Sworn into USA Congress on the Qur'an???

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on

By Dennis Prager

November 28, 2006

Townhall

I just caught this on another site.

I never thought I would defend the Bible in government, but here I fully agree with Prager. If Jews, Mormons and Atheists are sworn into office in the USA government on the Bible, why should a Muslim be granted special privilege to change the book?

Michael

[zantonavitch]

I think the definitive answer on this is to be sworn in on a book of Aristotle. The bible is a book of lies and a book of pure evil. Using it for oaths of office or in court is like a license to lie and do evil. If I ever swore on that god-awful thing, that's how I would interpret it! :yes:

Edited November 28, 2006 by Andre Zantonavitch

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Andre,

I certainly don't like the choice of the Bible for making a symbolic gesture, but the thrust of the article is that the USA government is the one who decides, not an elected official.

I don't think anyone really believes that a swearing-in on the Bible is a Christian act anyway. At this moment, the book is merely a symbol of a sacred promise of integrity and morality in weilding power.

I would support a change of this book on the basis of separation of church and state. Aristotle would be a good choice.

I most emphatically do not support a person from another religion telling the USA government what to do in its public ceremonies.

In this particular instance, I support Ellison being sworn in on the Holy Bible and not the Qur'an.

Michael

[blackhorse]

Mark my words; Ellison is going to be trouble. If he refuses to take the oath on the Bible, then he can get the F--k out of office.

[Robert Campbell]

Granted that swearing on the Bible is a relic of another era, it remains the case that requiring members of Congress or any other public officials to make such an oath constitutes an establishment of religion.

I have lots of questions about Ellison, but his objections to swearing on the Bible don't bother me.

Now, if he starts demanding that all public officials swear on the Qur'an, that will be another matter.

Robert Campbell

PS. If Ellison is truly a follower of Louis Farrakhan, he probably doesn't care about the Qur'an. The old Nation of Islam did not require its adherents to read the Qur'an.

[Chris Grieb]

In the US Constitution there is an artcle about no religous test. Requiring an oath on the Bible sounds like a religous test. Do Jewish and other members have to swear on a Christian Bible. I'd let Mr. Ellison be sworn in on the Koran. I a little surprised that some of the rest of you (Michael) don't see this issue.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Chris and Robert,

I used to think like you do until I read the article. It convinced me, particularly the following excerpt:

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.

I fully agree with this commentary. I am against preferential treatment of Muslims by the USA government at this point in our history--or ever, for that matter.

Michael

[Kat]

I think we should do away altogether with the swearing on the bible thing for legal and government activities. I know it is tradition and all, but this is senseless practice and it also symbolizes that Christianity is the preferred religion of the United States of America. Why is a holy book needed at all? It is not a holy union. I also see it as contradicting the clause in the U.S. Constitution against establishment of a state religion. Wouldn't using something like a copy of the Constitution or a flag be more relevant and appropriate?

Kat

[blackhorse]

I say make them all take an oath on Rand's VOS

[Judith]

I disagree with all of the above. As an atheist, I have never sworn on the Bible in any court proceedings, and I have never been required to do so; I always opted for the alternative affirmation. I would be seriously offended if anyone tried to force me to swear on the Bible because it was "American". See the article below by Volokh from today's National Review Online.

In at least one Pennsylvania trial court in the 1980s with which I was acquainted, the default swearing in was the affirmation, with no Bible in sight. I had to be deposed and appear before various grand juries, etc. in New York in the 1990s, and they did use the standard Bible, but I easily requested the alternative affirmation in advance and no one even raised their eyebrows or asked why.

Judith

-------------------------------------------------------------

Oh Say, Can You Swear on a Koran?

What’s correct.

By Eugene Volokh

The U.S. Constitution is a multiculturalist document. Not in all senses, of course: It tries to forge a common national culture as well as tolerating other cultures. But it is indeed multiculturalist in important ways. We shouldn’t forget that when we’re tempted to categorically condemn supposedly multiculturalist changes to our constitutional practices.

Consider what Dennis Prager — - whose work I often much like — wrote in his most recent column:

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.

This argument both mistakes the purpose of the oath, and misunderstands the Constitution. In fact, it calls for the violation of some of the Constitution’s multiculturalist provisions.

To begin with, the oath is a religious ritual, both in its origins and its use by the devout today. The oath invokes God as a witness to one’s promise, as a means of making the promise more weighty on the oathtaker’s conscience.

