Congressman Wants To Take His Oath On The Quran

[Jaime]

[quote]Oath on Qur'an: Provocation or act of faith?
The choice by Keith Ellison, the first Muslim in the U.S. House, to take his oath of office on his faith's holy book, has stirred a debate.
Rob Hotakainen, Star Tribune

Last update: December 01, 2006 – 12:09 AM
Printer friendly
E-mail this story
Save to del.icio.us

Related Content

* Talk: Your thoughts on a Qur'an oath

SWEARING-IN ON THE QUR'AN




WASHINGTON - Rep.-elect Keith Ellison's decision to take his oath of office on the Qur'an is stirring a debate among academics and conservatives, with some of them saying it's only appropriate to take an oath on the Bible.

The Minnesota Democrat says that the Constitution gives him the right to use the Muslim holy book, and that is what he intends to do on Jan. 4.

"Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath," radio talk show host and author Dennis Prager wrote in his online column this week. He said that American Jews routinely have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they don't believe in the New Testament, and that if Ellison refuses to do so, "don't serve in Congress."

But Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the Constitution authorizes people not to swear their oath at all, protecting atheists and agnostics.

"Why would Muslims and others not be equally protected?" he wrote for National Review Online.

Ellison, who told the Star Tribune shortly after his election victory that he planned to use the Qur'an, was attending meetings in Washington on Thursday and could not be reached for comment, according to Dave Colling, his spokesman. But Ellison defended his plan to use the Qur'an, Islam's holiest book, in an interview with Abdi Aynte, a reporter from Minneapolis who writes for the Minnesota Monitor, an independently produced political news blog.

"The Constitution guarantees for everyone to take the oath of office on whichever book they prefer," Ellison was quoted as saying. "And that's what the freedom of religion is all about."

Ellison's decision drew support from one prominent conservative firebrand, Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, who champions a fence along the border with Mexico and who says that unfettered immigration endangers American culture.

"He wants to take his oath on the Qur'an, that's fine," Tancredo said. "I think whatever you believe is necessary for you to uphold your obligations to the Constitution, that is fine with me."

In his weekly column, Prager said Ellison's act is "an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism." He warned that allowing Ellison to use the Qur'an could pave the way for a racist to use "his favorite book" to take the oath of office.

"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," Prager wrote. "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."

Ellison is the first Muslim in the nation, and the first black person from Minnesota, to become a member of the U.S. House. His campaign and election have attracted national attention because of his groundbreaking status.

Five years after 9/11 and with the ongoing raw debate about clashing civilizations and Islamic extremism, Ellison downplayed the role of religion in his drive for office. He nonetheless has acknowledged that his election has thrust him into position as a spokesman for Islam in the United States.

In the National Review, Volokh noted that two former presidents -- Franklin Pierce and Herbert Hoover -- didn't swear their oath but chose to affirm it.

He said that the Supreme Court has long held that Americans have the right to be treated equally, regardless of their religion, and that forcing Ellison to use the Bible would violate his rights.

"Letting Christians swear the oath of office, while allowing members of other denominations only to swear what ends up being a mockery of an oath -- a religious ceremony appealing to a religious belief system that they do not share -- would be [discriminatory]," Volokh wrote.

Said Ron Eibensteiner, former state Republican Party chairman: "It doesn't matter if he wants to be sworn in on the Qur'an; that's perfectly fine. We have in this country freedom of religion and free speech."

Tammy Lee, who ran against Ellison as an Independent in the Fifth Congressional District, agreed. "This country was founded on principles of freedom of religion. Our Constitution guarantees it, and as a newly elected member of Congress who's going to uphold the Constitution, he has every right to choose what religious traditions he wants to practice."

Radio talk show host Dan Barreiro said he has been "a bit bewildered" by the concern expressed, mainly on blogs, about Ellison's choice. The topic came up Thursday on his afternoon show on KFAN. "The general consensus I got was that most people were not terrified at the prospect that this was something that he might do," Barreiro said.

"Certainly there is no law that mandates that a person put their hand on a Bible as any kind of litmus test of their loyalty to the country," he added.

In 2003, Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman, who is Jewish, was sworn in with a Bible given to him by a priest who is a friend of the family. The late Minnesota Sen. Paul Wellstone, who also was Jewish, was sworn in in 1991 with a Bible from his wife Sheila's family.

Staff writers Joy Powell and Lesley Clark contributed to this report. Rob Hotakainen is a correspondent in the Star Tribune Washington Bureau.

Rob Hotakainen • rhotakainen@startribune.com [/quote]

[Era Might]

I think they probably should keep the Bible. If you admit one exception, you'll have to admit every other exception, and it defeats the purpose of the tradition. However, maybe they should allow you to decline to make your oath on the Bible. Your word should be enough.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Unfortunately too many religious people think religious freedoms such as that are a matter of the state, and if they had their way that guy couldn't do it. They don't realize that allowing that sort of religious freedom is not only what the state should do from a practical and legal perspecitive, but from a moral one as well.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Didn't some of the US Presidents swear on Masonic texts?

