Webloggin » Allegiance To Islamerica

Only in America:

For aspiring US Representatives, the threshold for qualifications have been lowered, thanks to Congressman-elect Keith Ellison, Democrat of Minnesota. Former member of the Nation of Islam? No problem; past apologist for Louis Farrakhan and Khalid Abdul Muhammad? Don’t worry about it; written columns celebrating the anti-Semitic rants of people like the executive director of MIAR, Joanne Jackson, as well as the aforementioned Farrakhan and Muhammad? Forget about it; supported by terrorist sympathizers like CAIR? Let he who cast the first stone…; during the campaign, have your driver license suspended for not paying your tickets? Okey-dokey; admit to so many suspensions, that you can’t “keep count”? Hey, we’ve all been there; had IRS liens placed against you for tax evasion? Who hasn’t?; fined (and sued twice by the state) for campaign finance violations? Fine; exchanged restraining orders with a woman who claims to be a long-time mistress? It’s America!

The election of Keith Ellison, AKA Keith Mohammad, AKA Keith X. Ellison, AKA Keith Hakim, demonstrates two things. In America, anyone can become a United States Representative. And in America, anyone can become a United States Representative.

It’s unfortunate that America’s first Muslim Congressman has to be someone of such questionable character and I would be surprised at any supporter of Islam who would disagree with the fact that Ellison is indeed a poor representation of a glass-ceiling breaker. Pay attention folks: I’ll bet dollars to donuts that Ellison will be embroiled in some kind of scandal early on in his political career. Another triumph for Nancy Pelosi’s apparently abandoned anti-culture of corruption Congress.

In another first, Ellison has announced that he will be sworn into office by swearing on the Koran. Which raises interesting questions about the validity of the oath.

The Constitution, in regards to federal oaths, and emulated in most civilian practices, allows for a swearing or an affirmation, the latter for people who wish not (or who’s religion forbids) to swear. Near as I can tell, virtually all elected officials have either confirmed their oath on a Bible (as did all but two Presidents) or opted for an affirmation. This will be the first attempt by a newly elected official to swear upon a religious text other than the Bible.

Does it make a difference? Obviously, an oath on a Bible is not an oath to Christianity - its a practice deeply embedded in Constitutional tradition. I would make the argument that the oath is not for the benefit of the person placing the oath, but for the benefit of his colleagues, his constituents and the country at large. The Bible has been the recognized symbol of swearing-in throughout our history. Should we merely replace that symbol at the whim of the person giving the oath? Is there American symbolism with swearing in on the Bible or can the ‘inaugeratee’ choose his own symbol, ostensibly putting his own interests above that of the people entrusting him with higher office?

Look at it this way: our traffic signs, traffic tickets, fuel efficiency etc. on American automobiles are all calculated in ‘miles-per’. If GM announced that all vehicles would now have speedometers that only listed ‘kilometers-per’ instead, would we not question at least the symbolic gesture of GM? In a way, aren’t elected officials marketing themselves toward the tastes, traditions and perspectives of broader America?

From another angle, if swearing-in can be done on a text other than the Bible, then are there limitations? Would we give a thought to someone swearing in on a cookbook? Or Mien Kampf? In other words, if the Bible can be replaced by something that the person giving the oath can choose, then the Bible loses its symbolism and at what point can we tell someone “no”?

[Read more and discuss...]

Others Bloggin on this Subject:

Hot Air
Blonde Sagacity