Controversy Over Congressional Oath Misplaced

Would someone please send Dennis Prager -- and his Townhall compatriots -- a copy of the Constitution?

US Constitution, Article VI, Section III:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned ... shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

This direct quote from the Constitution should be sufficient to put to rest the hue and cry from conservatives that incoming Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) should have to hold a Bible -- not the Koran (he's Muslim) -- when he is sworn in come January. In fact, the Constitution says that the Congressman may be "bound by [either] Oath or Affirmation" -- that is, he doesn't have to swear on any book. The founders believed in protecting the rights of atheists/agnostics, you see.

The only oath articulated in the Constitution deals with the Presidency. It, too, has no mention of god or religion and also allows for affirmation:

Article II, Section I:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Mountains and Molehills
Talk radio hosts seem to gravitate to dramatic rhetoric designed to inflame the masses. In this case, Townhall columnist Prager asserts (emphasis added):

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.

... 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.

Ahem number one. No Congressman -- Senator or Representative -- puts a hand on a Bible when taking the oath of office.

Ahem number two. The last time I checked, we didn't have a national religion. In fact, the Constitution prohibits the establishment of such. Fancy that.

Of course, we can't let a little fact or two stand in our way of conservative agitprop:

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.

Well, yeah -- but "all elected officials" (a blanket statement if I've ever seen one) in this country do not take an oath with their hands on the same book. The Senate historian says no Senator takes an oath with hand-on-book.

"Some members carry a Bible. You don't actually put your hand on a Bible. I can't see how anyone would object to carrying a Quran," Senate historian Don Ritchie said.

And the House historian notes that all Representatives are sworn in together on the House floor -- all in one group. None of that one-hand-on-bible, one-hand-in-air that Hollywood has etched indelibly into our minds.

In a foreshadowing of the kind of political debate we can expect for the 2008 election, the "The American Family Association, a nonprofit that focuses on the news media's influence on society, entered the fray, calling on people to ask members of Congress to pass a law that would make the Bible the only book that could be used at swearing-in ceremonies," according to the Seattle Times.

I can't sign off without puncturing yet another of Prager's blanket assertions:

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?

Again, from the Seattle Times (thank you, Knight-Ridder-now-McClatchy):

Republican Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon, a Mormon, carried an expanded Bible that included the Book of Mormon at his swearing-in ceremony in 1997...

Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at the University of California, Los Angeles ... noted in an article in National Review Online that two former presidents — Franklin Pierce and Herbert Hoover — didn't swear their oaths but chose to affirm them.

And some claim that conservatives are "reasoned" while liberals are "emotional."

Technorati Profile
Technorati tags: Congress, First Amendment, Politics
gada.be tags: Congress, First Amendment, Politics