This is why, for instance, the Federal Rules of Evidence, dealing with the related subject of the courtroom oath, state, “Before testifying, every witness shall be required to declare that the witness will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation administered in a form calculated to awaken the witness’ conscience and impress the witness’ mind with the duty to do so.” If you want the oath to be maximally effective, then it is indeed entirely true that “all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.” That book is the one that will most impress the oathtaker’s mind with the duty to comply with the oath.

Of course, some might care less about making the oath more effective, and more about using the oath to reinforce traditional American values, in which they include respect for the Bible (the “only ... book” “America is interested in”) over other holy books. That, I take it, is part of Prager’s argument, especially when he goes on to say, “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.”

Yet this would literally violate the Constitution’s provision that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” For the devout, taking an oath upon a religious book is a religious act. Requiring the performance of a religious act using the holy book of a particular religion is a religious test. If Congress were indeed to take the view that “If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book [the Bible], don’t serve in Congress,” it would be imposing an unconstitutional religious test.

What’s more, the Constitution itself expressly recognizes the oath as a religious act that some may have religious compunctions about performing. The religious-test clause is actually part of a longer sentence: “The Senators and Representatives ... [and other state and federal officials] shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required ....” The option of giving an affirmation rather than oath reflects the judgment — an early multiculturalist judgment — in favor of accommodating members of some denominations (such as Quakers) who read the Bible as generally prohibiting the swearing of oaths.

The affirmation option was thus one tool to make sure that the law didn’t exclude people of certain religious groups from office, but rather let them retain their religious culture while participating in American civic life. The religious-test clause was another tool. The Constitution itself — a pretty important part of the “value system underl[ying] American civilization” — expressly makes clear that elected officials need not take oaths of office with their hands on any book.

So the Constitution thus already expressly authorizes people not to swear at all, but to affirm, without reference to God or to a sacred work. Atheists and agnostics are thus protected, as well as members of certain Christian groups. Why would Muslims and others not be equally protected from having to perform a religious ritual that expressly invokes a religion in which they do not believe? Under the Constitution, all of them “are incapable of taking an oath on that book,” whether because they are Quakers, atheists, agnostics, or Muslims. Yet all remain entirely free to “serve in Congress.”

This leaves one milder form of Prager’s argument: Ellison shouldn’t have to swear on the Bible, but we don’t have to offer him a Koran, since he could affirm instead and affirmations don’t require any holy book. That’s not, I think, Prager’s actual argument (which is that “If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book [the Bible], don’t serve in Congress” and that all elected officials should “take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book “). But it might be a fallback.

Yet this too strikes me as a misreading of the American constitutional system. Prager goes on to argue,

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?

But the Constitution’s judgment is that accommodating religious pluralism (especially as to oaths) doesn’t let “my culture trump[] America’s culture.” Rather, the legal culture created by the Constitution makes room for many religious cultures, and allows all their adherents to be equal citizens and equal officeholders.

We see this in the Constitution’s repeated recognition of affirmations as alternatives to oaths. We also see this in the free-exercise clause, which excludes no religion even though many denominations of that era saw rival denominations’ views, and especially the views of Catholics, as deeply wrong and even evil — perhaps not quite as evil as Mein Kampf (which isn’t a religious book, and thus not really apposite to the oath debate) but in that general ballpark.

The Supreme Court has long taken the view that the establishment clause and the free-exercise clause generally mandate equal treatment of people without regard to their religions; conservative justices, such as Scalia and Thomas, have agreed. 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 such discrimination. Nor have I seen any evidence that at the time of the framing, the religion clauses would have been interpreted in a way that differs from this consensus. And the text of the establishment clause suggests that the oath should be an oath not just of a federally “establish[ed] religion” (a religion given favored legal treatment by the government), but rather the oath that binds the particular officeholder “to support this Constitution.”

Finally, Prager argues that “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.” I can’t speak to the common practices of Jewish officeholders, but some quick searches reveal that Linda Lingle, the Governor of Hawaii, was sworn in on the Tanakh (more or less the Old Testament); for the reasons I just mentioned, others would have been free to do the same, or to affirm if they preferred.

A Senate website reports that Presidents Franklin Pierce and Herbert Hoover (a Quaker) didn’t swear at all, but rather affirmed. If a Bible was present (the site is silent on that), it wouldn’t have been used as a swearing device. Nixon, also a Quaker, did swear, apparently on two Bibles. This didn’t seem to help.

