Far too many conservatives have made it abundantly clear that they’re unhappy about a Muslim getting elected to Congress. Right-wing activists opposed Rep.-elect [tag]Keith Ellison[/tag]’s (D-Minn.) campaign while he was running, and after having won, most of these same activists are openly questioning whether his faith makes him unfit for office.
These concerns reached new heights (or, I should say, depths) yesterday, when right-wing talk-show host Dennis Prager penned a column on Ellison’s outrageous request to take the [tag]oath[/tag] of office on the [tag]Koran[/tag], an act Prager insists “undermines American civilization.”
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 [tag]Bible[/tag]. 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…. [W]hy 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?
Prager went on to conclude that if Ellison is sworn in on the Koran, it will “embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones.”
I’m inclined to believe such stupidity is better off ignored, but because so many on the right embraced Prager’s harangue as a great work of political analysis, let’s take a moment to review why this is spectacularly dumb.
I’ll skip the more scurrilous slander (comparing holy texts to “Mein Kampf” and the “emboldening Islam extremists” line for example) and stick to the more glaring factual errors.
First, the notion that “America is interested in only one book, the Bible,” is not only wrong, it’s illegal, per Article VI of the Constitution.
Second, Prager argues that “America…decides on what book its public servants take their oath.” Wrong again. Public officials, from the president on down, have always picked their own books for oaths of office. Some have chosen the Christian Bible, others haven’t. There is no official national book for oaths.
Third, Prager argues that Jewish public officials “for all of American history” have taken their oath on the Bible, and no member of Congress has ever strayed from this standard. Fifteen seconds on Google turned up a very recent example — Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) refused the Christian Bible offered by House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) for her swearing-in and eventually borrowed a Hebrew Bible from a colleague. Somehow, Prager’s hysteria notwithstanding, American civilization survived.
Here’s the real kicker: according to a report last week in Roll Call, when lawmakers are sworn on Jan. 3 on the House floor, there is no Bible present. When we see pictures of members putting their hands on a holy text, those are ceremonial photo-ops, not the actual oaths of office.
For that matter, even then it’s optional. This year, for example, Rep.-elect Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), who is Buddhist, will forgo use of any religious text in her ceremonial swearing-in ceremony. That’s her right; it doesn’t undermine the fabric of society.
Prager’s commentary is wrong, sloppy, dishonest, bigoted, and embarrassing. And yet, some right-wing groups, including the Eagle Forum, were so impressed with it, they sent it to their membership via email yesterday.
I often wonder if far-right activists ever get tired of being so wrong, so often.