless of whether the one by whom he swore is venerated by people or not. It is not permissible to swear by the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), or by the president, or by the Ka’bah, or by Jibreel, because this is shirk, but it is minor shirk which does not put a person beyond the pale of Islam.
Article 6 of the Constitution- 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.
Four presidents have been inaugurated without swearing an oath on the Bible. Franklin Pierce was affirmed, and swore no oath, Rutherford Hayes initially had a private ceremony with no Bible before his public ceremony, Theodore Roosevelt had no Bible at his ceremony, and Lyndon Johnson used a missal during his first term.
Linda Lingle, Governor of Hawaii, took the oath of office on a Torah in 2001. Madeleine Kunin, a Jewish Immigrant and Governor of Vermont "rested her left hand on a stack of old prayer books that had belonged to her mother, grandparents, and great grandfather" as "a physical expression of the weight of Jewish history."
Since I can't edit, the sentence beginning with "linda lingle..." is from an article in the la times and the stuff about the constitution was from my politcal science text.
We're not trustworthy, many Americans who really do not about Islam our even there own history are skeptical when someone does something different. You do not have to swear on the bible, torah, or Qur'an but many officials choose to do so. I'm almost 100% sure that if 9/11 did not happen nobody would give much insight to the situation, unless your a neo-con christian conservative who believes that America should be a christian theocracy.
We're not trustworthy, many Americans who really do not about Islam our even there own history are skeptical when someone does something different. You do not have to swear on the bible, torah, or Qur'an but many officials choose to do so. I'm almost 100% sure that if 9/11 did not happen nobody would give much insight to the situation, unless your a neo-con christian conservative who believes that America should be a christian theocracy.
I'm a Christian conservative who wants nothing of the kind. I don't know any conservatives who want a "theocracy". This debate is about the comments made by one man, not the conservative movement or the Republican Party.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
I'm a Christian conservative who wants nothing of the kind. I don't know any conservatives who want a "theocracy". This debate is about the comments made by one man, not the conservative movement or the Republican Party.
My fault, I was referring to those who wanted a christian theocracy.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
He cares more about culture than religion. Weird.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks