I’ve noticed around the web, that there’s been a bit of discussion and controversy about this Keith Ellison character, Congressman elect who
intends to swear his oath of office on the Qu’uran, instead of the traditional Bible. The religious extremists and xenophobes who I presume are behind this, seem to have conveniently forgotten a certain Peter, who
denied thrice his convictions, and wept. Oh well, as long as he doesn’t request to swear with his left hand on the book – because we all know that the left-handedness is the mark of the beast…
This should be a complete non-issue for the myriad reasons that all the other bloggers and journalists and commenters have suggested: There is no “requirement” that the oath be sworn on a bible, it’s merely tradition. Additionally, no religious test shall be required as qualification for any public office, according to the Constitution. The First Amendment thereto also expressly lays down a separation of Church and State. Ellison is confused:
“I need to really study why it’s such an important and explosive cultural phenomenon because it still kind of eludes me a little bit,” Ellison said. “I’m sort of looking at it like, you know, my faith is my business, and you can trust that I will be as honest as I can be.”
A healthy distrust for politicians notwithstanding, we ought to trust that he will be as honest as he can be. The only other alternative is to require the man to swear an oath of office to a God that he doesn’t believe in; in other words, requiring the man to knowingly misrepresent his convictions to the effect that he will be honest and forthright and give us his best, honest effort in the future. Insofar as he’s required to submit an oath that can’t possibly be enforced, I guess it’s a moot point; but there is something extremely unsettling about asking a man to lie to us and to his god, about whether or not he’ll tell the truth and be a good boy in the future.
