It attacks the recently elected Representative from Minnesota's 5th Congressional District, Keith Ellison. He happens to hold the distinction of being the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress.
You can imagine where this is going.
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.
Right. Capitol Hill will come "a-tumblin' down" if we respect the Congressman's beliefs. Prager is making an argument based on the same logic that opponents of marriage equality use: straight people in Massachusetts are getting divorced simply because the lesbian couple down the street tied the knot.
Oh, wait. That's not hapenning at all. Oops?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.
Or, his supporters believe that what he swears his oath upon is inconsequential, that it isn't about culture but rather rights and freedoms upon which American culture is based. It's enough for his supporters that the fact he is willing to take an oath to the diety of his religion - regardless of what that may be - suffices to show his committment to upholding the Constitution of the United States.
(I also missed the memo that declares the Christian Bible as the "holiest book" of the US Government, which is secular and doesn't endorse any specific religion. I suppose that's just part of the "reality" outside the 76 square miles that I live in. Because after all, if Prager and his ilk are correct, the liberal, secular brainwashing I'm getting at this University is indoctrinating me with crazy ideas - like separation of church and state and the first amendment. Silly concepts, really. Silly, silly, silly.)
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?Because we're talking about religious beliefs, not political stances. Nazism was a political party, not a religion. Racism, similarly, isn't a religion. The same applies to Republicanism- though it isn't a religion, many right-wingers treat the Republican Party as such (with Money, Intolerance, Greed, and lust for Power as the Gods to which they worship). This is terribly ironic in light of the "Christian values" frequently touted by Prager & Co. during election season. However, true Christian values like helping the poor, promoting tolerance and love for all people, and other basic tenets of Christian faith are regularly ignored when they come into conflict with supporting GOP platitudes or achieving electoral success. (Sidenote: the "values" agenda didn't work for them all that well this year, did it? America finally woke up.)
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.In otherwords, we should do things the we have always done them because... that's the way we've always done them. A terribly good argument, to be sure. I would, however, encourage Mr. Prager to ask other communities within our society that were/are oppressed (essentially, everyone except WASPy straight men) what they think about that argument.
Prager ignores the simple fact that no one has done it before because it would have most likely been political suicide, but also because it may just not have been that big of a deal to previous Representatives. However, that still provides no justification to infringe upon the religious freedoms of Mr. Ellison. (And yes, Rep. Ellison does have religious freedoms - the GOP hasn't managed to get rid of the first amendment yet, as hard as it seems they sometimes try.)
The column goes on to argue that the true motive for allowing Ellison his constitutional rights that we're trying to win friends in the Muslim World.
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.No, we're supporting his request because it's his right as an American. Period! The religious freedoms Americans enjoy are something that bother many of the terrorists the most (President Bush: "They hate our freedom."), and granting Ellison his right will only prove to them that America is strong enough to allow people of different beliefs to live and work together. As long as that happens, "the terrorists will never win."
Does anyone else find it ironic that the radical, right-wing fundamentalists in America hate exactly the same thing as radical Islamic terrorists - the right of an individual to freely choose a religion that is not their own? Also, since when does the US Government have any reason to be interested in the personal religious beliefs of its citizens? Is there some clause in the Constitution (that I apparently missed in my ConLaw class) that mandates the "Christianization," or even "Religionization" of America?
(That was a rhetorical question. The answer is no.)
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. 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.No! When elected officials and citizens alike are allowed to freely exercise their beliefs in a system of laws that protects this, we affirm that a very specific unifying value system underlies American civilization.
It's called the Constitution. Allowing Ellison to swear an oath on the Qur'an will not damage the unity of America or our value system. Instead, it will strengthen it.
5 Comments:
I don't often agree with Democrats from a place as far outside the mainstream as Madison, Wisconsin, but I have to agree with you on this one. My thoughts here.
http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/206676.php
Thanks! I think.
Keep in mind that as students at the University of Wisconsin, most of us aren't actually from Madison but a diverse patchwork of spots throughout the midwest and country.
I would just object to one thing in the piece. I don't buy into the idea that terrorists attack us because "they hate our freedom" as Bush says all the time. There's a reason why you haven't seen small democracies which are as free or more free (in terms of civil liberties) than we are being attacked.
I mean, clearly we've lost some civil liberties since 9/11 through warrantless wiretapping and the Patriot Act. In terms of religion, we probably have the closest church and state in the developed world. The president holds freaking prayer meetings.
Then look at a country like the Netherlands with legalized pot and prostitution, It's an extremely secular state where very few people go to church. Why aren't the Islamic terrorists going batshit crazy over them?
The terrorists don't hate our freedoms. They hate our arrogant foreign policy decisions, they hate how much power we yield in the world, they hate how their countries are falling behind everyone else economically, and they hate anyone who isn't a fundamentalist Muslim. I just don't think our freedoms really play into it.
Agreed. "They hate our freedom" is just an oversimplified sound byte coming from a man who knows nothing about the enemy he claims to be fighting.
Also he's not the first person not to swear in on the Bible: http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=842
I'm not necessarily saying I agree with Bush's oversimplification (I don't, and agree that the issue is far more complex. I do think, though, that our form of government and the rights and freedoms we have do play a role in what they dislike about America, because it is undeniable that these would be among the first to go if these people were in charge. In counties where their ideology has taken over, we've seen incredibly closed societies with widespread fear of an oppressive government.)
I just enjoy throwing their own rhetoric back at them when making points against them.
Post a Comment
<< Home