Webloggin » Swearing On The Koran In Congress

Clarence Page wrote an Op-Ed in the Chicago Tribune defending Rep. elect Keith Ellison’s plan to use the Koran when he is sworn into Congress on January 4th.

I’d like to leave aside the fact that Page is bona fide liberal apologist or that he often displays the tendency to apply selective moral relativism while hemming and hawing over his objections – but I can’t. Otherwise I wouldn’t be able to explain how Page rationalizes the use of the Koran in a government sponsored event despite the fact that radical Islamic jihadists use the words of the holy book to justify acts of terrorism.

WASHINGTON — The first Muslim to be elected to Congress has not been sworn in yet, but he’s already taking heat. Dennis Prager, a conservative columnist and radio talk-show host, objects to the holy book on which Rep.-elect Keith Ellison plans to take his oath of office on Jan. 4.

The Minnesota Democrat plans to use a Koran instead of a Bible.

Poor naive me. Here I thought it was an encouraging sign of this country’s respect for liberty and diversity that Americans would elect a Muslim to Congress in the midst of an international war against Islamic terrorists. No country is perfect, but we’ve come a long way on the tolerance scale since World War II when thousands of innocent Japanese-Americans were rounded up into camps far from their homes just for their ancestry.

I agree, poor naïve Clarence Page. Like many, he misinterprets the country’s respect for liberty and diversity as a pact to look past objectionable acts for the greater good of diversity at the expense of liberty.

Page’s narrow application of tolerance hinges on the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. This is a common liberal trick, find a cause, make an analogous comparison to some real or imagined injustice committed by Americans in the past and apply that comparison as a blanket means test while simultaneously ignoring or pooh poohing arguments that counter the rationalization.

On the outside this looks like a valid comparison, after all, innocent Americans were interred because of their ancestry during WWII. Thus the Koran should be treated with deference lest we repeat the sins of the past by discriminating against everyone who praises it regardless of whether or not that praise is recognized through peaceful or violent means. Unfortunately for Page that analogy doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. The Koran isn’t a person and banning its use in a ceremony is not a mark of blanket intolerance or racism.

The fact of the matter is that Page and other moral relativists ignore the very real truth that the Koran is the text that is used by jihadists and radical Islamists to justify murder, slavery and torture across the world. This is different than the Bible or the Hebrew scriptures. Sure, there may be incidents of fanatical Christians who believe that it is “just to kill in God’s name” - but these groups are far and few between. (Despite what the Rosie O’Dumbells of the world would have you believe).

Radical Islamists can be seen at the center of conflicts across the globe from genocide in Darfur to innumerable acts of terrorism in the quest for the return of the Caliphate. There is no boundary or geographic location that is immune from the wrath of the radical Islamist. This terror is spread throughout the world, including the United States, Iraq, London, Spain, Afghanistan, Russia, Israel, Lebanon, Syria and across Africa - and it is done by people who are swearing their allegiance to the Koran. To understand the scope of this misuse of the Koran I should point out that this is the short list.

There is an endless list of brigades and jihadist armies that kill in the name of Allah. Conversely there aren’t a whole lot of people of Islamic faith speaking out against those who have kidnapped their religion by denouncing the radicals who kill in its name. This is a fact. It may not be pretty, it may not be religiously or racially sensitive, but it is a fact nonetheless.

So it is fine to separate the Koran from the hate and murder perpetuated by radicals in the name of its scripture. That may work for liberal apologists like Clarence Page. But it is not fine to discount the millions and perhaps billions of people who are currently enslaved or running from the fear of death at the hands of those who swear to enslave, maim and kill in its name.

My view would be different if there was an outcry by the billions of supposedly peaceful Muslims who oppose the hijacking of their religion; but there isn’t. For these reasons I discuss we should oppose the attempt to silence those who die or live in dhimmitude by legitimizing the use of the Koran in a state sponsored ceremony.

Others:

Dennis Prager, The Hedgehog Blog

More on lefties who trash accountability for the greater cause of liberalism: