For goodness sakes, if Rep.-elect Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), Congress’ first Muslim lawmaker, is causing widespread apoplexy among right-wing activists now, before he’s even sworn in, how are they going to be able to deal with him, you know, legislating?
When we last left this story, right-wing talk-show host and writer Dennis Prager had just finished explaining that Ellison will literally “undermine American civilization” and “embolden Islamic extremists” if he takes the oath of office on a Koran instead of a Christian Bible. Though Prager’s column on the issue was quickly embraced by the religious right, Prager later said he would not support a religious test for public office and mysteriously blamed Ellison for causing trouble.
Enter Roy Moore, the former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice who was driven from office in disgrace because a religious crusade led him to believe he could ignore the U.S. Constitution. Prager backed away from the notion that Muslims should be prohibited from serving in Congress, but Moore isn’t nearly as shy — the former jurist said Muslims are not fit for office.
To support the Constitution of the United States one must uphold an underlying principle of that document…. The Islamic faith rejects our God and believes that the state must mandate the worship of its own god, Allah. […]
Our Constitution states, “Each House [of Congress] shall be the judge … of the qualifications of its own members.” Enough evidence exists for Congress to question Ellison’s qualifications to be a member of Congress as well as his commitment to the Constitution in view of his apparent determination to embrace the Quran and an Islamic philosophy directly contrary to the principles of the Constitution.
Yes, according to Moore, Congress shouldn’t just stop Ellison from using the Koran for his ceremonial photo-op, the institution should literally ignore the election results and forbid Ellison from taking his seat.
Remember, Moore was a duly elected Republican judge in the state of Alabama.
I was particularly fond of this argument from Moore’s WND column:
[C]ommon sense alone dictates that in the midst of a war with Islamic terrorists we should not place someone in a position of great power who shares their doctrine. In 1943, we would never have allowed a member of Congress to take their oath on “Mein Kampf,” or someone in the 1950s to swear allegiance to the “Communist Manifesto.”
The comparison doesn’t make a lot of sense, but never mind that. Moore obviously believes that the United States is necessarily at war with all Muslims, and we can’t have out “enemy” in the halls of Congress. Moore therefore believes it’s wise — indeed, necessary — to ignore the Constitution in order to protect ourselves from the congressman-elect from Minnesota.
But perhaps it’d be fun to take Moore’s argument to the next level. Extrapolating from his thesis, the United States is at war against religious extremists. Fundamentalists who believe that every word of their holy text is literally true, and who have no tolerance for those who disagree, have become our enemy, and must be shunned. Their way is simply not our way.
By this logic, aren’t there a few dozen Republican lawmakers in Congress — allies of Roy Moore, incidentally — who should be blocked from taking their seats in the 110th also?