Why You Can Swear On The Koran But Not On

Posted by Joshua White on 12.07.2006

Keith Ellison wants to be ceremonially sworn in using the Koran. Conservative columnist and talk-show host Dennis Prager thinks that this is a divisive act against our country. Believe in me and I will tell you who is correct.


Greetings to all my followers and welcome to those of you who are soon to be my followers.

A quick Kobie Williams update: after writing my latest masterpiece, described by a very brilliant man as "the best thing ...ever written," one of you loyal readers sent me an email and told me that I was listed by Google news. It turns out that if you type in "kobie williams" you'd see my column listed second. This is two above the Houston Chronicle's article!

My power and influence truly is infinite.


In the recent election Keith Ellison of Minnesota won his race. Normally that wouldn't e so strange, but Ellison is the first Muslim to ever be elected to Congress. Hooray for America! There was no real problem until Ellison made it publicly known that he would not use the Christian bible during the ceremonial swearing in. Instead he'll be swearing in on the Koran.

This has piqued the interest of many people. One of the most outspoken critics of this plan of action has been Conservative talk-show host Dennis Prager.

Prager, a practicing Jew, recently wrote a column where he makes the argument that Ellison should not swear on the Koran but instead she should use the standard Christian bible. (You don't necessarily need to read the column. I'll make sure you get the key points.) Prager says:

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.

Apparently, to do otherwise would be to allow for "multiculturalism" which would "[damage] the fabric of American civilization."

Prager continues to give backing for his argument by claiming that no other member of Congress from another religion has ever asked to use another book.

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... 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.

He finishes up his column by claiming that the reason that more people are not complaining is that they are afraid of criticizing Islam. And these people don't realize that "America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible."

This article has caused an uproar against Prager that has been pretty heated. It has attracted so much attention that Prager has actually posted a response.


Both Prager and I know that the swearing in with the bible isn't an official swearing in. It is a ceremony. Technically, by the time that the congresspeople "swear in" on their bibles, they are already sworn in. For Prager this is just another reason for Ellison to use the Christian bible. If it doesn't matter, per se, "the use of the Koran has absolutely nothing to do with taking an oath on the book he holds sacred."

Normally I agree with much of what Prager has to say. But I find this view bothersome. However, I, unlike many of his other opponents, will not claim that he is racist or bigoted. He isn't. He is just wrong.

Prager believes that because the use of the bible would only be ceremonial gives further credence to the idea that the Koran is being used to send a message. I partially agree. Ellison may be sending a message, but it isn't in the negative manner that Prager insists.

Look, when politicians swear on a bible they are doing more than making a promise to the people. They are promising to something "bigger than themselves." The idea is that if they promise to do something under the watchful eye of God, then they are more likely to follow through. If you are swearing in on a bible which contains a depiction of God in which you don't believe then you have less reason to follow through. For a Muslim to swear an oath to the Christian God makes no sense. He can say the words, and go through the motions, but it will mean nothing.

I don't want my politicians just going through the motions. When they say the words "swear to God" (or some such concept) I want them to mean it. I want them to actually believe that God, Himself, is watching down over every action that they perform. This would not happen if Ellison were to use the Christian bible. (Atheists would have to simply promise under penalty of punishment or something similar.)

While it is arguable that American law is based of Christian morals, that is not to say that Ellison cannot use his holy book as a tool for his oath. He can promise to uphold the values of American all the while swearing in using his holy text. What's the problem?

Remember, we're not allowing these congressional virgins to swear in with any book. Prager asks us to imagine how crazy it would be to allow a Nazi swear in with the "Nazi bible" or for you secularists out there to swear in on a "stack of New York Times" or some Voltaire. The difference here is that Ellison is not swearing in on just his favorite book. He is swearing in on a concept that he believes is more important than he is, larger than he, larger than America is. This is what makes this kind of promise so special. He isn't swearing in on a book about his political ideologies. This also why we wouldn't let a Nazi swear in on "Mein Kampf" or let Nancy Pelosi swear in on Bill Clinton's "My Life."

All said, I ain't be caring if Ellison swears in on the Koran. I don't care if Mit Romney swears in on the Book of Mormon. I don't care if Joey Lieberman swears in on the Hebrew Scriptures. And I don't care if Trent Lott swears in on the Satanic Bible (ba ZING!).

What is important is not which book is sworn upon, but rather the purpose that the swearing is meant to serve.

Amen!

Marky Marky and the Radulich hails our new Asian overlords and talks of next years summer horror classic ZOMBIE CHICKENS!!!

Look, followers, he hired me...so you need to read him. READ EASLEY!

What do Borat, happiness and President Bush have in common? Get your weekly dose of Crowcaine and find out!

Find out why Joe hates the idea of black people succeeding, by reading his column arguing that schools shouldn't bus minorities to white schools here.


Until next time…believe nothing unless you read it here.