Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In mid-November 2006 it was reported that Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress (for Minnesota's 5th congressional district), "will take his oath of office with his hand upon the Koran, the Islamic holy book."^[1][2] In reaction to the news, conservative media pundit Dennis Prager criticized the decision in his November 28, 2006 column entitled "America, not Keith Ellison, decides what book a Congressman takes his oath on."^[3] The column attracted national attention from both Ellison and Prager supporters. Presented with the fact that all members of the House officially swear in (or affirm) en masse without the use of any religious text, and that such works are only used in ceremonial reenactments afterwards, Prager stated "that’s the whole point: it’s exactly because it’s ceremonial that it matters".^[4] In response to a wave of criticism, Prager released another column on the topic on December 5, 2006 entitled "A response to my many critics - and a solution".^[5] The Controversy became more heated when Rep. Virgil Goode (R - VA) issued a letter to his constituents stating his view that Ellison's decision to use the Qur'an is a threat to "the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America...[and] if American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran."^[6] The entering of Goode into the controversy has caused many other members of Congress to weigh in.

On January 3, 2007, The Washington Post reported that Ellison would use the Qur'an owned by Thomas Jefferson.^[7]

Contents 1 Prager's initial column 2 Denial of Islamophobia or equating Qur'an with Mein Kampf 3 Ellison and Staff Response 4 Constitutional provisions 5 Administration of Oath of Office 5.1 Text of the Oath 5.2 Oath Ceremonies 6 Questions on "unbroken tradition" 7 Prager rescinds call for Ellison not to serve 8 Prager dismisses Tanakh Oaths 9 Oath ceremonies of first Buddhists in Congressional history 10 Prager calls on Ellison to bring Bible with Qur'an 11 Sharia rather than Constitution? 12 Prager's Dec. 27, 2006 column 13 Organizational Responses 14 The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council's resolution 15 Responses in the Media 16 Responses of Elected Officials 16.1 Debbie Wasserman Schultz 16.2 Tom Tancredo 16.3 Emanuel Cleaver II 16.4 John Warner 17 Impact of Rep. Virgil Goode 17.1 Ellison's response to Rep. Goode 18 Ellison's Union Hall remarks 19 Thomas Jefferson's Qur'an 20 Opening day of the 110th Congress 20.1 Ellison at interfaith service 20.2 Ellison meets Goode 20.3 Ceremonial reenactment 21 Sources

[edit] Prager's initial column

In his column "America, not Keith Ellison, decides what book a Congressman takes his oath on" Dennis Prager wrote that Ellison "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 …If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book [the Bible], don't serve in Congress"^[3] Prager said Ellison's desire to use the Qur'an was "an act of hubris" that "undermines American civilization."^[3]

Prager went on to say that "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?"^[3]

Prager claimed that if no one stops him from using the Qur'an we’re "allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done". He said "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".^[3] This claim is a factual error as several Jewish elected officials have been sworn in on the Tanakh,^[8] most recently in 2005, during the 109th Congress, when House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), honored the religious sensibilities of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.). Hastert only had a Christian Bible and ordered his staff to find a copy of the Tanakh, which they borrowed from Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY).^[9] This event caused the American Friends of Lubavitch to begin an annual distribution of the Hebrew Bible to Jewish lawmakers and the speaker's office.^[10]

Prager also stated "Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon."^[3] However, the Mormons see the Christian Bible as sacred and a central pillar of their faith alongside the Book of Mormon. This is best illustrated by the fact that "Republican Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon, carried a volume of Mormon scriptures that included the Bible and the Book of Mormon at his swearing-in ceremony in 1997."^[11]

Prager claimed no one is speaking out against using the Qur'an because "Ellison is a Muslim. And whoever decides these matters, not to mention virtually every editorial page in America, is not going to offend a Muslim." If allowed to go forward, "Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America." Prager claimed that if Ellison does not use the Christian Bible "he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11."^[3]

[edit] Denial of Islamophobia or equating Qur'an with Mein Kampf

Prager’s article has been viewed by many as anti-Muslim. They cite Prager’s phrases "he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11" invoking the September 11, 2001 attacks and when he invoked the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy with the phrase "We will even fight for your [Ellison’s] right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible".^[3] They do not believe that Prager would have used these statement if Ellison were not a Muslim.[1] Prager has said nothing about the decision of Hawaii’s Representative-elect Mazie Hirono not to use the Bible or any sacred book in her oath ceremonies. (Hirono alongside Georgia’s Hank Johnson are the first Buddhists elected to the US Congress.)

