My prior post on Dennis Prager’s column: re: Keith Ellison swearing his oath of office on the Koran

In the post I wrote back on November 28th about Dennis Prager’s explosive column about Keith Ellison swearing on the Koran has gotten, I wish I’d have taken more time to write out my thoughts on the idea of someone – whether it be Ellison or anyone else who wants to – swearing on the Koran.

I’ve gotten a few emails and read some of the links back to that post, as well as what others have said (mainly Eugene Volokh) on the topic in general and I’d like to clarify a few things, namely the fact that I’m not calling for any religious litmus test on anyone elected to serve in government. I’m well aware the Constitution is clear on religious tests for elected officials:

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.

I’m also aware that there have been cases, as Volokh mentions, where elected officials either affirmed without having their hand on any book, or in some cases swore their oath of office on the Tanakh. That’s fine by me.

All the same, though, I can’t deny that it bothers me that Ellison (and I presume future members of Congress) will be swearing on the Koran, mainly because the Koran teaches believers that lying is ok under certain circumstances. I also wonder if someone will be allowed to swear on a book like Mein Kampf (for example), even though I’m aware that it’s not a religious book. Would it be allowed? If so, where would we draw the line on what books are acceptable to swear in on and which aren’t?

Ellison has the right to swear on the Koran, and I also have the right to be bothered, especially in a post 9-11 world, by it in terms of what the Koran symbolizes. Now, I realize “what bothers me” doesn’t equate to “what’s legal and not legal to do when swearing your oath of office” but all the same, I hope this clarifies my position on the issue.

14 Responses to "My prior post on Dennis Prager’s column: re: Keith Ellison swearing his oath of office on the Koran"

Dana says:

December 4, 2006 at 12:34 pm

Unless my memory is completely gone (always a possibility), incoming Members of Congress don’t take their oaths of office on anything. They normally stand, all at once, raise their right hands, and repeat the oath as led by the Speaker of the House.

Unless Keith bin Ellison chooses to have a Koran (or DVD of One Night in Paris or a copy of the Constitution) at hand, there won’t be anything under his left hand, save perhaps his desk.
Sister Toldjah says:

December 4, 2006 at 12:40 pm

And their other hand is usually on something, Dana.
Severian says:

December 4, 2006 at 12:58 pm

Usually it’s behind their backs with their fingers crossed…
Karl says:

December 4, 2006 at 3:36 pm

I think everyone needs to relax on this.

First of all, Dana is absolutely correct, the official swearing is in mass (all memebers in a group), and no bible or anythighn else is used.

The unofficial swearing in his office is up to him and he can do anything he wants. It is for family and friends and self. he can swear on a pile of bird droppings if he chooses.

And frankly Icould care less, as long as he keeps his oath and serves with honor, he can swear on Bill Clinton’ book for all I care.
Sister Toldjah says:

December 4, 2006 at 3:43 pm

LINK

Here’s another:

LINK

Don’t worry – I’m cool on the issue. I just wanted to clarify my position.
Big Bang Hunter says:

December 4, 2006 at 4:23 pm

– Yeh….well…It’s easy for you to be cool ST…after all you have all those pornaments on your tree…. *chuckle*

– SantaBang
Karl says:

December 4, 2006 at 6:22 pm

Right but that is not the same as Congress.

Maybe he has the option of holding a Koran on ther floor, but it is not required.

I think that this is a minor test of how hard we consider the concept of religious freedom. If he is a devout, and I distinguish between devout muslims and fanatical muslims, if he is devout he deserves tohave that respected.

Just my 2 cents.
Marshall Art says:

December 5, 2006 at 1:05 am

In my opinion, where swearing on a book might be a requirement or mere tradition, to swear on the book chosen by the host (meaning the USA), should be respected. In general, it pains me to see yet another tradition or institution which has a long and established history, be usurped by a minority of individuals, or one individual, without thought to the tradition or institution itself. I don’t get how one person can decide how and/or when a tradition or practice can be changed just because of that person’s personal preference, as if the person’s personal preference has any higher status than the preference of the majority.

