We
become part of the evils we fail to oppose!
America,
Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his
oath on
By
Dennis Prager
Keith
Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States
Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office
on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.
He
should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American
hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American
civilization.
A
Palestinian woman holds the Koran during a Hamas rally against
Israeli troops operation in northern Gaza strip November 3,
2006. Israeli troops shot and killed two Palestinian women
acting as human shields between Israeli soldiers and
Palestinian gunmen during a clash at a Gaza mosque on Friday,
witnesses said, before the gunmen escaped. REUTERS/Mohammed
Salem (GAZA)
First,
it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies
multiculturalist activism -- my culture trumps America's
culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are
saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its
holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to
be his holiest book.
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. If you are incapable of
taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress. In your
personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other
book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons
mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides
on what book its public servants take their oath.
Devotees
of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how
damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow
Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist
elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's
"Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath? And if
not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison's
right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a
racist who is elected to public office?
Of
course, Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being
honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he
should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book
he believes in. 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.
Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths
of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a
volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more
significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible.
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.
So
why are we allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of
Congress has ever done -- choose his own most revered book for
his oath?
The
answer is obvious -- Ellison is a Muslim. And whoever decides
these matters, not to mention virtually every editorial page in
America, is not going to offend a Muslim. In fact, many of these
people argue it will be a good thing because Muslims around the
world will see what an open society America is and how much
Americans honor Muslims and the Koran.
This
argument appeals to all those who believe that one of the
greatest goals of America is to be loved by the world, and
especially by Muslims because then fewer Muslims will hate us
(and therefore fewer will bomb us).
But
these naive people do not appreciate that America will not
change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by
allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible. In fact,
the opposite is more likely: Ellison's doing so 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.
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. 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. But if it is, it is not only Europe that is in trouble.
Dennis Prager is a radio show host, contributing
columinst for Townhall.com, and author of 4 books including Happiness
Is a Serious Problem: A Human Nature Repair Manual.
