Poor man! Soon after winning a seat in Congress, Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim member of the US House of Representatives was asked by a right wing blowhard to prove that he is not working with the enemy. Now he has raised the ire of conservative commentators Sean Hannity and Dennis Prager who fear that Ellison’s plan to take the oath of office by swearing on the Quran may unravel the fabric of American society. So alarmed are they by the possibility of anyone swearing on any book other than the Christian Bible, that they went on to define some spurious new religions and raised the specter of their unholy books. With characteristic attempt at distortion, Hannity waved the following red herring masquerading as a red flag:
"…you know, on what grounds will those of you defending this congressman’s decision and his right to choose his favorite book, you know, would you have allowed him to choose, you know, Hitler’s Mein Kampf, which is the Nazi bible? In other words, where does this stop? Is there any limitations whatsoever?"
Dennis Prager, who is Jewish, asserts that the Christian Bible is the only book that all American lawmakers should swear by. When it was pointed out that several politicians including some US presidents have chosen to forgo swearing on any religious book and that Jewish Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg used the Tanakh, the Jewish Bible, Prager back tracked a bit. He then uttered some feeble excuses about Quakers and the Old Testament etc. which like any other argument mixing religion and politics was hogwash. Before that however, he had fumed with indignation about the Quran, saying:
"… he will be doing more damage to the unity of America by using the Quran and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11….. The ceremony is, in fact, the important part. Remember, there have been congressmen and congresswomen of all different faiths. Mormons do not use the Book of Mormon. Secularists do not use the collected works of Voltaire or whatever secular text they want to use. Many people for whom the Bible is not their personal, great religious source have used the Bible, because they are all saying, "This book is the book from which America gets its values in the final analysis."
Read the entire insane (and inane) exchange here.
Wouldn’t it be refreshing if someone pointed out to these "great Americans" that America would be a pretty decent place if US lawmakers just swear by the one book that really matters to America – the US Constitution? Actually, someone did. During a Maryland senate debate about the influence of the Bible on modern American law, Jamie Ruskin a professor of constitutional law at the American University pointed out, "People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution; they don’t put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
Accidental Blogger 
9 responses to “The War of the Bibliophiles”
Mr.Shabazz makes an extremely good point “We should not mix — it is about politics. This is about swearing into Congress using a holy book. So much unrighteousness takes place after that swearing-in, we should disassociate all holy books from Congress until Congress has cleaned up.”
It’s fun to watch the talking heads retreat, fumbling and mumbling about lack of time, sorry to cut you off,etc. when the speaker starts to come up with common sense solutions.
LikeLike
Is this an issue of religious freedom, as protected under the constitution, or is this an issue of national tradition and cultural unity? The answer is that it is both. Read “Keith Ellison, Islam, American Sovereignty: Should we Amend the Constitution” at http://faultlineusa.blogspot.com/2006/12/keith-ellison-islam-american.html
LikeLike
Hannity makes a good point which you don’t address. :)
My take is that everyone should swear to protect the US constitution and that should end all debate for good.
LikeLike
Confused:
Let me unconfuse you a little.
First, as far as I am concerned, Hannity hardly ever makes a good point and certainly does not here. The last I heard, Nazism and for that matter, Marxism or Gandhism are not religions, at least not in the theological sense. That doesn’t mean that they are NOT like religion to some.
I don’t care which book someone chooses to swear on or not swear on. I don’t care if they keep their left hand in their pocket. That act is for their own self affirmation – that they are telling the truth to themselves. I am not impressed by their show of piety or the lack of it. It doesn’t guarantee anything about their future behavior. I would have a problem if a Muslim (or anyone else) takes an oath on the Quran (or any other religious text) and then turns around and wants to impose Sharia (or any other religious law) on US citizens. I will be among the first agitators to take to the street in outrage. Because as Jamie Ruskin points out, the oath is to uphold the Constitution of the United States and not the Quran, the Bible, the Gita or the Mein Kampf. And as for a Nazi swearing on a copy of the Mein Kampf, Hannity and Prager should worry not about the ceremony of the Oath of Office, but that such a candidate got elected by American voters in the first place.
