« Looking Back on 2006 | Home | Friday Shuffle »
Swearing an Oath on the Koran
By oceanguy | January 4, 2007
Like many, I have a bit of a problem with a Congressman swearing an oath on the Koran. On the surface, and looking at it simplistically, it seems an innocent gesture. Swearing an oath to our Country on one’s Holy Book is the norm it seemsand Ellison’s is a reasonable request, so why do I have an issue with it? And secondly, he’s going to use a copy that originally belonged to Thomas Jefferson. What’s wrong with that?
Certainly Jefferson’s possession of the Koran is a positive statement on the diversity of religious knowledge, and the tolerance of one of our founding fathers… and that’s the spin that Ellison is putting on his choice. But, regarding Ellison’s slick political move, his “explanation” is ONLY spin.
Whether he intends it or not, there is a more problematic message Ellison is sending by swearing his Oath of Office on the Koran… Especially the Jefferson Koran. According to the chief of the Library of Congress’ Rare Book and Special Collections division, Mark Dimunation, Jefferson’s copy is “the text that shaped Europe’s understanding of the Quran.” It is the definitive translation published in 1764. But Jefferson did not buy the book as an expression of tolerance.
Mark Dimunation appeared on All Things Considered yesterday talking about Jefferson’s personal copy of the Koran and how Keith Ellison will use it during his swearing in. He explained [about 1:30 into the interview] that Thomas Jefferson acquired this two-volume edition of the Koran during 1765. It is a 1764 edition of an earlier translation. At the time, according to Dimunation, Jefferson was studying law, “and in fact, many of his law texts referred to the Koran as an alternative view of certain legal structures.” You see, there’s the rub: “and in fact, many of his law texts referred to the Koran as an alternative view of certain legal structures.”
It is the “alternative view of certain legal structures,” that is central to the issue I have with Ellison, or anyone else, swearing the Oath of Office on the Koran.
Keith Ellison wants to put aside the text that girds our Constitution and instead, will swear his oath, on a text with an “alternative view of certain legal structures.” It matters not that we have no way of knowing which alternative views were important to Jefferson, or whether or not any of the alternative views are important to Ellison. What matters is whether or not the Koran IS an alternative view of the structures and principles of Democracy and Freedom that our Republic was founded and built upon. Unfortunately it is not at all politically correct to even have that discussion. Instead, in the name of tolerance and diversity, we ignore these alternative views, especially when they are uncomfortable to discuss.
As Allah reminded us yesterday at Hot Air, some of these Muslim “alternative views,” laid out in their Holy Book, were made crystal clear to Jefferson personally. As Ambassador to France while trying to manage the attacks by the Barbary Pirates, Jefferson asked an Arab Diplomat how his country had the right to attack American ships in the Mediterranean
The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners.
On any given day you can find dozens of other quotes from Muslims who express similar views. We are constantly reminded that “Islam will Dominate the World,” just as we are increasingly accommodating to our Islamic neighbors. It has become impolite, intolerant, or even “close-minded” to even mention differences let alone question them.
So, Keith Ellison will take his Oath of Office, to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic… and he’ll swear that oath on a text that in many ways is contrary to the founding principles of our Nation. Yeah I have a problem with that, but I have no input.
Some will read this and call me a racist, an Islamophobe, or worse. Fine, but when did it become wrong to question? When did it become racist just to question? When did it become more important to be accepting and tolerant of different views than it is to understand and question the differences?
Keith Ellison says he is sending a message of tolerance by using the Jefferson Koran to swear his oath. I accept that… I have no choice. But in accepting his choice I will continue to ask, I will continue to examine, I will continue to try to understand the difficulties and problems that Islam introduces to our Republic. While Keith Ellison tries to send a message of tolerance, millions of other Muslims continue to send messages of intolerance, hate and violence. Each claims the Koran as the focus of their convictions. We’ll never understand the differences if we don’t start asking uncomfortable questions and demanding answers.
Since I don’t have the answers and I don’t know his real intentions, I look at Ellison’s motives with a bit of hesitation, if not suspicion. I don’t like what he’s doing, but I accept it. I accept his choice in the manner in which he says he means it. But he needs to know that his choice is communicating a much different message to many of us. For now, Keith Ellison gets a pass on his choice to emphasize a difference.
Topics: Islamic Fascism |
January 4th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Though I am uncomfortable with the violent “popular message” of fundamentalist Islam, I support the decision which enabled Ellison to take the oath of office on his sacred text, the Koran. The Koran is not only the sacred text of intolerant Muslims, it is the sacred text of enlightened Muslims. Decisions like this one enabling Ellison to do this make me proud to be an American.
January 5th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners.
Sounds familiar. Very familiar indeed.
This isn’t about tolerance or racism or Islamophobia. Much like you, I too am concerned with the “difficulties and problems that” religious fundamentalism “introduces to our Republic.” But as you can see, I don’t limit my concern to one religion.