Another First

Minnesota's Keith Ellison is the first Muslim elected to Congress, which speaks well for the district he will be representing. There have been rumblings, however, from outside the district, especially after he made it known that he will be taking the oath of office with his hand on the Qu'ran rather than on the Bible.

Conservative commentator Dennis Prager thinks this is quite outrageous (you'll have to Google the story because I refuse to link to Mr. Prager) and that it's not Mr. Ellison's call. How silly is that? Interestingly, other conservatives, among them the Republican candidate Mr. Ellison defeated, finds his decision quite appropriate. From yesterday's Minneapolis Star Tribune:

Rep.-elect Keith Ellison's decision to take his oath of office on the Qur'an is stirring a debate among academics and conservatives, with some of them saying it's only appropriate to take an oath on the Bible.

The Minnesota Democrat says that the Constitution gives him the right to use the Muslim holy book, and that is what he intends to do on Jan. 4.

..."The Constitution guarantees for everyone to take the oath of office on whichever book they prefer," Ellison was quoted as saying. "And that's what the freedom of religion is all about."

Ellison's decision drew support from one prominent conservative firebrand, Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, who champions a fence along the border with Mexico and who says that unfettered immigration endangers American culture.

"He wants to take his oath on the Qur'an, that's fine," Tancredo said. "I think whatever you believe is necessary for you to uphold your obligations to the Constitution, that is fine with me." [Emphasis added]

This might be the first time I've ever agreed with Mr. Tancredo, but he's got it absolutely right. The point of using the Bible, or the Qu'ran, is to impress upon the oath taker (or affirmer, or attester)the seriousness of the promise being made. It is not a required prop, however, nor is it mandated by the Constitution (for obvious reasons, among them the separation of church and state).

In the National Review, [Eugene] Volokh noted that two former presidents -- Franklin Pierce and Herbert Hoover -- didn't swear their oath but chose to affirm it.

He said that the Supreme Court has long held that Americans have the right to be treated equally, regardless of their religion, and that forcing Ellison to use the Bible would violate his rights.

"Letting Christians swear the oath of office, while allowing members of other denominations only to swear what ends up being a mockery of an oath -- a religious ceremony appealing to a religious belief system that they do not share -- would be [discriminatory]," Volokh wrote.

Amen.