Prager’s critics also take issue with his use of "Mein Kampf" in an analogy. Prager has cited President George W. Bush’s use of the term "Islamic Fascists" in a previous column.^[12] That article says that while terrorist acts do not suggest "we are fighting a billion Muslims" or "that all or even most Muslims are bad people", it concludes that "It does suggest, however, that the dominant forces within Islam are bad at this time; that Muslims who see this evil in their midst have not mobilized any counterforce either out of…fear for their lives or group solidarity."^[12] In Prager's article about Ellison he called the Qur'an "the bible of Islam" and Mein Kampf "the Nazis' bible",^[3] this lead his crtics to charge that he was equating the two documents, and that he was implying that both were designed to induce worldwide violence.[2]

Responding to the charges that he equated the Qur'an to "Mein Kampf" and exhibited Islamophobia, Prager wrote in his Dec. 5, 2006 article "I wrote not a word against Islam or the Koran and made it clear at the beginning of my column that nothing I write is specific to Islam or the Koran. All those who write that I 'compared' the Koran to 'Mein Kampf' are lying -- deliberately lying to defame me rather than respond to my arguments. I simply offered a slippery slope argument that if we let everyone choose their own text at swearings-in, what will happen one day should a racist decide to use 'Mein Kampf'? A slippery slope argument is not an equivalence argument. The Left regularly argues that vouchers to support Catholic schools can one day be used to support religious extremists' schools. Are they comparing Catholicism to religious extremism? Of course not. And no one on the Right has ever stooped so low as to make such a charge. Moreover, I not only mentioned 'Mein Kampf,' I mentioned 'Dianetics,' Scientology's most revered work, the works of Voltaire (for secularists) and other works."^[5]

In an interview, Prager said calling him a "Muslim-basher" was a "total lie." "I've written 1,000 columns, many on the Islamic world. I have been in broadcasting for 25 years. I've studied Arabic and Islam. I was a fellow in the Middle East Institute of Columbia University, where I did my graduate work. And I have never bashed Islam in my life." He pointed out that on possibly 500 occasions since the September 11, 2001 attacks, callers to his radio show have asked "‘Is Islam a violent religion?’ I have given one response, and only one, ever since: I never judge religions. I judge practitioners."^[13]

The varying interpretations arising over Prager’s question about a hypothetical elected racist are a result of the differences between Nazis and American racists. While in Nazi Germany "Mein Kampf" was seen as sacred to the Protestant Reich Church, American White Supremacist groups such as the Klu Klux Klan have always held that the Christian Bible endorses their positions.^[14] Even American Neo-Nazi groups such as The Order are part of Christian Identity and would therefore prefer to swear on the Christian Bible if somehow elected to Congress. Famous racists have been elected in America and have been sworn into political office using the Christian Bible. The most obvious example is former Imperial Wizard for the KKK and Louisiana State Representative David Duke who was sworn in using the Christian Bible after winning a 1989 runoff to represent Suburban New Orleans. Another example is the late Senator Strom Thurmond (R. South Carolina) who as Governor stated in his 1948 Presidential run "There's not enough troops in the Army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nig-rah race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes and into our churches." Thurmond was first elected to the Senate in 1954 where he was sworn in on a Christian Bible and famously set the filibuster record there attempting to derail the Civil Rights Act of 1957. (Thurmond is said to have modified his views in the 1970s.^[15])

[edit] Ellison and Staff Response

In a phone interview with the Minnesota Monitor, Ellison said "that he’s not changing his mind about the sacred text he’s swearing on. 'The Constitution guarantees for everyone to take the oath of office on whichever book they prefer. And that’s what the freedom of religion is all about.'"^[16] Ellison was also quoted in another source saying "Using the Quran, really to me, is an affirmation of the religious freedom and diversity that the constitution stands for."^[17]

Ellison's "incoming chief of staff, Kari Moe, dismissed the brouhaha. 'I think the criticism is being flamed by the politics of division that were rejected in the 2006 election cycle,' said Ms Moe, who worked for 10 years for the late Democratic senator Paul Wellstone."^[4]

According to the Seattle Times, "Dave Colling, Ellison's spokesman, said the incoming congressman's office has received hundreds of ‘very bigoted and racist’ e-mails and phone calls. ‘The vast majority said, "You should resign from office if you're not willing to use the book our country was founded on,"’ Colling said."^[18]

[edit] Constitutional provisions

Critics of Prager point out that the United States Constitution provides "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" (Article VI, section 3) and at least four Presidents have not been sworn in on a Bible.^[8]

In his December 5, 2006 article on the subject Prager denied that he was promoting a de facto religious test. "I never even hinted that there should be a religious test. It has never occurred to me that only Christians run for office in America. The idea is particularly laughable in my case since I am not now, nor ever have been, a Christian. ...I want people of every faith and of no faith who affirm the values I affirm to enter political life. My belief that the Bible should be present at any oath (or affirmation) of office has nothing whatsoever to do with the religion of the office holder. ...You don't have to be Christian to acknowledge that the Bible is the source of America's values. Virtually every founder of this country knew that and acknowledged it."^[5]

