"...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." -- Article VI, Section 3 of the United States Constitution.
Why is it the people who claim to be the most patriotic, and wave the flag the most, seem to be the most ignorant of the laws, foundations, and motivations of our country?
Sometimes, someone says something so dumb that you have to do a double-take and you try to convince yourself that you misheard it.
While I'm sure such examples crop up by the hour, in this case I'm referring to the outcry at the request of incoming Congressman Keith Ellison, D-Minn. Ellison, a muslim, wants to take his oath of office on the Koran and not the bible. Since he's muslim, and not christian, him swearing in on the bible makes about as much sense as having him sworn in on Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.
Seems pretty open and shut, especially given the EXTREMELY specific constitutional statement that there should be no religious test for public office.
But, in a clear case of "stupidity knows no bounds," somebody had to protest, of course.
Among many, that somebody included Dennis Prager, who wrote a column stating that Ellison should not be allowed to swear in on the Koran because it would undermine American civilization.
Prager wasn't the only one, just the loudest. And it's not an issue of "right vs. left" as Prager got slammed by Right-leaning columnists as much as he did by the Left.
If anything, Ellison should be commended. He could have just taken the oath on the bible, but instead, he seems to actually want his oath to mean something.
Prager has backtracked recently, claiming, again erroneously, that it's a matter of the U.S. being based on the bible, making it the country's de facto Holy Document.
But again, he runs into a little brick wall I like to call historical fact.
U.S. Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, near the end of George Washington's last term as president, was intended to outline the nature of the U.S. to foreign countries. It states, in no uncertain words,
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;"
As you know, or should, foreign treaties are ratified by the Senate and signed by the president. They were all Founding Fathers, who had lived through the creation of our nation, headed by the leading figure of our country and it's first president. They agreed that the U.S. was not founded on Christianity.
While there is no doubt that Christianity influenced many aspects of the nation, our Founding Fathers came from an assortment of backgrounds, which included a few deists and a couple in-the-closet atheists. They went through great pains in numerous documents to distinguish that religion shouldn't be a factor in our governmental workings. There are endless reams of quotes from Jefferson, Franklin and Paine, among others screaming at us not to use religion as a measuring stick, standard, or test, for governmental action, influence or dogma.
It's all in writing, all over the place.
When Ellison swears in on that Koran, it won't be an erosion of American values. It will be an affirmation of them.
Why is it the people who claim to be the most patriotic, and wave the flag the most, seem to be the most ignorant of the laws, foundations, and motivations of our country?
Sometimes, someone says something so dumb that you have to do a double-take and you try to convince yourself that you misheard it.
While I'm sure such examples crop up by the hour, in this case I'm referring to the outcry at the request of incoming Congressman Keith Ellison, D-Minn. Ellison, a muslim, wants to take his oath of office on the Koran and not the bible. Since he's muslim, and not christian, him swearing in on the bible makes about as much sense as having him sworn in on Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.
Seems pretty open and shut, especially given the EXTREMELY specific constitutional statement that there should be no religious test for public office.
But, in a clear case of "stupidity knows no bounds," somebody had to protest, of course.
Among many, that somebody included Dennis Prager, who wrote a column stating that Ellison should not be allowed to swear in on the Koran because it would undermine American civilization.
Prager wasn't the only one, just the loudest. And it's not an issue of "right vs. left" as Prager got slammed by Right-leaning columnists as much as he did by the Left.
If anything, Ellison should be commended. He could have just taken the oath on the bible, but instead, he seems to actually want his oath to mean something.
Prager has backtracked recently, claiming, again erroneously, that it's a matter of the U.S. being based on the bible, making it the country's de facto Holy Document.
But again, he runs into a little brick wall I like to call historical fact.
U.S. Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, near the end of George Washington's last term as president, was intended to outline the nature of the U.S. to foreign countries. It states, in no uncertain words,
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;"
As you know, or should, foreign treaties are ratified by the Senate and signed by the president. They were all Founding Fathers, who had lived through the creation of our nation, headed by the leading figure of our country and it's first president. They agreed that the U.S. was not founded on Christianity.
While there is no doubt that Christianity influenced many aspects of the nation, our Founding Fathers came from an assortment of backgrounds, which included a few deists and a couple in-the-closet atheists. They went through great pains in numerous documents to distinguish that religion shouldn't be a factor in our governmental workings. There are endless reams of quotes from Jefferson, Franklin and Paine, among others screaming at us not to use religion as a measuring stick, standard, or test, for governmental action, influence or dogma.
It's all in writing, all over the place.
When Ellison swears in on that Koran, it won't be an erosion of American values. It will be an affirmation of them.
_pie_:
I agree, I believe that swearing in on the Koran would be a celebration of diversity, and what American was founded on