Monday, December 04, 2006

Shall we change the Constitution to read: “We the Christians”?

I don’t think so. And neither did the founding fathers.

Yet now we have the all-too-typical hypocritical “conservative Christians” (an oxymoron) coming out of the woodwork, foaming at the mouth, full of fake outrage, all over a Muslim Congressman-elect, who has the audacity to NOT be a hypocrite regarding his own faith.

Keith Ellison, the Democrat Congressman-to-be from Minnesota, and a Muslim, has stated that he plans on placing his hand on the Koran, rather than the Christian Bible, when he takes his oath of office. Being that he’s a Muslim, I certainly wouldn’t expect anything different. As a matter of fact, I’d be quite surprised if he chose to use the Bible instead. This is a man who apparently is trying to be true to his faith – a commendable trait amongst our leaders, don’t you think?

Yet there are some who claim the moniker “Christian”, who can’t seem to grasp the integrity behind this simple act. Last week, a friend forwarded an email to me from a group called the “American Family Association” (spare me), calling for Congress to make it the law of the land that elected officials must take their oath of office swearing on the Christian Bible. Here’s an excerpt from the email, quoting the infamous Dennis Prager:

“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.

First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- my culture trumps America's culture. 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.

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. 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 Bible. 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.”

I pointed out to my religious friend that as much as some on the Christian right would like it to be otherwise, we have a separation of church & state in our country, and rightly so. I also noted that orthodox Islam considered Christ on the same spiritual level as their own prophet, Muhammad; while those in the “conservative Christian” movement are not nearly as tolerant of the Islamic faith, even though Christ always preached tolerance. I further pointed out that the radical wing of Islam has given the rest of that faith a bad name, but that doesn’t mean that the radical wing of Christianity should do the same to our faith.

She responded that this issue wasn’t about tolerance. Huh?? Then what the hell is it about? She also argued that we were founded on “Judeo-Christian morals and law”. Yes, with a specific separation of church and state – um, what’s your point? She then made the comment that this was about “truth”. Nope your argument is about faith. And that Christ “would want us to stand up for truth in love. But love doesn't mean allowing others to create their own truth and forcing it upon others and that is what is happening.” Bingo! That is exactly what is happening. Problem is, she didn’t realize that this is exactly what the “conservative Christians” are doing – forcing their “truth” upon others.

I responded that bottom line, this is constitutional issue, not a religious one, and that constitutionally speaking, Mr. Ellison is in the right. As a matter of fact, the issue of the separation of church and state is more clearly delineated in the section regarding taking an oath of office than probably any other section of the constitution.

From Article VI:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, 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.

That pretty much puts the nails in the coffin of the "conservative Christians' " ridiculous argument. There is little ambiguity here. If this issue were ever brought up before the U.S. Supreme Court, Mr. Ellison would win the case. Period. I’ll go even further… It would be a unanimous decision, even with the current conservative-leaning court.

Now I suppose the conservatives could push to change the constitution to require that the Bible be used in swearing-in ceremonies. I doubt that they would be successful. But if they were, I’m sure it would be touted as a great day for “conservative Christianity”. Perhaps. But in my humble opinion, it would truly be a sad day in the history of our republic.

Labels: , , ,

6 Comments:

At 10:13 PM, December 04, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Marli,

Keith Ellison? Keith Ellison? If this is all we have to talk about then the Republic truly is safe and all is well.

Since you quote so extensively from Prager let me add this passage from the same article in case it wasn’t a part of the e-mail you received:
“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. Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible. Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of "Dianetics" by L. Ron Hubbard.
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?
The answer is obvious -- Ellison is a Muslim. And whoever decides these matters, not to mention virtually every editorial page in America, is not going to offend a Muslim. In fact, many of these people argue it will be a good thing because Muslims around the world will see what an open society America is and how much Americans honor Muslims and the Koran.
This argument appeals to all those who believe that one of the greatest goals of America is to be loved by the world, and especially by Muslims because then fewer Muslims will hate us (and therefore fewer will bomb us).
But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible. In fact, the opposite is more likely”
Though Prager is not one of my favorite commentators; he does raise some interesting points. Bottom line, Ellison will take every opportunity to stir the public opinion cauldron with the occasional PR assist from his friends at CAIR. I am sure we haven’t heard the last of him.

And now I want to ask you a question. I have noted on several occasions your venomous attitude towards Christians or, as you say, the more oxymoronic version “conservative Christians”. Why all of the venom?

You do understand how deliciously ironic your post is, right? We are and always have been a religious nation and the religion approximately 80% of the current population adheres to is Christianity. While in the First Amendment the Founders, in their infinite wisdom and to their eternal credit, decided not to establish an official state religion, the de facto religion of the United States was and still is Christianity. Do you still favor a “freedom of religion” or would you prefer a “freedom from religion”?

 
At 12:44 AM, December 05, 2006, Blogger Marlipern said...

Squire,

No, the email I received did include the more ridiculous portions of Prager's commentary. I chose not to include it because Prager can make a fool of himself quite easily without my help.

What's deliciously ironic is that in insulting Islam by comparing "Mein Kampf" to the Koran, he is also insulting Christianity. Problem is, he's too much of a hypocrite to realize it.

And that my friend is "Why all the venom". I am, and have been, thoroughly sick and tired of the hypocrisy that I constantly see coming from the so-called "conservative Christians", who wouldn't know the "Christian thing to do" in any given situation if it came up and bit them in the ass. I know that this assessment doesn't apply to all conservative Christians, but it applies to way too many of them.

I know hypocrisy is a fact of everyday life. And I certainly know that on many occasions, I have been guilty of it myself. But I take this very personally. I am not a religious person, but I do consider myself a spiritual person. And I'm a Christian. So when I see those that portray themselves as Christian leaders perverting the teachings of Christ, I take offense to it.

I do consider the Bible to be a sacred book, but no more so than a Muslim considers the Koran to be sacred, or a Jew the Torah. Our founding fathers were indeed wise enough to realize that this was the case.

In ancient times, it wasn't uncommon for conquerors to have the conquered swear an oath of fealty not on the sacred artifacts of the victors', but on those of the defeated. The idea was that an oath sworn upon that which you held most sacred would be one that you would hesitate to break, or risk falling out of favor with your own deities. But those were the days.

The founding fathers were wise men, and most of them were Christian. But ironically, Jefferson once said, "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." Now, I don’t personally agree with him on the point, and I’m betting he was referring more to how it was being practiced rather than the underlying beliefs. But I find it interesting that this was coming from one of the founding fathers.

Incidentally, did you know that in his first inauguration, Teddy Roosevelt didn’t use a Bible at all? He simply raised his right hand and took the oath. Did you also know that the words “so help me God” are not in the official presidential oath of office? George Washington added them when he took the oath the first time, and nearly every President since has followed suit. Some elected officials haven't even "sworn" their oath; they've used their constitutional right to "affirm" it.

Now I have a question for you... Constitutionally speaking, strictly constitutionally speaking, do you believe Ellison has the right to use the Koran for his swearing in? If not, why not?

Oh, and BTW, in my opinion, in this country, we have BOTH the freedom of religion, AND the freedom from religion. But that's just my opinion.

 
At 12:05 PM, December 07, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gentlemen,

Thank you for your thoughts on this topic. I shared them with my 12 year old son (12 going on 30!). He quickly grasped the constitutional issue and sided with Marlipern regarding the use of one's own "holy book" when swearing an oath.

My son actually wondered why any "holy book" is allowed, based on his "still pure" interpretation of the separation of church and state clause. He also confided in me that he chooses not to say the words "under God" when he recites the pledge of allegiance each day at school -- not because he doesn't believe in God, but because he doesn't see how it fits into our multi-cultural/multi-religion country.

Thank you again for presenting both sides of the argument. Your thoughts kept at least one California family at the dinner table long after the food had been eaten.

JF

 
At 2:23 PM, December 07, 2006, Blogger Marlipern said...

JF,

First off, thanks to you and your son for cheking out the blog. I'm glad you enjoyed the discussion.

Squire does make an important point in regard to the fact that this should not be the number one focus when our nation is at war. However, I feel that any time the core principles behind our constitution are being challenged, the matter deserves a serious debate.

Feel free to continue to join in the discussion if you are so inclined. I'm sure I'll be addressing other issues that you and your son may find worth further discussion.

Be well,

Marlipern

 
At 3:36 PM, December 08, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

JF,

I'm also glad you enjoyed our comments. I have spent many a family dinner as you described and they are some of my fondest memories.

Please allow me to offer a quotation:

"All great change in America begins at the dinner table."

- President Ronald Reagan

Please visit again and join the conversation. Marli and I are usually busy solving the problems of the world - from completely different perspectives.

 
At 5:13 PM, December 08, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Marlipern,

You asked “Constitutionally speaking, strictly constitutionally speaking, do you believe Ellison has the right to use the Koran for his swearing in? If not, why not?” My answer is I do not believe the Constitution specifically addresses the issue. With that said, it is beyond obvious that Ellison is using this as a PR ploy. But while, in and of itself, it is an extremely minor issue, it does expose some larger ones such as the role of religion in politics, multiculturalism and political correctness – all of which are candidates for their own posts. Suffice it to say that ignoring Keith Ellison would probably be the most effective use of everyone’s time since I firmly believe he is out to “play” us all.

May I also point out that Prager does not equate any religious book with Mein Kampf. I believe he was making a point about where to drawn the line, and in this case, while I don’t agree with him, I don’t think he was being a hypocrite by bringing it up. And I’m very sorry that you find this as justification for an extremely negative view of American Christianity. That’s a pretty broad brush you have there….

As for the “good old days” when the vanquished were required to swear on their own gods; that’s quite interesting. The version I’m more familiar with runs along the lines of “Convert to my gods or die in front of your family.” Must have been liberal and conservative conquerors in ancient times too, huh?

And finally, I will see your Jefferson quote and raise you a Washington (from his 1796 Farewell Address):
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”

There’s nothing like getting the final word in with George.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home