As for the US Constitution being the only book of relevance, I am with you.
As usual, this whole issue is a lot of hot air being blown by blowhards like Hannity, Prager and their ilk.
LikeLike
Wow. This is absurd!
I wonder if it’s worth pointing out the obvious, namely, that we’ve had all these people swearing on the Christian Bible for all these years, and the Congress has never made much an attempt to uphold the Constitution–it more just does whatever it wants to do, and at least some of the time gets reigned in by the other branches, especially (in this context) by the judiciary.
I do like that Prager quote, though, for a number of reasons. Why is the book from which America has traditionally gotten its values (slavery for how long?; racism; homophobia; warmongering; imperialism; dishonesty; materialism; hypocrisy; a decided lack of empathy) in any way an argument in favor of its continued use? And I daresay I would trust someone who swears on the collected works of Shakespeare more than a non-Christian who swears on the Christian Bible! (Indeed, I’d probably trust her more than a Christian who swears on the Christian Bible, but then, I’m a cynic when it comes to a religion stained with blood and worse.)
LikeLike
Ruchira,
You are making rhetorical points. It would be most interesting to see how many Dems are actually okay with someone swearing on Mein Kempf. If I remember correctly, Alan faced a lot of flak from blogs like Daily Kos because he displayed confederate flags. One might say: whats wrong with that too?
I agree to that swearing on Bible is in no way superior to using Quran or Gita. But to argue that any books will do, is simply not cricket.
Why swear to uphold the U.S constitution? Shouldn’t we be, by your yardstick, judging by deeds and not words?
LikeLike
Confused:
I am not making rhetorical points. I am saying what I personally believe. And I don’t believe that the Dems are any less hypocritical when it comes to religion. They are just a little less mean-spirited.
And yes, no need to swear on anything if I had a say in the matter – I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to an elected adult on whom I am about to vest the responsibility of making crucial decisions. But then, I am not one to stand on ceremony. However, there are some traditions that are associated with statecraft which count for something in people’s minds. A public oath is a solemn act – as on a witness stand. When we stand up and affirm something in public, to an honest person it means something even without putting our hand on anything. I know it does to me. I am ready to take all public officials at their word that they would uphold the Constitution which I believe is a pre-requisite for a civil society as we currently define it. Beyond that it is up to their own sense of duty and conscience. Lately, we haven’t seen much evidence of that, have we? Hence my disdain for people like Hannity making a big deal out of “which” book someone is swearing on when he was all the while okay with the Iraq invasion and the massive corruption of the Republican government. And as I said before, my real problem is not that someone “swears” by Mein Kampf but that they live by it or if they get elected after doing so. In Allen’s case, carrying the confederate flag was only a symptom of the rest of his behavior, wasn’t it? I also happen to believe that a particular fondness for displaying the Confederate flag is not very far removed from swearing on Mein Kampf. But Sean Hannity has never had a problem with that “tradition.”
LikeLike
Ruchira,
I was not defending Hannity here, I was merely defending a point he made. Lets not dismiss a point just because the wrong guy made it. It was largely an academic point because I have no problems with someone swearing on Quran.
cheers
LikeLike
Confused:
I think where you and I disagree is that I do not think that Hannity makes “good” point.
The mischief here is precisely the point Hannity attempts to make with his Mein Kampf quip. Of course, swearing on Mein Kampf is going to be extremely offensive and insulting to most people but I don’t know that it will be illegal. But to mention that in the same breath as the Quran (whatever is our own opinion of its contents), which is considered the official holy book by a huge number of the world’s population is offensive also. After all, the Christian Bible, especially the Old Testament wouldn’t stand up very well under scrutiny in light of modern sensibilities of human rights and gender discrimination. What would Hannity say if similarly odious comments were made about the Bible by drawing parallels to other dubious publications? Moreover, as long as Hannity and Prager agree that the US Constitution guarantees freedom of religion to all citizens, they can not raise this objection. Mein Kampf is not similarly protected, no matter what ingenuity Hannity shows in redefining religion. He was not making a “good” point but a very offensive one. And I say that as a person who doesn’t have much reverence for any holy book.
LikeLike