Much folly has been urged in the name of multiculturalism. But this is no reason to dismiss the core notion that a nation should both create a common culture and leave people with the freedom to retain important aspects of other cultures — especially religious cultures. That notion is deeply American, and expressly enshrined in our Constitution. If it is “political correctness,” it is so only in the sense that it’s a political notion, and a correct one. It has served us well, even when dealing with religious groups that were once hated and seen as incompatible with American values, such as Catholics.

We ought not blindly accept the legitimacy of other cultures’ beliefs. But the Constitution says that we can’t demand complete surrender to our majority culture — especially its religious beliefs — either in “personal life” or in public life.

— Eugene Volokh is Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law, and a coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy blog. He thanks his UCLA colleague Stephen Bainbridge, who alerted him to this matter, and who has written more along these lines.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I disagree with all of the above. As an atheist, I have never sworn on the Bible in any court proceedings, and I have never been required to do so; I always opted for the alternative affirmation.

Eugene Volokh:

"I can’t speak to the common practices of Jewish officeholders, but some quick searches reveal that Linda Lingle, the Governor of Hawaii, was sworn in on the Tanakh (more or less the Old Testament); for the reasons I just mentioned, others would have been free to do the same, or to affirm if they preferred.

A Senate website reports that Presidents Franklin Pierce and Herbert Hoover (a Quaker) didn’t swear at all, but rather affirmed. If a Bible was present (the site is silent on that), it wouldn’t have been used as a swearing device."

Judith,

Thank you very much for this information. I stand corrected. I made a false presumption that Prager's facts were correct and I should have looked to see if something like alternative affirmation existed.

My beef is with granting special privileges to any religious sect, especially at this point in time with oil money-funded expansion of Islamism. Can you imagine the repercussion if the very first precedent in the USA government was with respect to Islam?

As precedents and non-Christian affirmation procedures exist, though, I have no problem with Ellison being sworn in on the Qur'an. The constitutional principle is higher than a momentary context.

Also, the standard Christian affirmation procedure should stop being standard.

On Volokh's blog, he just wrote:

Justice Arthur Goldberg Swore His Oath of Office on the Hebrew Bible

I didn't verify this, but I assume it is correct since Volokh is a law professor at UCLA.

Michael

[Judith]

My beef is with granting special privileges to any religious sect, especially at this point in time with oil money-funded expansion of Islamism. Can you imagine the repercussion if the very first precedent in the USA government was with respect to Islam?

. . .

Also, the standard Christian affirmation procedure should stop being standard.

Oh, I quite agree on both counts. I was delighted with the Pennsylvania court's enlightened approach, especially since it was a relatively conservative county. With all the fuss about separation of church and state, and multiculturalism, and removal of creches and other religious displays these days, you'd think that the courts would take the hint.

Judith

[Chris Grieb]

Judith; Thanks for all your information about alternate way of swearing or afirming your telling the truth. I have never been a witness in a court case. I can't remember if I took an oath as a juror. Eugene Volokoh has came up with some good information too. It is worth considering that when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution the United States was the only country in world that did not require a religious test to hold public office. It's absolutely mind boggling when you think about it.

[John Dailey]

~ Can't wait until the I Ching, Upanishads, and LaVey's The Satanic Bible advocates start complaining about being discriminated against in this territory.

LLAP

J:D

[Peri]

Judith; Thanks for all your information about alternate way of swearing or afirming your telling the truth. I have never been a witness in a court case. I can't remember if I took an oath as a juror. Eugene Volokoh has came up with some good information too. It is worth considering that when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution the United States was the only country in world that did not require a religious test to hold public office. It's absolutely mind boggling when you think about it.

I served as an alternate juror in a federal case, and no, I didn't have to swear on anything, not even my mother's grave.

But then, I was an ALTERNATE juror...

[Chris Grieb]

The point has been made that at the swearing in the House all members are sworn in together. Later members can have have pictures which usually feature the Speaker holding a Bible with family members. These are the pictures that appear in your newspaper. I too am suspcious of Mr Ellison. In an interview I saw he came across flim-flamer.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellison Uses Thomas Jefferson's Quran

January 4, 2007

By FREDERIC J. FROMMER

Associated Press

Well, there it is. The deed is done and the precedent has been set.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Mr. Ellison is very clever. The Jefferson Koran was a brillant idea. As anyone noticed Ellison never wears a tie. Non-tie-wearing seems to associated with strains of Radical Islam. Michael the picture you showed is after the real swearing-in.

