I notice, from an article by Rob Hotakainen of McClatchy Newspapers, that newly-elected Minnesota representative Keith Ellison, the first Moslem in Congress, intends to take his oath of office on the Koran (now spelled "Quran", which is probably a more accurate rendition of the book's name), and that this is raising some hackles over on the right.
Radio talk-show host and columnist Dennis Prager reportedly wrote: "Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath. ... 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 Americans and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9/11."
Give me a break! From time immemorial, it has not been required to put your hand on the Bible before taking an oath. What is the use of swearing an oath based on a religion in which you don't believe? Are you then to feel bound for it? I certainly wouldn't! If the law required me to swear on the Bible (it doesn't!), I would consider that "under duress," and therefore not morally binding.
For that matter, what if your religious beliefs (like those of the Quakers) prevent you from swearing an oath at all? There's already a common alternative: the affirmation. I've done this myself, when being "sworn" onto a federal jury — no books involved, just your own promise that you will do what you're supposed to do. As law professor Eugene Volokh pointed out, according to Hotakainen's article, at least two American presidents — Franklin Pierce and Herbert Hoover — have taken the same route, rejecting the Bible in favor of an affirmation.
More to the point, apparently at least one American ambassador has already given his oath of office on the Quran, which means that Ellison is not even setting a precedent.
(Side note: Hotakainen's article does not point out that Dennis Prager may have his own axe to grind in the matter. His website suggests, though does not state, that he is Jewish — see his list of titles of twelve lecture cassettes, currently available for the low, low "holiday" price of $110.00; and while many, perhaps most, ordinary Jews in both the United States and Israel may feel little inherent antipathy to Moslems (whatever they may feel about many of the crimes perpetrated by a few in the name of Islam), this is usually less true over on the political right wing of American and Israeli Judaism. One on-line posting of the article in question is illustrated by a picture of (from the caption) "A Palestinian woman hold[ing] the Koran during a Hamas rally against Israeli troops operation [sic!] in northern Gaza strip November 3, 2006.")
(Additional note added later: Prager points out that Jewish office holders in the United States don't hesitate to take their oaths on the Bible. Are we to be surprised by this? Much of the Bible — most or all of the Old Testament — is identical with Judaism's holy texts; after all, Christianity started out as a Jewish reform movement, and it took Saul of Tarsus to expand its venue to the Gentiles. Even an extremely orthodox Jew should feel no problem in swearing an oath on the Bible; he need only ignore the cross on the cover and the last two or three hundred pages. The Koran, on the other hand, though it originated in the same cultural background as Judaism and Christianity, is quite a different book.)
I'll be the first to admit I slant to the right on most political issues. But my reaction to Hotakainen's article was "What are you thinking?!?" The idea behind placing one's hand on the Bible is this. If you're a Christian, you consider the Bible to be holy, the word of God. By taking an oath on the Bible, you are affirming not only to the state, but placing an oath before God that you will be true, serve, and obey. Asking a Muslim to use a Bible is akin to asking a Christian to use the Bhagvad Gita. Let the congressman take his oath on the book he finds most holy to him. Give the sheet hypocrisy in Washington with members of both parties lying and stealing their way into power, the whole taking an oath thing is at best ceremonial, at worse a total farce. So why get hung up on it? The new session hasn't even started and we're arguing about stuff like this? It'll be an interesting two years.
Posted by: John at December 1, 2006 10:49 AM