Later this week, a newly elected congressman from Minnesota plans to take office with an act that has generated a wave of criticism.
Keith Ellison, a Democrat and the first Muslim elected to Congress, will place his hand on a Koran and swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Conservative pundits and politicians have taken aim at Ellison, accusing him of being un-American, among other things.
The hostile comments are both ignorant of the purpose of the oath and a reprehensible attempt to inflame relations with this country’s millions of Muslims. It’s also an affront to one of the fundamental reasons for the formation of this country: freedom of religion.
It helps to know a little about Ellison, who had been in the state legislature in Minnesota for four years before winning the congressional election.
He is a 43-year-old lawyer who grew up in Detroit. He has been married for two decades to his high school sweetheart, and together they have four children.
This is what he has said about his faith: “I was raised Catholic and later became a Muslim while attending Wayne State University. I am inspired by the Koran’s message of an encompassing divine love, and a deep faith guides my life every day.”
American Jewish World, a Twin Cities-based newspaper, endorsed Ellison for Congress, saying he is a “moderate Muslim who extends his hand in friendship to the Jewish community and supports the security of the State of Israel.”
However, he opened a national debate on the role of Islam in politics when it became known he planned to use a Koran in taking the oath of office.
Columnist and radio talk-show host Dennis Prager wrote that Ellison ought to be stopped. Using a Koran “undermines American civilization,” he said, and is “an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multicultural activism.”
The Jewish Journal of Los Angeles quoted Prager as saying, “If you are incapable of taking an oath on [the Bible], don’t serve in Congress.” If Ellison brought a Koran to the ceremony, it would do “more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9/11.”
A congressman from Virginia, Republican Virgil Goode Jr., jumped into the fray, saying Ellison’s oath might encourage other Muslims to seek office. He elaborated on a Fox television show: “I am for restricting immigration so that we don’t have a majority of Muslims elected to the United States House of Representatives.”
That statement is so wrongheaded, it’s hard to know where to begin.
But first, let’s get straight the purpose of the oath of office. It’s a ritual intended as a way for oath-takers to invoke God as a witness to their promise. Swearing on a sacred religious book is a way to make the oath more significant.
Though quite a religious man, John Quincy Adams declined to take his presidential oath on a Bible. He thought a Bible should be reserved for religious purposes and took the oath of office on a book of laws, the Constitution and American laws. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg swore on a Hebrew Bible.
Attempting to force Ellison to swear on a Bible is absurd, un-American and would defeat the purpose of the oath. Furthermore, the episode is an example of Islam-bashing.
That kind of intolerance is on the rise in this country and needs to be squelched. The Council on American-Islamic Relations reports a nearly 30 percent increase in anti-Muslim harassment, violence and discrimination between 2004 and 2005.
It is disconcerting that an elected member of Congress and others would resort to fear-mongering to grab the spotlight. They might be peddling intolerance, but you don’t have to buy it.
