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.
Okay.
ReplyDeleteSo, in your eyes, the Bible is a kind of pagan totem, not a set of religious writings: it ought to be present as a totem whenever an American office-holder is sworn in. That is a plain breach of the First Commandment: it sets up the Bible itself as an idol.
Second: the document on which American tradition is based is not the Bible, but the US Constitution, which explicitly sets no religion above any other, and explicitly forbids religious tests to hold office, whether setting up the Bible as a tribal totem such as you propose, or even Christianity.
An atheist or a Quaker can affirm: a Christian who is not a Quaker can take Bible oath: a Jew can swear with her hand on the Torah: a Hindu can take oath on the Bhagavad Gita: and, of course, a Muslim can swear on the Qu'ran. That's the American tradition: freedom of religion and freedom of opinion.
It would help if you bothered considering the arguments presented in a post as opposed to trying to make up arguments all the time. For example, there's no place that I say the Bible is a "pagan totem." I say that it is a sacred text, revered by many, respected by most. That's not making it an idol any more than any Jew or Christian who respects their sacred works makes those things an idol.
ReplyDeleteSecond, even if I did, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument at hand. Whether my beliefs about the Bible cross any of the Commandments is irrelevant to the discussion. This was a question about American culture and norms, not any one particular religious belief. That the Bible itself has been an important part of our ceremonial life is well documented.
Third, the Constitution and the ideas it contains, as well as most of the documents created by the Founding Fathers are based on the belief that we are "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights." That's a pretty religious idea, and it is the one upon which the entire Bill of Rights is based. You might try actually reading Prager's articles before commenting next time, but given your track record, I don't expect you to.
Finally, your last graf misses the entire point. It isn't that various office holders can use different texts when they take their oaths. It is that, for over 200 years, the vast majority of people have used the Bible, regardless of whether it was their particular religious text. This begs the question "why?" and the answer is simple: most Americans recognize the Bible as an important, holy writ and that using it in the ceremony is a unifying thing.
Jews have used Bibles containing the Old and New Testaments. They don't believe in the New Testament. Why do you think they would do this? The answer is that the oath of office is about more than one particular politician. It's about all of America.
Ellison will have a private ceremony at which he is sworn in. That's the custom. At that ceremony, it would be right and proper for him to use the book most important to him. But there would be absolutely no harm (and, in fact, the symbolic good would be great) if he had a Bible at the public ceremony.
This is simply another example of the narcissism that grips our culture today because, as we all know, his individual belief trumps any unity or good will his actions could restore.
But there would be absolutely no harm (and, in fact, the symbolic good would be great) if he had a Bible at the public ceremony.
ReplyDeleteWhat "symbolic good" are you envisaging?
You say you don't intend that the Bible should be thought of as a totemic idol. But somehow, you want it there. You say you don't want it there as a religious test - and that would certainly be unConsitutional. So it's not to be there because it's a religious book, but because in your eyes it has tremendous symbolic significance - so tremendous, that it ought to be carried by a Senator for whom it's not his religious text. What else is that but an idol?
Whereas the American tradition is that any US officeholder may be of any religion or none, and the only document that they swear to uphold is the US Constitution - which explicitly forbids tests of religion such as requiring a person to carry a specific holy book.
I honestly do not see what "symbolic good" you expect to come out from this unreasonable and unConstitutional demand that a Senator carry a Bible as if it were a tribal totem, rather than respect the American tradition of freedom of religion.
Third, the Constitution and the ideas it contains, as well as most of the documents created by the Founding Fathers are based on the belief that we are "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights." That's a pretty religious idea, and it is the one upon which the entire Bill of Rights is based.
Yes, it is. But it's a religious idea that isn't tied to Christianity, and isn't supposed to be.
Jews have used Bibles containing the Old and New Testaments.
And they've used copies of the Torah, too. *smiles* I suppose that to an unobservant Jew, as to someone who identifies as a Christian but isn't devout, it would hardly matter: you'd use the copy you were handed, and not worry about. But to a devout person, it would matter. I would expect an observant Jew elected to Congress to use a copy of the Torah: and when Ellison uses a copy of the Qu'ran at his swearing-in, that will certainly show people who claim that America is run by Christian bigots who respect no religion but their own, that they're wrong about that. And that will be a great good.