Law Professor Eugene Volokh noted that the Constitution states officials "'shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required ....' The option of giving an affirmation rather than oath ...[shows] the Constitution thus already expressly authorizes people not to swear at all, but to affirm, without reference to God or to a sacred work. Atheists and agnostics are thus protected, as well as members of certain Christian groups [such as Quakers]. Why would Muslims and others not be equally protected from having to perform a religious ritual that expressly invokes a religion in which they do not believe?"^[19] Volokh's point here is furthered by the fact that then Rep.-elect Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), who is a Buddhist, announced that she would use the affirmation option and "has no plans to use any religious text in the swearing-in ceremony."^[20]

[edit] Administration of Oath of Office

[edit] Text of the Oath

The Senate Historical Office writes about the oath administrated to all elected or re-elected Federal Legislatures, "At the start of each new Congress, in January of every odd-numbered year, the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate performs a solemn and festive constitutional rite that is as old as the Republic. …The Constitution contains an oath of office only for the president. For other officials, including members of Congress, that document specifies only that they "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution." In 1789, the First Congress reworked this requirement into a simple fourteen-word oath: ‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.’"^[21] "The current oath is a product of the 1860s, drafted by Civil War-era members of Congress intent on ensnaring traitors."^[21] The words of the oath are "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."^[21]

Law Professor Eugene Volokh points out that the inclusion of "So help me God" is not legally necessary, as the Constitution "expressly authorizes people not to swear at all, but to affirm, without reference to God or to a sacred work."^[19] While there is no guideline at the Federal level, many state Constitutions require those choosing to affirm, to substitute "So help me God" with "Under the pains and penalties of perjury."^{[22][23][24][25][26]}

The Asian Tribune has reported that "Instead of ‘So Help me God’, Ellison, an African American and of Islamic faith, will pledge to uphold the Constitution of the United States ending with the phrase ‘Allahhu Akbar’ meaning God is Great in Arabic."^[27]

[edit] Oath Ceremonies

The United States Congress does not officially swear anyone in using any holy book, "No Member of Congress is officially sworn in with a Bible. Under House rules, the official swearing-in ceremony is done in the House chambers, with the Speaker of the House administering the oath of office en masse. No Bibles or other holy books are used at all. Members may, if they choose, also have a private ceremony with family and friends. At these unofficial ceremonies, Members frequently solemnize the event by taking an oath while holding a personal family Bible."^[28] "By tradition, all members of the House are sworn in together on the House floor. It's in the photo-op ceremony that a Bible is used or in Ellison's case, the Quran."^[29] The tradition of the photo re-enactment oath "dates to the birth of photography, so congressmen could send photos back to their hometown newspapers."^[30] The Press Secretary with the House Administration Committee stated that what Representatives do at the private ceremony is "between the new member and the Speaker’s office. They have to ‘work that out’."^[31] All incoming freshman to the 110th Congress "will be sworn in on Jan. 4 by the new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi."^[32]

When questioned about this "Prager argued in a telephone interview [with the Associated Press] that the ceremony was no less significant than the actual swearing-in. 'Oh, that’s the whole point: it’s exactly because it’s ceremonial that it matters to me,' he said. 'Ceremonies are exceedingly important. That is the way a society states what is most significant to it.' Mr Prager argued that the issue was not about freedom of religion. 'I want Jews like myself to take the oath on the Bible, even though the New Testament is not our Bible,' he said. Asked if it would be a problem for a Jewish legislator to take the oath on a the Bible that included only the Old Testament, Mr Prager responded, 'Yes, it would,' because he said the point is to honor the 'Bible of this country.'"^[4]

In his Dec. 5, 2006 article he expanded on the point "the very fact that it is a ceremony makes my point far more forcefully. Obviously, Mr. Ellison will have already been officially sworn in. Therefore, the use of the Koran has absolutely nothing to do with taking an oath on the book he holds sacred. It is used entirely to send a message to the American people. So all the arguments that he must be able to swear on the book he holds sacred are moot. He will have already been sworn in. Ceremonies matter a lot. As I told the Associated Press, ceremonies are essential to the continuity of a civilization. Therefore, the first time in American history that a congressman has decided to jettison the Bible for another text should not go unnoticed -- or elicit yawns, as it has from conservative and libertarian critics."^[5] "This is all symbolic, which makes it even more pointless to say [Ellison] can only take an oath on what he believes," Prager said in another interview.^[13]

[edit] Questions on "unbroken tradition"

Many critics have taken Prager to task for saying that swearing in with a Bible is a "tradition that has been unbroken since George Washington."^[33] They point out that "In 1825, John Quincy Adams took the presidential oath using a law volume [that contained a copy of the Constitution] instead of a Bible, and in 1853, Franklin Pierce affirmed the oath rather than swearing it. Herbert Hoover, citing his Quaker beliefs, also affirmed his oath in 1929 but did use a Bible, according to the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies. Theodore Roosevelt used no Bible in taking his first oath of office in 1901, but did in 1905."^[30] Other sources have noted that after John F. Kennedy was assassinated a Catholic Missal was used as no Bible could be found when Lyndon B. Johnson had to assume the Presidency.^[34]