[homeschoolmom]

[url="http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pibible.html"]http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pibible.html[/url]

[Matty_boy]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1132830' date='Dec 1 2006, 09:16 AM']
Unfortunately too many religious people think religious freedoms such as that are a matter of the state, and if they had their way that guy couldn't do it. They don't realize that allowing that sort of religious freedom is not only what the state should do from a practical and legal perspecitive, but from a moral one as well.
[/quote]

The point of swearing on the Bible, is, like it or not, that the country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. This is not speculative, it is self-evident in the texts of the founding documents. Our laws were written to reflect God's law which is illustrated in the Bible. The law of the Quran may or may not reflect the same understanding of God's law, and the Quran was not at the core of the founding principles of the country.

[Didymus]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1132851' date='Dec 1 2006, 09:56 AM']
Didn't some of the US Presidents swear on Masonic texts?
[/quote]
yeah, I thought alot of them did their stuff at the lodge too...

On the one hand, I'm all for the Bible being the only one used, but on the other, why would I want my official to swear on a book he doesn't even believe in? If he swore on the Quran, wouldn't that mean more to us if he is truly a Muslim?

Edited December 1, 2006 by Didymus

[catholicinsd]

Another smooth move by the Land of 10,000 lakes.

[Jaime]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1132872' date='Dec 1 2006, 10:43 AM']
Another smooth move by the Land of 10,000 lakes.
[/quote]


Yes we all got together and conceived of this brilliant plan


No individual congressman-elect had anything to do with it or thought independently

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1132892' date='Dec 1 2006, 11:07 AM']
Yes we all got together and conceived of this brilliant plan
[/quote]

I brought pizza!

[Matty_boy]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1132870' date='Dec 1 2006, 10:43 AM']
yeah, I thought alot of them did their stuff at the lodge too...

On the one hand, I'm all for the Bible being the only one used, but on the other, why would I want my official to swear on a book he doesn't even believe in? If he swore on the Quran, wouldn't that mean more to us if he is truly a Muslim?
[/quote]

What if the person's beliefs contradicted the beliefs of the land? (I guess you could fit about half or more of elected officials in that category.)

[Sojourner]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1132897' date='Dec 1 2006, 10:12 AM']
I brought pizza!
[/quote]


you guys didn't invite me ...

[Didymus]

[quote name='Matty_boy' post='1132903' date='Dec 1 2006, 11:22 AM']
What if the person's beliefs contradicted the beliefs of the land? (I guess you could fit about half or more of elected officials in that category.)
[/quote]

Then we would have a problem, but that's not the case with this Muslim Congressman.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='1132923' date='Dec 1 2006, 12:04 PM']


you guys didn't invite me ...
[/quote]


You're not a minnesotan

[Sojourner]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1132927' date='Dec 1 2006, 11:14 AM']
You're not a minnesotan
[/quote]


Actually technically I am.

If I were to file suit in federal court, I would be legally considered a Minnesota citizen.
1) My car is registered here
2) I have a driver's license here
3) I registered to vote here
4) I voted here
5) I'm actually living here
6) I'm employed here
7) I have the intention of staying here after graduation and working here.

[Jaime]

That's what makes you a resident, not a Minnesotan

Get through the winter

[Sojourner]

I have gloves, hats, scarves, coats, long johns, boots, and the ability to build a fire. And I am a can-do kind of girl. I'll be fine. Maybe I'll even build a snowman or two.

[Norseman82]

Well, technically, the Bible is one of the Muslim holy books, so I don't see how it would be offensive to Muslims.

Now, there are 2 Buddhists who were elected to Congress this past election, I wonder what book they will take their oath on?

[musturde]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1132944' date='Dec 1 2006, 01:00 PM']
Well, technically, the Bible is one of the Muslim holy books, so I don't see how it would be offensive to Muslims.

Now, there are 2 Buddhists who were elected to Congress this past election, I wonder what book they will take their oath on?
[/quote]

kind of... they respect the Bible but believe it's been messed with over time.

[kujo]

Some Democratic congressman from Minnesota wants to be sworn in with [url="http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/newly-elected-muslim-lawmaker-under/20061201093309990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001"]his hand on the Qur'an[/url]. He is a practicing Muslim (who actually converted FROM Catholicism, interestingly enough) and says that he'd like to place his hand on a copy of the Qur'an, bucking the tradition of one placing their hand on the Bible during their swearing in.

Predictably, a number of conservative (i.e.- Republican) bloggers are up in arms (no pun intended) about this, saying the man should resign his office if he cannot swear on the Bible, citing the fact that this country was founded by Christians, and on Christian principles. On the other end of the spectrum, bloggers and interest groups are saying that forcing this congressman to swear on a religious text that he doesn't believe in is unconstitutional.

(My opinion)

Who cares? I mean, it seems logical that if this man wants to swear on the religious text he holds true that we should let him. I mean, if the situation were reversed, would you want to swear on a Qur'an?

Am I the only Republican who doesn't care about things like this?