For open debate.

Below are two snippets from two different articles. They deal with Keith Ellisons intent so take his congressional oaths on the Quran. I have linked the full articles for your convenience.


Prager argues that to allow Ellison to swear upon the Quran would be an affront to the American republic:
"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. "

Volokh counters, however:
" This argument both mistakes the purpose of the oath, and misunderstands the Constitution. In fact, it calls for the violation of some of the Constitution’s multiculturalist provisions.

To begin with, the oath is a religious ritual, both in its origins and its use by the devout today. The oath invokes God as a witness to one’s promise, as a means of making the promise more weighty on the oathtaker’s conscience.

This is why, for instance, the Federal Rules of Evidence, dealing with the related subject of the courtroom oath, state, “Before testifying, every witness shall be required to declare that the witness will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation administered in a form calculated to awaken the witness’ conscience and impress the witness’ mind with the duty to do so.” If you want the oath to be maximally effective, then it is indeed entirely true that “all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.” That book is the one that will most impress the oathtaker’s mind with the duty to comply with the oath. "


Now, I've read a lot of Praegers stuff a lot lately (thanks to MT's blog) and he is off base on almost everything he writes, in my nowhere near humble opinion. He is equally off base here. To ask me to swear on a bible would be equally akin to me asking you to consecrate your home with Mjolnir. The bible holds absolutely no reverence or importance to me. Just as I would not expect you to hold Mjolnir in any form of reverence or holiness if you were a christian. As I have said many many times before, faith is personal. You cannot force anyone to believe or not believe the way you do. I would love to hear other opinions on this subject.

V