Search A Catholic Life:

Thursday, November 30, 2006
Koran Replaces the Bible at Swearing-In Oath
edit_button

I received this email from the AFA (Emphasis in bold added per me):

Please take a moment to read the following TownHall.com column by Dennis Prager, who is a Jew. After reading the column, take the suggest action at the bottom of this email. After you have read it, please forward it to your friends and family.

America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on
By Dennis Prager - Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- my culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

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?

Of course, Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. 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.

So why are we allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done -- choose his own most revered book for his oath?

The answer is obvious -- Ellison is a Muslim. And whoever decides these matters, not to mention virtually every editorial page in America, is not going to offend a Muslim. In fact, many of these people argue it will be a good thing because Muslims around the world will see what an open society America is and how much Americans honor Muslims and the Koran.

This argument appeals to all those who believe that one of the greatest goals of America is to be loved by the world, and especially by Muslims because then fewer Muslims will hate us (and therefore fewer will bomb us).

But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible. In fact, the opposite is more likely: Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America.

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. (End Commentary)

7 comments:

del_button November 30, 2006 at 7:03 PM
Anonymous said...

For a country that's taken the Lord's Prayer out of schools, this is irony at its finest. Christianity isn't American and America isn't a founding father of the same. In a country that agressively advocates free speech and freedom of religion, there can be no debate whatsoever about the political validity of ones beliefs over another. Maybe American civilization should notice the beam in their own eye before pointing a finger at the mote in someone else's.

del_button November 30, 2006 at 8:15 PM
Karen Marie Knapp said...

"No religious test shall be required...."

Representative Ellison doesn't have to take an oath at all; by the law he could affirm, as an atheist does. But he is no atheist, and believes that the One God will assist him to keep his word, so he chooses to take an oath. Why should believers in God who are not Christians be compelled to behave as though they were unbelievers?

del_button November 30, 2006 at 8:43 PM
Anonymous said...

They just had a debate on this on Hannity and Colmes with Dennis Prager and Malik Shabazz

del_button November 30, 2006 at 9:39 PM
Esther said...

I've often wondered about this. Being a Catholic, I thought we shouldn't swear to God. So it has bothered me that we were required to take an oath to God with our hand on the Bible. Yet, since the secularists are opposed to it, I am questioning whether or not it was okay to take such an oath. Hope I make sense.

del_button December 24, 2006 at 10:57 PM
Anonymous said...

Teddy Roosevelt didn't swear on any book. He simply raised his right hand.

Justice Arthur J. Goldberg and Governor Linda Lingle of Hawaii were sworn in using the Old Testament.

Lyndon Johnson used a Catholic missal for his first presidential term.

Madeleine Kunan, governer of Vermont, used a stack of Jewish prayer books.

Franklin Pierce used a law book.

Just sayin'.

del_button March 16, 2007 at 10:51 PM
eric wp said...

The history of perfume goes back to Egypt, although it was prevalent in East Asia as well. Early perfumes were based on incense, not chemicals, so aromas were passed around through fumes. The Roman and Islamic cultures further refined the harvesting and manufacturing of perfumery processes to include other aromatic ingredients.

Thus, the ancient Islamic culture marked the history of modern perfumery with the introduction of spices and herbs. Fragrances and other exotic substances, such as Jasmine and Citruses, were adapted to be harvested in climates outside of their indigenous Asia.

del_button December 25, 2007 at 10:18 AM
Anonymous said...

The Bible - What They Forgot to Tell You!
"Believing is easier than thinking. Hence so many more believers than thinkers." Bruce Calvert
http://www.bibleislam.com

Post a Comment

Copyright / Disclaimer

Copyright Notice: Unless otherwise stated, all items are copyrighted under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. If you quote from this blog, cite a link to the post on this blog in your article.

Disclosure of Material Connection: Some of the links on this blog are “affiliate links.” This means if you click on the link and purchase the item, I will receive an affiliate commission. Regardless, I only recommend products or services I use personally and believe will add value to my readers. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Subscribe to Future Posts on A Catholic Life

Enter email address: