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.



A Palestinian woman holds the Koran during a Hamas rally against Israeli troops operation in northern Gaza strip November 3, 2006. Israeli troops shot and killed two Palestinian women acting as human shields between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian gunmen during a clash at a Gaza mosque on Friday, witnesses said, before the gunmen escaped. REUTERS/Mohammed Salem (GAZA) 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.

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: Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America.

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. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11. It is hard to believe that this is the legacy most Muslim Americans want to bequeath to America. But if it is, it is not only Europe that is in trouble.

Dennis Prager is a radio show host, contributing columinst for Townhall.com, and author of 4 books

we need to clean up our own backyards before we go messing around in others

If he can`t take the the oath of office on the Bible, then he shouldn`t use ANY book at all.

JMO, but I don't see a problem with taking an oath on the book he believes in. The reality is both the U.S. and Canada have multicultural societies and people of many faiths. We are countries of immigrants. For Christians to take an oath on the Bible is meaningful. For non-Christians, the Bible doesn't mean much, so it makes more sense for them to swear on a book that has religious significance.

sorry Unique,but your way of thinking on this subject is the same with the religious extremists,including islamic fanatics..I'm living in a country which muslims are the majority but I do not belong in any religion,I only believe in God and do not believe either there are multi religions,since God and his rules are one ..I think dividing part was a human idea, there could be prophets that came time to time to show human kind the right way and such, but God is about love and unity,and oneness so there can't be different religions to divide and make people fight..it's tooo man made..of course this is the way I think,yet I respect people of all the religions I celebrate with them special days since they mostly bring good feelings for a while at least..now what I want to say is, nationality and the belief is completely two different things.One mustn't be Christian or Muslim or Jewish to be a real American..if we are not against races,so we have to accept a person could believe any of those known religions also the none religions!!
fanatics are fanatics no matter they are muslim ,Christian or in any other belief..and they are as dangerous as today's well known terrorist names..so we better don't fall into the same mistake with the ones who are on the wrong side..

This country was established by people who wanted to the privilage to practice their religion. Traditions in our government were set up accordingly. Taking the oath of office on the Bible is one of those traditions. If he can`t take the oath and honor an American tradition--a tradition the people he is supposed to be representing, uphold--then no book should be used.
I`m not attacking his religion. I`m simply saying the oath should not be taken on the koran.

actually I'd say there's no need to use any religious books in goverment issues but of course no one will ever ask what I think on that subject ..I think that way,cause any particular religion can't be a "national tradition"..religions aren't national,they are personal.in a secular system,there's no need to oath on a holy book..no I'm not communist but I know too well, politicians use religions in a very wrong and dishonourable way for their own profits.. for centuries, this system feed the hate and wars..
now if I look from a different angle and let's say,I accept that an oath is important for honesty and truth while working for America,to trust that person's oath which way would you prefer?..to make that person oath on something he believes and respects or on something he doesn't care or believe..if oath is for honesty I see only one way..

This message has been edited. Last edited by: lighthouseseeker,

Practicing religion is not the national tradition I`m talking about. Taking the oath of office on the Bible, no matter what religion you are, is a national tradition.

Isn't this basically the same as sexuality? If one cannot be with the "traditional" one man and one woman, than she/he should be with neither. Would this then be compared to people of the same sex uniting in a "non traditional" relationship equaling what some may say, "What next?" Will it then be accepting to have a relationship with an animal? Personally, I think people should have as many options as they choose to have. They should be able to react on those options and people should keep their nose where it belongs...often up their rear.