Prager: Keith Ellison Must Use Bible for Oath of Office
December 2, 2006
I’m flabbergasted that Dennis Prager thinks that non-Christians ought to swear on the Christian Bible when taking oaths because it is the “American” thing to do. This is the stupidest idea I’ve heard today. But the troubling thing is that he has received a lot of support for it. This support is rooted in hate rather than common sense or religious devotion. (You can verify this by viewing the comments his article has received at TownHall.com.)
If you are going to swear to something, then it should be on your own holy book, not someone else’s. And, if you are Muslim, that book is the Quran. And if you are Jewish, like Mr. Prager, then I would **think** that you would want to swear on the Torah, and not on the Gospel, in order for your oath to mean something. If one’s holy book is not available, then solemnly affirming would seem to be the best option for anyone who takes their religion seriously.
But the key to Prager’s “opinion piece” isn’t whether or not Jews or Mormons have sworn on the KJV Bible in the past, “so why can’t Ellison.” Prager does not want to see a Muslim in public office. He tries to portray Ellison’s desire to swear his oath of office on the Quran as something devisive and oppressive. He wants Ellison to be prevented from being sworn in. Period.
Prager just doesn’t “get it.” Ellison is not trying to force anything on Prager or on the American people by swearing on the Quran. But Dennis Prager certainly wants to force something on Ellison and on all other non-Christians.
Newly elected Muslim lawmaker under fire
Andrea Stone (USA Today)
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.
“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…”
Colling [a spokesperson for Ellison] 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…
Entry Filed under: Politics, Religious Tolerance, United States. .
13 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
1.
Shannon Strickland | December 4, 2006 at 9:14 pm
Unfortunately YOU are the one who does not get it. Prager is absolutely correct. The country was founded on Christian values, you may have the right to believe anything you wish and that is fine with me, but serving office requires an oath on the Bible which the values of America was founded upon. It’s about the traditions of the nation and government, not your personal belief. Get with the program or stay out of office.
This nation will never be Islamicized - EVER.
By the way I do not go to church, I did as a child, my beliefs are very different now, yet I still will fight for and uphold the sacred traditions this nation was founded upon, I expect all public servants to do the same. If I ever hold office I will take the oath on the bible, even if I do not believe in it personally. It’s not about your personal choice, it’s about the founding traditions you are expected to uphold. If this Mr. Ellison does not get with the program, his tenure will be one term, that’s a fact.
2.
James | December 4, 2006 at 10:09 pm
Swearing on the Bible is not a religous test. You are not vowing to change religions when you swear on it. You are simply taking an oath, on the most sacred object in the land, to serve the particular population to the best of your ability. The most sacred object in THIS LAND, based on history, culture, and majority of people, is The Bible. The most sacred object in other lands, such as Iran, is The Koran. If I won public office in Iran, and they asked me to take an oath on the Koran, I would. Not because I believe in it, but out of respect for the culture and the people. No we don’t, and shouldn’t, haven’t a law forcing people to swear on the Bible. It’s not a matter of law, but a matter of tradition and respect. No one will win or lose in this situation, but the Left, and Mr. Ellison, will simply show what they’re really about to the public at large. And that is pissing on a sacred tradition which a country has had since its founding. I don’t support people who would do that to a country, whether it be this one, or anywhere else in the world.
3.
Robert | December 4, 2006 at 11:47 pm
The only problem with Prager’s story is that he made it up. Representatives don’t swear an oath on the Bible (or any book).
4.
James | December 5, 2006 at 4:30 am
Well, actually Robert, they swear in as a group, and then they can choose to do photo-op oath with the Speaker of the House, with a Bible. So Prager did not make anything up. And if he did, then that means Ellison was the original inventor of this figment of imagination because he’s the one who brought it up in the first place! Must be pretty important to Ellison if he decided to make the whole thing up.
5.
DrM | December 5, 2006 at 6:43 am
Why should anyone listen to a jewish extremist like Prager? His contribution to American culture is to sit in a box and lecture people on AM talk radio. Shannon, you’re ignorant idiot who needs to read the US constitution. Keep your failed biblical armageddon fantasy where it belongs : in your little mind and out of government. If not, you can move to any country dumb enough to take you in.
6.
Brad | December 5, 2006 at 5:38 pm
The ONLY official statement concerning the religious foundation of the United States is the Treaty of Tripoli…
Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the SENATE, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. John Adams, THE PRESIDENT having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is NOT, IN ANY SENSE,FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Thank You
7.
Randy | December 5, 2006 at 6:23 pm
As a Christian, I find Mr. Prager’s statements to be utterly hateful and ill informed. Elected officals should swear on the book that they choose to be most holy. If the book is meaningless to them, the oath will be too. I don’t want anyone leading this country without seriously weighing the job they are undertaking. I admire the sanctity that Muslims place on the Quran, I wish that Christians could be more like that with the Bible. Mr. Prager should look deep inside himself and decide what he believes and who he is following.
8.
James | December 5, 2006 at 11:52 pm
Yo Randy,
It doesn’t matter if the Book is meaningless to HIM. It matters if the book is meaningful TO THE PEOPLE HE IS ABOUT TO SERVE!
9.
proggiemuslima | December 6, 2006 at 12:45 am
Brad, thanks for the Treaty of Tripoli quote.
And, Randy, you are right when you wrote:
“Mr. Prager should look deep inside himself and decide what he believes and who he is following.”
But I doubt that Prager will be conducting a self-examination anytime soon.
And Dr. M., thank you for stopping by my “pro-regressive” cyber-abode.
10.
Paulette | December 12, 2006 at 7:59 am
There are about 28 Islamic Nations, I believe that use the Q’uran, to swear, or whatever it is, that they do… The thing about this character, “Ellison” is that he is a lawmaker- He WILL use this to his benefit- this does PROVE that the God of “islam” is NOT The God of the Bible- So., I am GLAD that this is getting exposed…Other than that- Ellison, just leave, if you don’t already love the laws of the USA.
11.
proggiemuslima | December 12, 2006 at 1:12 pm
Paulette, like it or not, Ellison is free to practice his religion in this country. And our God is also the God of Abraham, Moses and Jesus. Please educate yourself and calm down.
12.
Quality Indonesian Blogge&hellip | February 2, 2007 at 11:35 am
[...] many more, please Google yourself. That said, I’m still personally happy that many moderate Americans who are not over-eager in creating split and division, use their pens calmly and in grown-up [...]
13.
young muslim | April 3, 2007 at 11:50 pm
As a 16-year-old American-born, Muslim US citizen, I find it nothing short of pitiful that the most democratic nation in the world, the first nation in the world to be founded on the UNIVERSAL principles of equality, justice, and tolerance- is a nation that is so deeply consumed by hate and conceit. It truly is a shame that so many of the American people (like James and Paulette) continue to remain ignorant of the happenings outside of their beliefs. Despite the fact that Christianity IS the most commonly practiced religion in the US, it is clear that the US claims NO OFFICIAL AFFILIATION with a religious body. For those of you who remain unaware of the fastest growing religion on Earth, (soon to surpass Christianity,) the principles on which America was “founded” are not ideals expressed solely in the Bible. They are also in the Torah, the Vedas, and the Quran. Love, respect, tolerance, and compassion constitute the foundation of, to the extent of my knowledge, EVERY religion. Therefore, it is 100% innacurate to claim that the Bible provides the basic structural support of the modern government system. It may have been a source of INSPIRATION, but in no way a guideline that our leaders should be forced to swear upon today.
By the way, Brad, your use of the Treaty of Tripoli was amazing. Do our firends Paulette and James have a credible rebuttle? I doubt it
~shefa
~Shefa