Prager has responded to some of this information in interviews. Eugene Volokh pointed out on "Paula Zahn Now" that Hoover didn’t swear on a Bible, but affirmed and took no oath. Prager replied "Herbert Hoover had a Bible. …He just didn't swear by it, because I believe he was a Quaker. That's a very different story."^[35] On "Hannity and Colmes" Prager stated "The only president who did not have a Bible was Theodore Roosevelt, first term, and it was because [President William] McKinley had just been shot. Every president used a Bible."^[36] (Prager also questioned Colmes’ Boston Globe source^[37] that said in 1991 Massachusetts Gov. William Weld was sworn in without a Bible.^[36])

The Library of Congress notes that "As the first Catholic elected president, Kennedy was the first to use a Catholic (Douay-Rheims) version of the Bible for his oath."^[38] This means that Kennedy’s Bible was different from the Bibles of all other Presidents (past or present) as it contained the Deuterocanonical books which Protestants call the Apocrypha and reject, claiming these works are profane.^[39]

[edit] Prager rescinds call for Ellison not to serve

Despite writing that Ellison wants to use "the Koran. He should not be allowed to do so …If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book [the Bible], don't serve in Congress",^[3] in a telephone interview with the Associated Press, Mr Prager said he did not think Mr Ellison should be banned from serving. "I don’t think anything legal should be done about this."^[4] In an interview with USA Today's Andrea Stone, Prager announced "that he's going to keep pressing the issue, though he conceded that trying to ban Ellison from choosing to use a Qur'an 'may well be' unconstitutional. He'll be writing and talking about this issue again". Prager said "I'm not arguing legality. I'm arguing what you should do."^[40]

[edit] Prager dismisses Tanakh Oaths

Prager's Nov. 28, 2006 article claimed 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".^[3] This is in error as several American members of Judaism elected to political office have "have departed from the [Christian] Bible as well. Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle used the Tanakh when she took her oath in 2002, and Madeleine Kunin placed her hand on Jewish prayer books when she was sworn in as the first female governor of Vermont in 1985."^[30] In the Federal Congress Debbie Wasserman Schultz also used a Tanakh (see above), as did Ed Koch (D-NY) who served in the US House from 1969 to 1977.^[41] Likewise, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) who is now entering his seventeenth term of office, stated "he had never used a [Christian] Bible at his own swearing-in ceremonies."^[41]

When asked about this Prager said these "Jewish officeholders who had insisted on the Hebrew Bible were "secularists" who didn't believe what was in it anyway."^[40]

When confronted on November 30, 2006 CNN's "Paula Zahn Now" by Eugene Volokh with the fact that "[Associate] Justice [of the Supreme Court, Arthur] Goldberg used the Tanakh, the Jewish Bible." Prager responded "Justice Goldberg used [the] Old Testament, which is part of the American Bible." Volokh began to point out that the lack of New Testament in Golberg's Bible proved that Prager's assertions were mistaken, but was cut off as the segment ran out of time.^[35]

In his Dec. 5, 2006 article Prager again acknowledged some Jews had used the Tanakh, "Even the vast majority of Jews elected to office have used a Bible containing both the Old and New Testaments, even though Jews do not regard the New Testament as part of their Bible. A tiny number of Jews have used only the Old Testament. As a religious Jew, I of course understand their decision, but I disagree with it."^[5]

[edit] Oath ceremonies of first Buddhists in Congressional history

The New York Times pointed out with all the focus on Ellison's religious sensibilities, "we’ve neglected the fact that another faith is making its first showing in the Capitol with not one but two freshmen".^[42] Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) and Hank Johnson (D - GA), both elected in 2006, are the first Buddhists in American history to serve in the United States Congress.^[43] The Times reported that "A spokesperson said that Mr. Johnson plans to use a Bible, citing tradition", and Hirono "said she probably would not use any book, but that in the past, when she was sworn in as lieutenant governor, she used a friend’s family Bible."^[42]

 

[edit] Prager calls on Ellison to bring Bible with Qur'an

In his Dec. 5, 2006 Column entitled "A response to my many critics - and a solution", Prager's solution in the title is for Ellison to swear on the Islamic Qur'an which he believes to be sacred along with the Christian Bible which he does not. Prager wrote "It is not I, but Keith Ellison, who has engaged in disuniting the country. He can still help reunite it by simply bringing both books to his ceremonial swearing-in. Had he originally announced that he would do that, I would have written a different column -- filled with praise of him. And there would be a lot less cursing and anger in America."^[5] In a Dec. 7, 2006 interview Prager continued along these lines, saying "I'm afraid we are becoming a diverse, secular society without any roots, and this is symbolically an example of that. The Bible is the repository of our values, not the Constitution...and I'm asking him to honor that and include the Bible along with the Koran."^[44]

