I do solemnly swear, on a book I don't believe in...

by Dale Wilsey

-----------------

This election year happened to be a major upset as the Democrats took both the Senate and the House. Next month will begin the swearing in of our elected officials as they place their right hand on the Bible, or in Keith Ellison's case, the Quran. This is what Ellison hopes for, as he becomes the first Muslim member of Congress.

This decision made by Ellison, a Democrat from Minnesota, has ruffled a few feathers from conservative critics around the country. An article by Dennis Prager entitled "America, Not Keith Ellison, Decides What Book a Congressman Takes His Oath On," which appeared on Townhall.com, chastises Ellison's decision to be sworn in on the Quran, the book of his faith, rather than the Holy Bible.

"Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. 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," says Prager. Forgive me, Mr. Prager, but I believe America extends the freedom of religion to every single one of its citizens, and I believe it is Ellison who should not give a hoot about what you have to say.

Prager goes on to state that his disapproval has nothing to do with freedom of religion but that it is a ceremonial issue. "Ceremonies matter. Ceremonies are exceedingly important. That is the way a society states what is most significant to it...I want Jews like myself to take the oath on the Bible, even though the New Testament is not our Bible." I believe the U.S. Constitution may take precedent over any ceremony you may be trying to cling to, Mr. Prager.

As if Prager's disapproval was not sickening enough, he closes his article with some very bold and scathing remarks. He argues that no other non-Christian has been sworn in on a book of their choice, including any of Prager's own Jewish faith, despite their preferences. My question is, has anyone else ever tried to be sworn in on the book of their faith rather than the Holy Bible, or have members of Congress just been moving through the motions of being sworn in? Is it possible that Ellison takes his swearing in seriously and would like to swear to uphold his duties on a symbol that means something to him?

Prager believes that the only reason a Muslim is allowed to be sworn in on the book of their choice is due to American's wanting to avoid offending Muslims, and by allowing Ellison to substitute the Quran for the Bible, "...will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America."

"If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that [the ceremony], 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," Prager says, closing his article. It may just be me, but I am going to go out on a limb here and say that Ellison's decision will have a slightly smaller effect on America than flying two airliners into one of the greatest symbols of America's power and wealth.

I cannot even fathom how anyone could think that Ellison's decision would have such an extreme impact on the moral fibers of America. Personally, I would rather have a member of Congress swear to uphold their duties on something that he holds sacred and believes in rather than a symbol of ceremony and tradition. The Bible is not the book of America, as Prager states. It is the book of those who follow its faith and teachings. The United States is a country of many books. It is a country that embraces the freedoms set forth by the Constitution for its citizens and I believe that Mr. Prager should be scheduled for an intro course to U.S. History. This is not your country, Mr. Prager, and it is not Christianity's country. This country is for us all.

Dale Wilsey is a Senior
English/Professional Writing major
and a member of KUR