Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Dennis Prager has crossed the line:
In a Townhall.com essay, Prager writes
: (emp add)
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.
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.
That ranks with the best of them (Richard Cohen's
"In a post-Sept. 11 world, I thought the prudent use of violence could be therapeutic."). Let Prager's words hang around his neck like an albatross.
It's new to me that any religious oath is mandatory. Or is it: Bible or nothing (and no reelection in the latter case) in their edition of the constitution?
There have been Jewish and Mormon members.
Clause 3:The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Game. Set. Match.
Even those who do regard the Bible as being to some degree authoritative do not uniformly accept religious oaths. Some reject oaths of all types universally (Quakers, among others), which is why that Affirmation language is in there.
Pranger does not understand American civil society, and does not understand Christianity.
And btw, the bible (NT) actually forbids oaths, especially religious ones (Mt 5:34)