Prager is wrong on Ellison

I didn't have a problem with Prager's column. (I think that's the 1st time I've read one of his. And I did not watch the video. So consider this for what it’s worth.) Taking the oath on the Bible is not commanding a person to convert to Christianity. It is acknowledging the 200+ years of American tradition. Prager raises a good point: Why have no Jews, Mormons, Agnostics, etc made this demand? And why should we change this tradition just because a single Congressional rep wants us to? And if we change it for him, what other exceptions should be made? And what of the millions of his fellow citizens who don't want it changed on his whim? Shouldn’t we vote on this?

Swearing on the Constitution solves nothing. Is someone swearing to all the amendments? What if he disagrees with one or two? What if a Congressman said, "You know, I think repealing prohibition was wrong. Give me something else to swear on." If it's amended, do office holders need to re-swear their oaths? And what about liberals who say it’s a ‘living’ document? How in the world would you swear an oath on THAT? Alternatively, should we use the Declaration? Well, it mentions a Creator endowing us things. Can't have that I suppose. Perhaps our Great Minds could create the appropriate thing to swear on. But…swearing on a document by committee sort of loses its punch.

The bottom line is that in the United States, we use the Bible for oaths of office. (Interesting side question…did Kennedy request a Roman Catholic Bible?) Ellison would do the Muslim tolerance movement a huge favor by recognizing this and acknowledging that US tradition allows him to practice his religion freely and certainly has no restriction on him being a Congressman. I’d sure respect him if he did and I’m sure others would too. He may even want to draw a distinction between the US and assorted countries that adhere to Islamic tradition. But that may be asking too much, because I'm sure he'd rather not have a fatwa issued on him.