Oath on Qur'an for Public Office in U.S.

[Mikawa Ossan]

Here's an article I found today. Personally I don't see what the fuss is about. Anyone else have an opinion?

StarTribune.com
QURAN120106

Last update: November 30, 2006 – 10:49 PM
Oath on Qur'an: Activism or an act of faith?
The choice by Keith Ellison, the first Muslim in the U.S. House, to take his oath of office on his faith's holy book, has stirred a debate.

Rob Hotakainen, Star Tribune
WASHINGTON - Rep.-elect Keith Ellison's decision to take his oath of office on the Qur'an is stirring a debate among academics and conservatives, with some of them saying it's only appropriate to take an oath on the Bible.

The Minnesota Democrat says that the Constitution gives him the right to use the Muslim holy book, and that is what he intends to do on Jan. 4.

"Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath," radio talk show host and author Dennis Prager wrote in his online column this week. He said that American Jews routinely have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they don't believe in the New Testament, and that if Ellison refuses to do so, "don't serve in Congress."

But Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the Constitution authorizes people not to swear their oath at all, protecting atheists and agnostics.

"Why would Muslims and others not be equally protected?" he wrote for National Review Online.

Ellison, who told the Star Tribune shortly after his election victory that he planned to use the Qur'an, was attending meetings in Washington on Thursday and could not be reached for comment, according to Dave Colling, his spokesman. But Ellison defended his plan to use the Qur'an, Islam's holiest book, in an interview with Abdi Aynte, a reporter from Minneapolis who writes for the Minnesota Monitor, an independently produced political news blog.

"The Constitution guarantees for everyone to take the oath of office on whichever book they prefer," Ellison was quoted as saying. "And that's what the freedom of religion is all about."

Ellison's decision drew support from one prominent conservative firebrand, Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, who champions a fence along the border with Mexico and who says that unfettered immigration endangers American culture.

"He wants to take his oath on the Qur'an, that's fine," Tancredo said. "I think whatever you believe is necessary for you to uphold your obligations to the Constitution, that is fine with me."

In his weekly column, Prager said Ellison's act is "an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism." He warned that allowing Ellison to use the Qur'an could pave the way for a racist to use "his favorite book" to take the oath of office.

"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 wrote. "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. It is hard to believe that this is the legacy most Muslim-Americans want to bequeath to America."

Ellison is the first Muslim in the nation, and the first black person from Minnesota, to become a member of the U.S. House. His campaign and election have attracted national attention because of his groundbreaking status.

Five years after 9/11 and with the ongoing raw debate about clashing civilizations and Islamic extremism, Ellison downplayed the role of religion in his drive for office. He nonetheless has acknowledged that his election has thrust him into position as a spokesman for Islam in the United States.

In the National Review, Volokh noted that two former presidents -- Franklin Pierce and Herbert Hoover -- didn't swear their oath but chose to affirm it.

He said that the Supreme Court has long held that Americans have the right to be treated equally, regardless of their religion, and that forcing Ellison to use the Bible would violate his rights.

"Letting Christians swear the oath of office, while allowing members of other denominations only to swear what ends up being a mockery of an oath -- a religious ceremony appealing to a religious belief system that they do not share -- would be [discriminatory]," Volokh wrote.

Said Ron Eibensteiner, former state Republican Party chairman: "It doesn't matter if he wants to be sworn in on the Qur'an; that's perfectly fine. We have in this country freedom of religion and free speech."

Tammy Lee, who ran against Ellison as an Independent in the Fifth Congressional District, agreed. "This country was founded on principles of freedom of religion. Our Constitution guarantees it, and as a newly elected member of Congress who's going to uphold the Constitution, he has every right to choose what religious traditions he wants to practice."

Radio talk show host Dan Barreiro said he has been "a bit bewildered" by the concern expressed, mainly on blogs, about Ellison's choice. The topic came up Thursday on his afternoon show on KFAN. "The general consensus I got was that most people were not terrified at the prospect that this was something that he might do," Barreiro said.

"Certainly there is no law that mandates that a person put their hand on a Bible as any kind of litmus test of their loyalty to the country," he added.

In 2003, Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman, who is Jewish, was sworn in with a Bible given to him by a priest who is a friend of the family. The late Minnesota Sen. Paul Wellstone, who also was Jewish, was sworn in in 1991 with a Bible from his wife Sheila's family.

Rob Hotakainen is a correspondent in the Star Tribune Washington Bureau.

Rob Hotakainen • [email protected]

©2006 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.

 

[sabro]

I think the guy should be allowed to take his oath on the Qu'ran. If you want to take it on a dictionary that would be fine also. What matters is the character of the man taking the oath, not what book he puts his hand on while he is doing it.

 

[Goldiegirl]

My instant so called knee jerk reaction is no. You have to swear on the bible in court that you are telling the truth...I am of mixed feelings and opinions on all things Muslim to be truthfully honest. I wonder what his true motives are...is it to get attention, draw publicity. I agree with sabro that it's the persons character that counts...I just question his motives is all.

 

[Mikawa Ossan]

To be honest, I have severe reservations about the idea of swearing on the Bible in courts. If there is to be a guarrantee of no establishment of a state religion in the U.S. Constitution, then I think that using any religious book in a governmental setting should be unconstitutional and therefore abolished.

The only other way to go is to allow religious books and documents from ALL religions, so as to not show improper favor to one over any other. This is essentially what is at issue here, too.

Therefore my gut reaction is, "why should they use any religious book at all?" But since that is the reality, I think it only appropriate that the new representative be allowed to use the holy book of his faith since others are allowed to use the book of theirs.

 

[sabro]

The book is a tradition. They don't even use it in courts in California. But public ceremonies are a bit like marriages... full of tradition and symbolism, so I would say that a Muslim should swear on the Qu'ran, a Christian on the Bible, and anone else on a book that is important and symbolic.

 

[craftsman]

OK, I think it's time for the sanity of a non-American to calm the US Congress well down with a bit of English common sense.

There are tried and tested methods used for generation upon generation for taking any kind of oath. Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist etc. Any one of the following would avoid the above controversy and make a fitting compromise for Mr.Ellison:

1. He could say "I swear on my mom's life". or you could use dad, sister, brother...gotta be living though or it doesn't count.

2. He could say "I swear with all my heart". (NB: check fingers are not crossed - you can never trust a politician)

3. Or Mr.Ellison and the House Speaker could just pinky swear an oath to the US Congress.

See. Simple. Mr.Ellison would then be loyal and true American and bound by his oath for life. (Or until he reveals that he crossed his toes....does that count?)

But and now this bit is serious..... in an English or Welsh court room the oath can be ' by all that I hold sacred' and is added to the traditional words of 'I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth...by all that I hold sacred'. No bible in sight. Or Koran. Or copy of David Hasselhoff autobiography.

 

[leonmarino]

Hm. I haven't read the whole thread but this whole oath thing seems pretty ridiculous to me. I think political power and the church should be seperated. I didn't expect the politicians in US to make such a fuss about it, being a very multi-cultural country..

 

[Mycernius]

It's a sad sign of the deep divisions that are embedded in American society. Their government seem to like banging on about equal rights and human rights in 'oppressive' countries and yet something so trivial shows how oppressive the US has become in recent years. It is about time that the US takes a good, long, hard look on its own systems before willing going to war to make regime changes in other countries.

 

[Grandpa Frank]

Hummm??

I think I will swear on a Japanse Manga of my choice.

Uncle Frank

 

[leonmarino]

It is about time that the US takes a good, long, hard look on its own systems..

Just had a chat about this with Mikawa Ossan, and I basically found out that this is easier said than done. In Holland, which is also a multi-cultural country, we had a issue a while ago about whether or not to recognize Islamic festivities as official, and scrap a few Christian ones (we have two days of Easter for example, one could be done away), but this idea didn't make it through to our legislation.

And to be honest, my first reaction to this story was: "Sure!! If you're a foreigner, you should adapt to the local customs right!?".. Just after a while I realized that in order to create a sustainable multi-cultural society people have to free to align themselves with their cultural in-groups, but they also have to be recognize by others as equals.

So without going into the US being the police of the world (which is outside the scope of this discussion methinks), I think this is a rare chance in history in which the US can come to terms with the multi-cultural identity that it has always had, and show a sign of coherence with the Islamic society in the US and all over the world really. I hope it all goes down well.

 

[sabro]

I grew up in Los Angeles and we had Nisei week in August to celebrate Japanese American culture... we had parades and celebrations on Cinco de Mayo and Mexican Independence Day that were expressions of Mexican American Culture. We had Armenian holidays, Jewish Holidays... and even contributed Kwanzaa and Kingdom Day in the name of African Americans. It seems to me that there is enough room on any political podium for whatever book an elected official wants to swear by... and room on the calendar for Ramadan, as well as Yom Kippur, Boxing Day, St. Patrick's Day, and Columbus Day... you can never have enough celebrations.

 

[Goldiegirl]

The problem isn't the book...it's how the individual interprets the book. I am wary of anything extreme, and I get the feeling that the Muslim religion can be very extreme and above the law of the land, as the religion is more important than what country you practice it in...I guess what I am trying to say is that I feel that many Muslims owe their allegiance first to their religion and maybe second to their country they are living in.

 

[Nall-ohki]

Frankly, in my opinion there shouldn't be a religious book involved in the ceremony at all. For two reasons:

1. The oath is about upholding the constitution, and religion has nothing to do with it. The idea that people must pray on a holy book is in and of itself an implied expression of religion.
   
   
2. While it is not specifically banned by the constitution's anti-establishment clause (prohibition on laws "respecting an establishment of religion") because it is a public ceremony, it very much goes against the spirit of the constitution, FOR WHICH THEY ARE SWEARING AN OATH TO PROTECT.

That said, people who disagree with this in any way shape or form can really only do it on three grounds:

1. Bigotry and/or Racism
   
   
2. "It goes against tradition"
   Which is really bigotry and racism disguised as patriotism (e.g. we want things to remain the same - a status quo that favors the white, rich, protestant Christian population).
   
   
3. "It destroys unity"
   This argument attempts to look like patriotism, but it really falls flat when you look at American culture historically. America is made up of immigrants from all over the world. America was never meant to be unified - it was set up to be a constant controlled struggle that kept us always on our toes in almost every way of life. This attitude is embodied in the phrase "E pluribus unum" - one of the first national mottos of the United States.
   
   Seriously, EVERYTHING is set up this way in America:
   
   • our governmental bodies
     Judicial, Legislative, and Judicial - all oppose each other
     
     
   • our states
     50 states, each individually more powerful than the central government to regulate its own internal commerce.
     
     
   • ethnicity/culture
     We have people from everywhere in the world. No, really.
     
     
   • capitalism
     America is a capitalist nation, and capitalism is a competitive system any way you look at it.
     
     

Anyway, my point is this - the people who oppose this really don't have a rational leg to stand on.

 

[leonmarino]

I grew up in Los Angeles and we had Nisei week in August to celebrate Japanese American culture... we had parades and celebrations on Cinco de Mayo and Mexican Independence Day that were expressions of Mexican American Culture. We had Armenian holidays, Jewish Holidays... and even contributed Kwanzaa and Kingdom Day in the name of African Americans. It seems to me that there is enough room on any political podium for whatever book an elected official wants to swear by... and room on the calendar for Ramadan, as well as Yom Kippur, Boxing Day, St. Patrick's Day, and Columbus Day... you can never have enough celebrations.

Man o man o man.. That sounds like real fun! I wish Holland had celebrations like that.. I mean, we do, but the different ethnic groups still tend to live beside each other, not "together". Frankly although 45% of my city is not Dutch, I do not know one Islamic person personally to celebrate their festivities with.. We do celebrate Chinese New Year in town though, which always is a lot of fun.

The problem isn't the book...it's how the individual interprets the book. I am wary of anything extreme, and I get the feeling that the Muslim religion can be very extreme and above the law of the land, as the religion is more important than what country you practice it in...I guess what I am trying to say is that I feel that many Muslims owe their allegiance first to their religion and maybe second to their country they are living in.

I do understand your concern as lately it seems that the Islam has spawn nothing but a global extremist threat. May I remind you that the Islam is a younger religion than Christianity (about 400 years I thought, but correct me if I'm wrong), and that the Christians were also very "extremist" ages ago. So the Islam itself isn't a "bad" religion, nor does it make people more extremist. It shouldn't be a point. Like you say yourself, it depends on the individual how he or she interprets the book. If people keep being scared of this "other religion", and shut it out from society, its followers will bound to be more loyal to their faith! Treat them as equals, discuss any differences you might have, but shutting them out will only lead to more segregation and extremism. I think.

Anyway, my point is this - the people who oppose this really don't have a rational leg to stand on.

You got some good points there Nall-ohki. You had me at "The oath is about upholding the constitution, and religion has nothing to do with it". The constitution (I take it) respects any form of religion and freedom of whatever, so why would it matter on which book or religion one must swear it? It would make more sense to me if those US politicians had to swear on the book of the constitution, 'cos that's what it's about in the end isn't it?

 

[Duo]

I think it should be changed. No more oaths on religious books. People in public offices and in courts are at the prospect of the state, not of god. The oath should be done on the constitution.

 

[sabro]

George Washington swore his innaugural oath on a bible that belonged to New York's St. John's Masonic Lodge. It is a ceremony with a long tradition. Everyone who takes office has a choice since a ceremony isn't even mandated. There are benedictions and invocations at such ceremonies and for the last two centuries it has not caused any problems. The ceremony communicates that the oath is important, the duties of office significant and the person swearing them is connected to the community and taking this very seriously. You don't swear on the Constitution to uphold the Constitution.

The solution to religious strife is not the state squashing religion... it is tolerance.

 

[Mikawa Ossan]

Here is a good editorial about this issue!

Last update: December 01, 2006 – 11:42 PM
Editorial: Ellison and his Qur'an get wingnuts whirling
What a hilarious load of ignorance, intolerance he exposed.

You've gotta hand it to Keith Ellison, Minneapolis' congressman-elect: He's not even in the House yet, and he's got wingnuts falling out of the trees on their empty heads.

When Ellison announced that he would take the oath of office on the Qur'an, right-wing radio gasbag Dennis Prager went into high indignation mode. Ohmygod, Prager fumed, Ellison can't be allowed to do that; it "undermines American civilization." Using the Qur'an is akin to a racist taking the oath on a copy of Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf," he fulminated: "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."

And Prager was just warming up, not to mention the acolytes who responded to him. He was over the top, but they were over the moon. Did you know, voters of Minneapolis, that Ellison's campaign was financed by terrorists?

Where to begin? How about that oath Ellison will take? He will pledge to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States." If the wild talkers scrunch up their brows and focus really, really hard, maybe even they will recall that freedom of (and from) religion -- that which motivated the Pilgrims to brave the Atlantic -- is the paramount value Ellison will swear to protect. Scrunch a little more, and perhaps they will even recall that the Constitution specifically prohibits any religious test for members of Congress. Requiring someone to put their hand on a Bible would seem to fill the "religious test" bill quite well.

That's probably why no religious book plays an official role in swearing in members of Congress.

They gather on the House floor, raise their right hands and follow as the speaker leads them through the oath. Some pose privately for photos with a book of choice, but the official oath is unencumbered by religious tomes of any flavor.

Crow, anyone?

©2006 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.

 

[sabro]

Excellent piece. I think that says it all.

 

[Duo]

George Washington swore his innaugural oath on a bible that belonged to New York's St. John's Masonic Lodge. It is a ceremony with a long tradition. Everyone who takes office has a choice since a ceremony isn't even mandated. There are benedictions and invocations at such ceremonies and for the last two centuries it has not caused any problems. The ceremony communicates that the oath is important, the duties of office significant and the person swearing them is connected to the community and taking this very seriously. You don't swear on the Constitution to uphold the Constitution.
The solution to religious strife is not the state squashing religion... it is tolerance.

I don't see how religion has a place in such things. For example swearing on the bible in court. Makes no sense. Or swearing on the Bible for office. The public offices and positions are based on the constitution. That's the document that gives them power and what not, not the bible. Religion has no place in the state. The state should have no religion, and should be purely secular, as to protect the freedom of religion for others.

 

[craftsman]

So in the end it was Thomas Jefferson who held the key. Or perhaps I should say the Qu'ran.

Congressman to be sworn in using Quran

 

[Duo]

Weird weird...... I'll never understand it, religion in congress :S

 

[Mike Cash]

Weird weird...... I'll never understand it, religion in congress :S

The key was in the quoted article:

That's probably why no religious book plays an official role in swearing in members of Congress.

They gather on the House floor, raise their right hands and follow as the speaker leads them through the oath. Some pose privately for photos with a book of choice, but the official oath is unencumbered by religious tomes of any flavor.

The storm of controversy comes from the fact that 1) nobody studies basic Civics anymore and 2) people would rather have uninformed knee-jerk reactions than make the effort to inform themselves and then give an informed opinion.

 

[Duo]

Doesn't matter if it is unofficial or not, even if it is just symbolic religion has no place in state institutions, so when a congressman poses with a bible or quran the effect is still the same....there is a separation of state and religion, holy books have no place in such instutions and publically displayed in the hands of civil servants

 

[sabro]

Separation in the US has two components: Establishment and Free Excercise. We should not lean so far over toward the Establishment protection that we squash Free Excercise.

 

[Mike Cash]

Doesn't matter if it is unofficial or not, even if it is just symbolic religion has no place in state institutions, so when a congressman poses with a bible or quran the effect is still the same....there is a separation of state and religion, holy books have no place in such instutions and publically displayed in the hands of civil servants

Even as a devout Atheist myself I can not rationally buy into such an extremist suppression of individual religious freedom.

And there is nothing in the United States Constitution about the "separation of church and state", by the way. Nor is there anything there which prevents any public official from the free exercise of their religion.

God, I hate arguing American civics/politics with Europeans.