U.S.A.-ARKANSAS: ANOTHER NEWSPAPER EDITOR HAS NO CLUE, 5 YRS AFTER 9-11

JUST A THOUGHT : So help me Allah

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. — First Amendment to the Constitution They’re a little lame actually — columns that start off by reciting part of the Bill of Rights. Structurally, it’s a little weak, I mean, in that it suggests a weak argument is about to follow. After all, everybody who cares a lick already knows the Founding Fathers felt strongly about the “ establishment of religion, ” and that doing so could eventually lay waste to the great American experiment. More than two centuries down the road a majority of people can see they were right — and why.

Believe it or not, though, there remain thoughtful, sensible Americans among us who, incredibly, are blind to the true nature of our nation’s founding documents. It’s why the First Amendment can’t be repeated enough — because too many members of the voting public still don’t get it.
Last month, residents of Minnesota’s Fifth District chose Keith Ellison, a Democrat, to represent them in Congress. As a state legislator and community advocate, his election came as no surprise. Even his status as the first Muslim elected to serve the American people failed to gain much press.

But, Ellison’s decision to take his oath of office not on the Bible, but on the Koran, has changed all of that. Almost overnight, Ellison has become an “ enemy” to the American way of life, a person whose beliefs should be condemned — even feared. The American Family Association, for one, has already sent out an “ action alert ” to its 3. 4 million members urging support in the passage of a law “ making the Bible the book used in the swearing-in ceremony of representatives and senators. ”

Most notable among the fear-mongers is conservative pundit Dennis Prager, who wrote a column last month for Townhall. com. Prager genuinely disdains Ellison’s resolve to use the Koran for his swearing in, and refers to it as “ an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism — my culture trumps America’s culture. ”

If Ellison is “ incapable” of taking the oath of office on the Bible, Prager writes, then he doesn’t deserve to serve in Congress. According to him, letting the Minnesota lawyer use the Koran is akin to allowing a racist to use Adolf Hitler’s “ Mein Kampf ” for the same purpose. If Ellison is allowed to follow through, Prager says, then “ 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. ”
For starters, Prager, along with anyone else who feels the same, are in need of a history lesson. According to The Washington Post, Ellison would not be the first public official to break with a public tradition George Washington began long ago. U. S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz took the oath last year on a Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible — and I don’t recall American governance coming apart because of it.

As it turns out, John Quincy Adams took the presidential oath in 1825 on a law book. Do you really think that suddenly made Adams unfit for office ? Also becoming president sans the Good Book was Theodore Roosevelt, in 1901. Upon learning of such un-American behavior, should Congress have impeached the young president because of it ? Furthermore, two U. S. presidents (Franklin Pierce and Herbert Hoover ) chose to simply affirm their oaths.

Most notable perhaps is the reality that House members these days are sworn in as one group — and without a book of any sort. Not surprisingly, an unofficial ceremony does exist to give members the opportunity to reenact taking the oath (with a Bible, in most cases ) so the moment can be enshrined.

Regardless of any reason people on different sides may give, the reality is that Americans are equally protected under the law. It really is that simple. Even though multiple governments in Muslim countries may feel differently, in the United States it is legal to practice any religion you choose. Yes, it is even legal to be Muslim, and to gain access to the nation’s highest lawmaking body without renouncing one’s faith to do so.

In the final analysis, just because a country’s traditions trend toward one religious faith doesn’t make minority faiths wrong. Christians beside themselves with Ellison’s behavior ought to ask themselves a simple question: If the shoe were on the other foot, and a Christian were elected to serve in the parliament of an overwhelmingly Islamic nation, should that person be forced to take the oath of office on the Koran — or be allowed to select the Bible ?

Prager’s assertion that Ellison be kept from serving in the 110 th Congress if he refuses to use the Bible to take his oath of office is nonsense — and his statement about Ellison’s actions being more damaging to America than the terrorist attacks of 9-11 is just this side of crazy. And let’s not forget about Prager’s irrational comparison of the Koran to “ Mein Kampf ” — all of which, quite frankly, ought to leave Americans everywhere feeling offended.

Almost 215 years after the Bill of Rights were ratified, some of our citizens still don’t understand the document. For instance, Ellison’s resolve to use the Koran shouldn’t be seen as a terribly divisive act. Instead, it ought to be seen as masterful proof of the inclusive system the Founding Fathers bequeathed to us so many years ago.

The saddest thing about Prager’s rant is that it serves as proof that some Americans won’t ever get it. And that’s a tragedy.


Pertinent Links:

1) JUST A THOUGHT : So help me Allah