Dennis Prager has a new column discussing the reactions to his column from last week in which he discussed why Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress, should take his oath of office on the Bible as opposed to the Koran.
As I stated in the comments, I don't really have a problem with Ellison's decision. A short search of the Internet reveals that politicians have taken the oath of office in a variety of ways. Theodore Roosevelt didn't use the Bible in his ceremony. Dwight Eisenhower, Harry Truman, and Richard Nixon swore the oath on two Bibles. And the Constitution forbids a religious test for anyone to hold office.
But Prager answers his accusers, and his answers are thoughtful.
Accusation: I am advocating something unconstitutional by demanding that the Bible be included in oaths of office. I am reminded that Mr. Ellison has a right to practice the religion of his choice and that there shall be no religious test for candidates for office in America.
Response: I never even hinted that there should be a religious test. It has never occurred to me that only Christians run for office in America. The idea is particularly laughable in my case since I am not now, nor ever have been, a Christian. I am a Jew (a non-denominational religious Jew, for the record), and I would vote for any Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Mormon, atheist, Jew, Zoroastrian, Hindu, Wiccan, Confucian, Taoist or combination thereof whose social values I share. Conversely, I would not vote for a fellow Jew whose social values I did not share. I want people of every faith and of no faith who affirm the values I affirm to enter political life.
My belief that the Bible should be present at any oath (or affirmation) of office has nothing whatsoever to do with the religion of the office holder. And it never has until Keith Ellison's decision to substitute a different text for the Bible. Many office holders who do not believe in the Bible at all or who reject some part have nevertheless used the Bible at their swearing-in (I noted this in my column)... I agree with the tens of thousands of office holders in American history who have honored the American tradition -- I am well aware it is not a law, and I do not want it to be -- of bringing a Bible to their ceremonial or actual swearing-in. Keith Ellison is ending that powerful tradition, and it is he who has called the public's attention to his doing so. He obviously thinks this is important. I think it is important. My critics think it isn't.
Why wouldn't Ellison bring a Bible along with the Koran? That he chose not to is the narcissism of multiculturalism that I referred to: The individual's culture trumps the national culture.
We do live in a culture now that values an individual's thoughts, feelings, and opinions over any national cohesion. The "melting pot," as we know, has been replaced by a "crazy quilt" with each patch being separate from the others.
I'm not arguing against individualism per se. But I, too, have a problem when one's individual rights trump any consideration for society in general or our country in particular. In my opinion, it's not terrible that Ellison wishes to use a Koran for his swearing in. But that he refuses to have a Bible as well shows some disrespect for the book that American values are based on. At least, that's Prager's view and I agree with it. It wouldn't hurt Ellison to bow to ceremony enough to include the Bible.
|