Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Multicultural Morass

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.

This would be a dangerous precedent and should not be allowed.

Atheists, communists, and jews all have taken oathes of office with a right hand on the Bible, and all of those groups don't take the Bible as truth. So why should we allow a mohammedan to do it?

In fact, it would be extremely important for Mr. Ellison to swear on the Bible. His religion does not remotely recognize a separation of State and Church.

This is highly symbolic. To swear on the Bible would mean that he accepts our system of government. He is saying that he will uphold its tenets.

To take his oath on the Koran would be highly symbolic too. It would say to all of America that we no longer care about our system of government. That we as a nation no longer think that the Bible is the highest Truth we have available to us. That somehow, we are surrendering our soverignty and will to that of a foreign system.

There should be no exception made for Keith Ellison.


Alternative Tulsa said...

Let's see: You're saying you want to force your religion on others? Isn't that what the terrorists want to do? Aren't we supposed to allow Americans the freedom to worship as they please—or not at all?

Besides, Congressional oaths aren't taken on any book, Bible or otherwise. Check it out: it's a photo op, for those who choose it. Mr. Ellison is free, as we all should be, to ignore your version of religion.

Red Bug said...

Let me get this straight. This is from your blog:

"Our philosophy is independent, rational, literate and open-minded."

So, your views of life are limited to your own thinking? You perceive things based on rationalism? And you say you are the open-minded one?

I have no "religion". Think that one over.

Alternative Tulsa said...

Thanks for the feedback. As you correctly note, we are interested in independent viewpoints and we try to be open-minded. What we oppose is forcing U.S. citizens to believe in any particular religious orthodoxy, which strikes us directly counter to the First Amendment right to worship as we please. That seems open-minded, and, if we may say so, democratic.