No Koran for Keith Ellison at His Swear-in to Congress

Townhall.com columnist Dennis Prager has angered the radical Islamists, CAIR, and the usual multiculturalist suspects by suggesting that Islamic Congressman-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN) not be allowed to take his oath of office on the Koran. I completely agree with Dennis, but for somewhat different reasons. I don't want any Congressman being sworn in swearing to uphold or be loyal to ANY holy book...not the Koran, not the Bible, none of those things.

The oath they take is to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and the reason I would object to Mr. Ellison being sworn in with his hand on the Koran is because we are involved in a death struggle for the future of this nation with a huge number of radical adherents of that religion. Muslims, Christians, and everyone else are guaranteed freedom of religion in this country by virtue of The Constitution. Whether ceremonial or not, none of these religions have the right to demand that elected representatives being sworn into office to uphold and protect the U.S. Constitution be allowed to be so sworn in with their hand on a holy book, implying that somehow their religious beliefs and obligations stand superior to the duties required of them as elected representatives. A Muslim congressman was inevitable, but Mr. Ellison, CAIR, and the Nation of Islam are nuts if they think Americans will allow this to be another step toward American dhimmitude and submission to Islam.

"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. ...

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."