Fear of Muslims and Islam

Congressman elect and practicing Muslim Keith Ellison, plans to take his oath of office with his hand placed on a Quran not a bible.

Ellison is a faithful man but quiet about his religion. He said he was unaware of his potential as a groundbreaker in Congress until he was asked by a reporter after he won the party endorsement in May. But his faith has affected his politics.

Ellison will take the oath of office in Washington on the Quran. He will also, as he does every day, unroll his prayer rug five times a day, bend on his knees and face Mecca.

TFM has no issue with Ellison using a Quran. As James Joyner at OTB points out, the US constitution makes no requirement as to even a bible.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

There is also the little thing called the first ammendment and freedom of religion.

There a few people out on the internet who apparently have forgotten their constitution.

Dennis Prager writes-

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?

I never heard of Mr. Prager before yesterday. On the other hand, Sister Toldjah who is on my blogroll, agrees with Prager.

This is how it starts. They can’t defeat us militarily, but they will most certainly try to defeat us using our own laws and customs against us.

Professor Bainbridge weighs in-

Prager's argument strikes me as fundamentally misguided. In the first place, Prager appears to be misinformed. He posits that:

... 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 ....

In fact, however, my understanding is that Jewish politicians and civil servants often take the oath of office by swearing on the Torah rather than the Christian Bible. (Anybody got any empirical evidence on way or the other?)

I looked for such evidence on the web but found none. That doesn't disprove what the Professor says.

Nevertheless this is about the constitution and US law. Mr. Ellison can take the oath in any way he wishes. Prager and ST are both terribly misguided in their views.

Sometimes I can't believe the venom out there in the mainstream conservative blogosphere. Whether its illegal aliens, liberal Democrats or Muslims, some just see this as a game they have to win. No matter how laws, people, or just common decency, get trashed in the process. Everyone is welcome to their views, but that's a two-way street that some people have apparently forgotten. Is this really hate and intolerance for anyone not in agreement with their own world view or just bad cases of xenophobia.

Shape of Days says if he was sworn in one day he would use a copy of Playboy. LOL, good choice. The Liberty Papers is also commenting.
Linked to- Adam's Blog, Cao's Blog, Right Wing Nation,