Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress (representing a district of Minneapolis, MN), has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran. Dennis Prager explains why he should not be allowed to do so.
1. First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism — my culture trumps America’s culture.
2. Plenty of Jewish elected officials (who do not embrace the New Testament) have taken their oaths on the Bible.
3. Plenty of secular officials (even atheists) have taken their oaths on the Bible (though the writings of Voltaire or John Locke might have more accurately represented their deepest convictions).
4. No Mormon has ever requested to take his oath on the Book of Mormon.
5. In his personal life, I (and every American) should fight for his right to prefer any other book. I would even fight for his right to publish cartoons mocking the Bible.
6. Supposing an elected official wanted to take his oath on a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf (the Nazi Bible), would we allow that? So where do we draw the line? If the Koran, why not the Hindu Vedas?
I agree with Prager not as a Christian (though I am one), but as an American. I do not believe that being a Congressman is a religious office. It is an American office. As Prager notes, “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’s bottom-line:
Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.
Prager’s one-page article is an excellent read.