The Bible, as Prager puts it, is our Sacred Book. We are still largely a Christian nation to one degree or another, and this Book and it’s tenents have played a role in making this country what it is. On an elementary level, to swear by crossing one’s heart has meaning to the one expecting the promise of the oath, whereas to cross one’s eyes doesn’t. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, to swear an oath is in actuality, a covenant with God to perform as promised by the oath, more than a deal with the other party, in this case, the people of the USA. So to lay one’s hand on the Bible signifies this covenant and binds the oath taker to his promise. As the Bible is a Christian Holy Book, it makes sense that one should make with the ritual in a mostly Christian country. To swear on the Koran would hold no meaning for a Christian since it’s not in effect swearing to God, as the Muslim God technically is a false god by Biblical standards. As such, it wouldn’t matter how the Koran is viewed by the Muslim candidate since it’s not a question of what the Muslim prefers for the occasion, but of what is required by the party with whom he chooses to swear the oath. It’s similar to a man entering a Synagogue without covering his head, or entering a traditional Japanese home without removing one’s shoes. Yet, I can walk into either, abiding by their traditions, and still remain a Christian or American. The same holds for Ellison, who’s request is a bit selfish and a bit disrespectful of our traditions.
nelson muntz says:

December 5, 2006 at 4:15 am

34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one Matthew 34-37

Not to get all evangelical on you, but it seems to me that you are not supposed to swear on the bible at all.
Maybe congressmen could swear an oath on the constitution or declaration of independence or pledge allegiance to the flag etc…
Marshall Art says:

December 5, 2006 at 9:49 am

The warning against swearing is more for the point that to not hold up one’s end of the agreement is not good. In other words, if you swear to do it, you’d best do it. If you swear it’s true, it best be true. And though it’s not my intent to dispute the above, the fact that we swear at all in public life, as in swearing to tell the truth, is cognizant of the above piece of Scripture and the gravity of swearing an oath. Swearing an oath is not to be taken lightly, and it adds weight to perjury and the breaking of the oath.
Steve Skubinna says:

December 5, 2006 at 3:44 pm

Except, Marshall, that it’s already been established that Muslims are allowed to lie to infidels, and oaths made between them and an infidel are not binding.

Do all Muslims believe that? Certainly not, but how can we tell, given that every one, whatever his integrity, will tell an infidel “Yes, you can trust me?” As far as I’m concerned, Ellison’s word is suspect for two reasons: One is that he belongs to a religion dominated by a tribal ethos that offers only conversion, enslavement, or death to outsiders (and makes apostasy a capital offense), and second is that he’s a politician, and a Demoncrat to boot.

So the hell with his oath. To my mind there’s nothing he can do to convince me of his bona fides, especially given his cozy ties to CAIR and other terror supporting groups.
Karl says:

December 5, 2006 at 4:36 pm

Next thing you know you will say politicians lie.

The oaths are a feel good thing with no validity outside the personal moral beliefs of the person.

I see his as no better or worse.
Marshall Art says:

December 6, 2006 at 12:28 am

It’s true that promises ain’t what they use to be. One’s word should be sufficient, but as Karl suggests, they’re politicians. I would respond that it is ourselves who have contributed by not consistently holding them to their words and promises.

But if we’re to assume that the swearing of oaths is now just for show, then my statements hold the same weight.

As to Ellison, I would remind all of the rap JFK took for being a Roman Catholic. Would he defer to the Pope over the USA? And nowadays, consider Ashcroft, Roberts, Alito and Bush as well. Would they place religion over everthing else? Now we have Ellison who is doing exactly that, and his desire is being defended. I don’t get it. Are only Christians incapable of keeping things straight? If our elected officials are to keep America first as they do their jobs, Ellison has fouled before the game even started.

And you can think of jobs as well. If one applies and is required to take a drug test, can he dictate what kind? If other requirements are presented, can the prospective candidate pick and choose which to follow and expect to be hired? This situation is the same. The job is as a public servant employed by the USA. He is not to make the rules, but to abide the rules and traditions already in place, just as in any job.
Webloggin says:

December 12, 2006 at 1:00 pm

My prior post on Pragers column: re: Keith Ellison swearing his …

Clarence Page wrote an Op-Ed in the Chicago Tribune that defending the Rep. elect Keith Ellison’s plan to use the Koran when he is sworn into Congress on January 4th.

Comments are closed.