As an example Prager has referenced the case in 1999 when "M. Osman Siddique, a Virginia businessman of Bangladeshi origin, used the Quran to take the oath when he became the U.S. ambassador to Fiji and three other Pacific nations: Nauru, Tonga and Tuvalu. He took the oath on the Bible and the Quran, with the Quran on top".^[45] Siddique was "the first Muslim to be appointed to represent the United States abroad as an Ambassador. Following his swearing-in ceremony, Siddique said he believed he was the first American ambassador of the Islamic faith to take the oath of office with his hand on the Holy Qur’an. The Christian Bible is traditionally used to swear in US officials and Siddique said his wife, Catherine Mary Siddique, provided one for the ceremony."^[46]

Appearing on MSNBC with Tucker Carlson, Prager said "If he [Ellison] had the Koran and a Bible as one Muslim ambassador did about 10 years ago, I think it was the ambassador to the Fiji Islands, don‘t recall exactly, I wouldn‘t have ever written the column. ...If he can‘t bring the Bible along with his Koran, that‘s a statement that we ought to take seriously. ...We should pressure him to doing the great thing to unify Americans and bring the Bible along with the Koran. That‘s not exactly a terrible demand. It doesn‘t in anyway compromise his Islamic faith. It says that he is saying to the American people, look, I am part of you. I don‘t want to demolish the tradition that has been unbroken since George Washington. I don‘t think that‘s too much to ask of Keith Ellison."^[33]

Ellison did not denigrate the Bible and spoke of the influence both Catholicim and Islam had on his development saying "people draw strength and moral courage from a variety of religious traditions. Mine have come from both Catholicism and Islam. I was raised Catholic and later became a Muslim while attending Wayne State University. I am inspired by the Quran's message of an encompassing divine love, and a deep faith guides my life every day."^[47]

[edit] Sharia rather than Constitution?

Some commentators and opinion pages responding to the Prager column have claimed that Ellison's desire to use the Qur'an is a sign that he is "disloyal" to the Constitution.^[48][49] Jan Markell of Christian World View Weekend asked, "Doesn't this then mean he is pledging allegiance to Islamic Law (Sharia) rather than our Constitution?"^[50] Perry Birman in a letter to the Sun Sentinel asserted "America was not founded upon the values in the Quran. The Quran states that only Islamic law (Sharia) is valid -- thus rendering our Constitution null and void from its perspective. If Mr. Ellison wants to be sworn in in this manner, I recommend he run for election in a country that embraces the principles in the Quran. A country like Iran or Saudi Arabia."^[51]

J. Grant Swank, Jr. Pastor, New Hope Church, Windham, ME said "Keith Ellison, D-MN, is not a ‘patriot,’ though he claims to be. He is a radical Muslim who believes the Koran is above all other documents for it is the divine revelation. That would make the Koran above the United States Constitution. He believes in the sharia 'legal and justice system' which has barbarism as its base. Study Muslim nations to open the eyes to the atrocities carried out via sharia — females hung from roadway poles, females piled into earth mounds to have their heads bashed in, youths strapped to public posts for lashings and so forth and so forth. Yet he has been elected to the United States Congress for the purpose of making laws for Americans. Yet he is antithetical to American values, particularly the Judeo-Christian heritage. …Noting Ellison’s public statements, there is no way that he can follow through with such a swearing in. He has loyalties that oppose everything basic in America."^[52]

A similar statement by the editorial department of the Investor's Business Daily said "The issue, rather, is one of loyalty. …This [oath] presents a potential conflict for Ellison, who in recent years converted to orthodox Sunni Islam…Can he [Ellison] make such a pledge ‘without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion’? Many orthodox Muslims, even those living in America as citizens, believe that the Quran, not the Constitution, should be the highest authority in the land. … In other words, the Constitution is blasphemous to Allah. It's not clear if Ellison shares this belief, but it's something he should answer before he's seated with new members. Islamic apologists in the media will shy from any questions that look like a religious test. But leaders in Congress have a duty to ensure loyalty and security, especially in time of war. …Ellison is dead-set on using the Quran. Why is he so adamant? We can't get inside his head to know if it's because he feels he'll be pledging allegiance to the Quran and all it represents, rather than the Constitution and all it represents."^[53]

Bryan Fischer of Renew America also stated "in Islamic theology, it is permissible to lie to infidels if it will provide strategic advantage for the Islamic cause. Treaties with infidels can be broken with impunity when they no longer serve the Muslim cause. Islamic theology...contains what is called the doctrine of kitman, or mental reservation, which is 'telling the truth, but not the whole truth, with the intention to mislead.' This is the Islamic version of crossing your fingers behind your back when telling a lie. American citizens have a right to know if Ellison adheres to this tenet of Islamic faith. This is directly relevant to his swearing in, for the oath requires him to swear allegiance to the Constitution ‘without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.’"^[54]

These type of comments fail to note that Ellison has served in the Minnesota State House of Representatives (serving District 58B) beginning in January 8, 2003 when he swore "to uphold the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Minnesota". This swearing in was in compliance with the demands of the US Constitution which at Article VI, section 3 states (emphasis added) "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." No one, including his opponents in the 2006 election, has ever claimed Ellison has violated this oath. Like the swearing in en masse in the Federal House of Representatives "No good book was involved when Ellison took the oath of office on the floor of the Minnesota House. According to House Chief Clerk Al Mathiowetz, members raise their hands together and are administered the oath by a jurist, usually a member of the Minnesota Supreme Court."^[55]

It should be noted by those who demanded that Ellision "move to [majority Muslim] Iran" that those wanting to swear in with a Christian Bible there are free to do so as "in Iran, religious minorities are allowed to take their oaths on scripture of their choice."^[30] While the Iranian government questions the Holocaust and calls for the annihilation of Israel, Iran’s parliament in accord with the Persian Constitution of 1906 has a seat reserved for a member of the small Jewish population (25,000 out of Iran’s 70 million). This seat is currently held by Morris Motamed who took his oath upon the Tanakh. Article 3 of the Iranian Constitution says "members representing minority religious groups will take the oath mentioning their own holy books." This formula on oaths is believed to extend back to early Islam.^[56] Hossein Bashiriyeh a professor at Tehran University told USA Today that "an oath taken with a holy book other than one's own cannot be religiously and morally 'binding.' … In effect it will amount to not taking an oath at all."^[56]

[edit] Prager's Dec. 27, 2006 column

In his December 27, 2006 article Prager returned to the issue in another column called "The culture war is about the authority of a book"^[57] Prager espoused that the root of the controversy was over people arguing if the Torah was inspired or not, "Does the person believe in the divinity and authority of the Five Books of Moses, the first five books of the Bible, known as the Torah? …What matters is not whether people believe in God but what text, if any, they believe to be divine. …a belief or lack of belief in the divinity of a book dating back over 2,500 years is at the center of the Culture War in America…it not only explains these divisions; it also explains the hatred that much of the Left has for Jewish, Protestant, Catholic and Mormon Bible-believers. For the Left, such beliefs are irrational, absurd and immoral. Which is exactly how most conservatives regard most leftist beliefs…This divide explains why the wrath of the Left has fallen on those of us who lament the exclusion of the Bible at a ceremonial swearing-in of an American congressman. The Left wants to see that book [the Torah] dethroned. And that, in a nutshell, is what the present civil war is about."^[57]

Prager made no mention that Muslims believe the Qur'an, in its original Arabic, to be the literal divine word of Allah.

Prager also listed beliefs he claimed where held by liberals, "leftist beliefs, such as: there is nothing inherently superior in a child being raised by a mother and father rather than by two fathers or two mothers; men and women are not basically different, but only socially influenced to be different; Marxism was scientific; that the Soviet Union was not an evil empire; it was immoral for Israel to bomb Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor; morality is relative to the individual or society; there is no moral judgment to be made about a woman aborting a healthy human fetus solely because she doesn't want a baby at this time; material poverty, not moral poverty, causes violent crime, etc."^[57] He cited no sources that substantiated these were actually liberal beliefs, nor did he explain how using the Qur'an during an oath reenactment would advance any of the beliefs he listed.

It has been noted by many that Keith Ellison’s support of access to abortion and gay rights is at odds with the traditional interpretation of the Qur'an, "Chances are, if Muslims saw another candidate with Ellison's stands on gay rights, abortion, and his suspiciously boiler plate platform on Israel, Iran, and the Middle East, they would not support him. Yet Ellison has the admiration of his Muslim constituents…the notoriety supersedes the reservations. Beyond this, Muslims in the west should realize that they are seeing the face of future generations take shape, generations that might adopt cultural and political values that aren't necessarily the same as their forebearers or against Islam as they choose to practice it. Politically speaking, issues like equal rights for gays within a pluralistic society make sense when Muslims demand the same equal protection".^[58][59][60]

[edit] Organizational Responses

While the American Family Association responded in support of Dennis Prager’s column about Ellison’s announced intention to use the Qur'an at his oath ceremonies, several other advocacy groups were critical of him. Groups critical of Prager include the Arab American Institute, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, and the American Jewish Committee. In addition the Anti-Defamation League, and the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism issued statements critical of Prager that he responded to in interviews.

[edit] The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council's resolution

Because of his part in the controversy, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) called for Prager to be removed from the council overseeing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial. CAIR's executive director said ""No one who holds such bigoted, intolerant and divisive views should be in a policymaking position at a taxpayer-funded institution that seeks to educate Americans about the destructive impact hatred has had, and continues to have, on every society."^[29] Some members of the Memorial Council like Ed Koch were vocal in advocating his removal. In the end the executive committee of the council issued a resolution that has been seen as "distancing" the Council from Prager's remarks.^[61]

[edit] Responses in the Media

Notable national figures in the US Media and in Ellison's state of Minnesota have added to both sides of the controversy including

Tucker Carlson, David Kuo, Michael Savage, Mike S. Adams, Gary Bauer, Ahmed Rehab, Mary Graber, Michael Medved, Ruth Matar, Clarence Page, Daisy Khan, Kathleen Parker, Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, Jan Markell, Malik Zulu Shabazz, Paul C. Campos, "Judge" Roy Moore, and Eugene Volokh.

[edit] Responses of Elected Officials

(see also Rep. Goode below and see responses of Norm Coleman and Henry Waxman)

[edit] Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, (D-Fla) stated "Each of us has every right to lay our hand on the Bible that we were raised with; that's what America is all about, diversity, understanding and tolerance," said Wasserman Schultz. "It doesn't appear that Dennis Prager has learned anything from his time on the Holocaust commission."^[30]

[edit] Tom Tancredo

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colorado) known as "a prominent conservative" came out in support of Ellison saying "He wants to take his oath on the Quran, that's fine. I think whatever you believe is necessary for you to uphold your obligations to the Constitution, that is fine with me."^[62]

[edit] Emanuel Cleaver II

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D- Missouri) stated "I do not believe that the law or rules should be changed to require one official holy book for use in administering our oath of office. As a Member of Congress and as an ordained minister, I believe America's founders erected a wall between church and state – not to keep religion or faith out of public discourse – but instead, to keep the government out of an individual's faith and out of churches or other places of worship. I recall that our founders prohibited any religious test to qualify for public office and our Constitution already protects public prayer and other public observances of an individual's religious expressions. Imposing one holy book for the administration of a federal oath of office will diminish the religious liberties of all Americans, including my colleagues in Congress who do not share my Christian faith but may be Jewish, Mormon, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist or some other belief."^[63]

[edit] John Warner

Senator John Warner (R-VA), said that "As we continue to seek new strategies to protect our nation, I feel strongly that America must continue its outreach to the majority of moderate, peaceful members of the Islamic faith, as partners in combating terrorism. I respect the Constitutional right of Members of Congress, indeed, of every U.S. citizen, freely to exercise the religion of their choice, including those of the Islamic faith utilizing the Koran in accordance with the tenets of their religion."^[64]

[edit] Impact of Rep. Virgil Goode

Main article: Virgil Goode and the Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress

A new level of gravity came to the controversy when responding to "a flood of e-mails from constituents"^[6] about Ellison's oath, fifth term Rep. Virgil H. Goode, Jr. (R-VA) issued a letter on the matter. Goode wrote "When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran. ...I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped."^[6]

Goode's letter generated much criticism from Muslim-American advocacy groups and from his fellow United States Legislators. Among those critical of Goode, are Reps. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-NJ), Jim Moran (D – VA), Michael Honda (D-CA), Rahm Emanuel (D – IL), and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) plus Sens. Bob Menendez (D - NJ) and Lindsey Graham (R–SC).

Goode's spokesman, Linwood Duncan, said "no apology was forthcoming, and that the congressman stands by the letter."^[65][66]

[edit] Ellison's response to Rep. Goode

In a New York times interview Ellison said Goode "seemed ill informed about his personal origins as well as about Constitutional protections of religious freedom. 'I’m not an immigrant. I’m an African-American.' ...I’m not a religious scholar, I’m a politician, and I do what politicians do, which is hopefully pass legislation to help the nation.'" He said "he planned to focus on secular issues like increasing the federal minimum wage and getting health insurance for the uninsured."."^[67] Ellison continued "I’m looking forward to making friends with Representative Goode, or at least getting to know him. I want to let him know that there’s nothing to fear. The fact that there are many different faiths, many different colors and many different cultures in America is a great strength."^[67] CNN reported that on the opening day of Congress, Ellison met Goode on the House floor to shake hands.^[68] For more see Virgil Goode and the Quran Oath Controversy of the 110th United States Congress.

[edit] Ellison's Union Hall remarks

On Jan. 2, 2007 in the Minneapolis suburb of St. Anthony, Ellison spoke to a reporter at his send-off at a union hall. He dismissed the controversy, saying "I'm just excited and looking forward to serving this great country of ours." Saying that "a majority of the constituents who have contacted his office about the matter are ‘overwhelmingly supportive of religious tolerance.’ When asked if he thought the issue would blow over during his upcoming term, he laughed and said "I think it will blow over by next week!"^[69]

[edit] Thomas Jefferson's Qur'an

On January 3, 2007 the Washington Post announced that Ellison "will hold the personal copy once owned by Thomas Jefferson" loaned to him by "the rare book and special collections division at the Library of Congress".^[70] Jefferson's home at Monticello is coincidentally in Virginia's 5th congressional district which is represented in the Federal Congress by Virgil Goode, a major figure in the controversy (see above).