[Martin Radwin]

Since all members of Congress take an oath to defend the Constitution, and since every one of them votes in favor of legislation that is unconstitutional, as well as voting to fund federal bureaucracies that are unconstitutional, they are all lying anyway when they take the oath. So the choice of which book to use while taking the oath is actually a choice of which book to use while lying through their oath about their intention to defend the Constitution.

Martin

[Chris Grieb]

Martin; Good point. My point about Mr Ellison never wearing a tie is not true when I saw the tv pictures he clearly was. I still don't trust him.

[Martin Radwin]

Martin; Good point. My point about Mr Ellison never wearing a tie is not true when I saw the tv pictures he clearly was. I still don't trust him.

Thanks Chris! I just find it ironic that all of these people who get so upset about Ellison's decision don't consider that the entire oath is a big lie and a charade anyway. I certainly don't trust Mr. Ellison either. But, then again, I don't much trust any of the rest of them either. Mark Twain was all too prescient in his characterization of Congress.

Martin

[Michael Russell]

Ellison Uses Thomas Jefferson's Quran

January 4, 2007

By FREDERIC J. FROMMER

Associated Press

Well, there it is. The deed is done and the precedent has been set.

Michael

Oh my God! And the world as we know it hasn't come to an end?

[John Dailey]

For What It's Worth-Dept:

~ Some very interesting backgrounds on TJ's Qur'an, his own very revised 'bible', his views on the Muslim religion, and, Ellison's cleverness, are given by my favorite sharp-witted intellectual and historical-detective, Christopher Hitchens at...

My Webpage

LLAP

J:D

[studiodekadent]

Prager sounds like a Traditionalist (Oakshottean) Conservative: Read: Believes in social organicism (collectivism), sacrifice of man to prevaling social institutions, and a belief that reason leads to rationalism and eventually Robespierre.

Quote: "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."

1. "America"? How can "America" hold a book sacred? Holding something as extremely valuable (sacred) is something that can only be done by valuers. Only individuals are valuers (i.e. Americans, not America).

2. General attitude: collective consensus trumps the individual's assesment of what is true. In other words, surrender individual judgement to the mass. The fact that the individual judged irrationally and chose Islam is irrelevant, especially when Christianity is the alternative.

3. Ideological ignorance: Prager alleges that 'leftism' and 'multiculturalism' say that "all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book." This is wrong. Indeed, that more an individualist, enlightenment, Classical Liberal perspective. What leftism and multiculturalism say is that all that matters is what any individual's collective holds to be their holiest book.

Why does "All US Office Bearers have sworn on the bible before" justify continuing the practice? It doesnt. That is a non-sequitur. Finally, we cannot forget the endless carping that the bible forms the value system that America is based on: America as such was formed by Deists, not Theists. It was formed by people who basically did not believe in God as a moral arbiter but as a force of nature. Finally, as it says in the Declaration of Independence, all men have the right to the Pursuit of Happiness, which is essentially a rejection of biblical altruism. To the founding fathers, the natural condition of humanity was to be striving for joy and happiness rather that grovelling in perpetual servitude as a slave to the collective.

Prager should hence receive a good old Objectivist Intellectual Beatdown ™. I would love to see Nathaniel Branden just shred him in a debate. Because honestly, this kind of conservatism is absolutely sickening and deeply anti-enlightenment.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

John,

That was a damn fine article—informative and brief, with a small window to some early American foreign policy. Thank you. I did not know about the following with respect to Thomas Jefferson:

And it was not until long after his death that The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth was publishable. Sometimes known as "the Jefferson Bible" for short, this consists of the four gospels of the New Testament as redacted by our third president with (literally) a razor blade in his hand. With this blade, he excised every verse dealing with virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and other puerile superstition, thus leaving him (and us) with a very much shorter book. In 1904 (those were the days), the Jefferson Bible was printed by order of Congress, and for many years was presented to all newly elected members of that body. Here's a tradition worth reviving: Why not ask all new members of Congress to swear on that?

I liked this article enough to repeat the link here:

Jefferson's Quran: What the founder really thought about Islam

by Christopher Hitchens

Jan. 9, 2007

Slate

Michael