Posted by
Buster Foghorn on Wednesday, December 06, 2006 12:52:59 AM
What are we to think of the announcement by Keith Ellison, the newly elected Congressman from Minnesota, and the comments for and against his announcement, that he will use the Koran to take the oath of office as the first elected Muslim Congressman in January 2007?
* Dennis Prager in an article entitled: “America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on” argued that the Bible has been our traditional book; “when all elected officials take their oath of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization;” and if it is good enough for Jews, Mormons, and atheists, then Ellison should use the same book.
* Eugene Volokh, in “Oh Say, Can You Swear on a Koran?” responded that officials have selected sacred books other than the Bible. He observed further that under the Federal Rules of Evidence a witness could affirm or take no oath. The purpose of the oath is that it be meaningful to the witness and impress upon him the seriousness of the occasion. Professor Volokh explains the oath is to awaken the conscience of the witness and impress on him a duty to testify truthfully.
* Today, Mr. Prager explained in response to criticism of his position, he was not arguing for a religious test, but for Mr. Ellison to recognize the role of the Bible and the traditions that have provided the freedoms all Americans enjoy.
Additionally, are there other factors that were not considered which suggest that the use of the Koran might be different? What if:
- Islam is both a religion and a political ideology,
- Many Muslims reject man-made laws of their country of residence: for example, in England only 1 in 4 Muslims believe England is their country, “twenty-eight percent hope for the U.K. one day to become a fundamentalist Islamic state,” and some believe that only Sharia law applies to them,
- An oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States is inconsistent with the Koran’s teaching that all belongs to Allah and Allah’s laws as found in the Koran must be obeyed, and
- An oath on the Koran inherently conflicts between the belief system in the sacred text and the words of the oath to protect and defend the laws of the United States.
Shouldn’t Congressman Ellison at least address these issues with his constituents before beginning his service in Congress? Shouldn’t Congressman Ellison reconcile his obligation under the Koran and his duty to protect and defend the laws of the United States before taking an oath on a sacred text that many believe forbids man-made law, separation of church and state, and equal treatment of all religions?