Mark Dimunation, head of the rare book and special collections division at the Library of Congress (and former resident of the Congressional District Ellison now represents) said he was contacted early in December, 2006 by Ellison, who told him "He wanted to use a Koran that was special."^[70] In the past the Library of Congress has also loaned out rare Bibles "for inaugurations and other special occasions."^[70] Dimunation who "will walk the Quran across the street to the Capitol and bring it back after the ceremony", said "As a rare book librarian, there is something special about the idea that Thomas Jefferson's books are being walked across the street to the Capitol building, to bring in yet another session of governmental structure that he helped create."^[71]

Kevin J. Hayes author of How Thomas Jefferson Read the Qur’an, wrote that Jefferson purchased the Qur'an at the printing office of the Virginia Gazette in the autumn of 1765. This is seen as a development of his legal studies on natural law. "The standard work in the field, Frieherr von Pufendorf's Of the Law and Nature and Nations, gave readers an almost endless number of possible references to track down and thus offered Jefferson an excellent guide to further reading. Though Pufendorf's work reflects a prejudice against Islam characteristic of the time in which it was written, he nonetheless cited precedent from the Qur'an in several instances. Jefferson acquired his Qur'an not long after the injustice of the Stamp Act had forced him to question seriously the heritage of English constitutional law and to seek ultimate answers in the ideas of natural law and natural rights. Reading the Qur'an also let him continue studying the history of religion."^[72]

Jefferson's Qur'an is an English translation by George Sale published in the 1764 in London, (a later pressing of the 1734 edition). Chief librarian Dimunation stated that Sale's translation "is considered the text that shaped Europe's understanding of the Quran." Congress acquired this Qur'an in 1815 as part of the more than 6,400-volume collection Jefferson sold them for $24,000 to replace the congressional library burned by British troops in 1814 during the War of 1812. The Qur'an survived the 1851 fire in the Capitol that destroyed most of Jefferson's collection. It is a two-volume work, bound in leather with marble boards, and was given a leather binding in 1919. Its title page reads, ``The Koran, commonly called 'The Alcoran of Mohammed.'" Jefferson marked his ownership of the book by writing the letter "J" next to the letter "T" that was already at the bottom of pages.^[70][71][73]

Ellison spokesman Rick Jauert said "Keith is paying respect not only to the founding fathers' belief in religious freedom but the Constitution itself."^[70] Ellison, who was originally told about the Qur'an from an anonymous letter, spoke to the Associated Press in a phone interview. He said that using Jefferson's Qur'an makes a point, "It demonstrates that from the very beginning of our country, we had people who were visionary, who were religiously tolerant, who believed that knowledge and wisdom could be gleaned from any number of sources, including the Quran. A visionary like Thomas Jefferson was not afraid of a different belief system," Ellison said. "This just shows that religious tolerance is the bedrock of our country, and religious differences are nothing to be afraid of."^[71]

[edit] Opening day of the 110th Congress

[edit] Ellison at interfaith service

On Jan. 4, 2007 before the first session of the 110th Congress, Ellison at a multi-faith prayer service recited verse Al-Hujurat 49:13 from the Quran which said: ‘Oh, humanity, we created you from a single pair, male and female, and made you tribes and nations so that you would know each other and not despise each other.’”^[74][75]

[edit] Ellison meets Goode

After the official swearing in en masse, representatives greeted each other on the House floor and Ellison and Virgil Goode (see above) were introduced, shook hands and agreed to talk at length later.

Main article: Virgil Goode and the Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress

[edit] Ceremonial reenactment

After the members of the 110th House of Representatives were sworn in officially en masse, Ellison was the first Representative scheduled to have his picture taken with the new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Though the Library of Congress is directly across the street from the capital Thomas Jefferson’s Quran took fifteen minutes to arrive as it was brought through "a long, winding underground route via tunnels…to protect the Quran from the elements."^[73] Once inside the Capitol the Quran was placed in a rectangular box, and handled with a green felt wrapper then guards ran the book through security x-ray machines. Ellison was impressed by the two-volume set, saying "Look at that. That’s something else. Oh my God. This is great."^[73] A few minutes later, Nancy Pelosi arrived and photos of a ceremonial reenactment oath were taken. There were so many of Ellison’s family in attendance that the ceremony was done in two takes.^[73] Among his family was his mother Clida Ellison who thought that the controversy had a positive effect, "because many people in America are going to learn what the diversity of America is all about." Clida Ellison noted that she is a practicing Roman Catholic who goes to Mass every day.^[73] Ellison expressed his satisfaction that the controversy was behind him, ``It was good, we did it, it's over, and now it's time to get down to business. …maybe we don't have to talk about it so much anymore. Not that I'm complaining, but the pressing issues the country is facing are just a little bit more on my mind right now."^[73]

[edit] Sources