I want to express my gratitude to Keith Ellison for tying the proverbial panties of many conservative Americans into knots. And all it took was his humble request to be (ceremonially) sworn into Congress on the sacred book most holy to him, the Quran. And pundit Dennis Prager’s undies have more snags and hitches than a sailing ship’s rigging. Here’s Prager putting his bigoted foot in his mouth:
Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison’s favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress.
The “hand on a Bible” is a symbolic act to begin with. The new Congress is sworn in, en masse, sans the presence of any sacred writing. Some then elect to hold private photo ops with their favorite books. This act is purely symbolic, and the ‘controversy’ has been manufactured by Prager and Hannity and others who fight for religious freedom in the U.S.–as long as Christians stay on top (with a bone tossed to the Jews). If you follow the preceding link, you can see a picture of Dennis Hastert getting sworn in with his hand, not on a Bible, but on what can only be Jesus’ Sacred Rostrum of the Holy Cross.
I often wonder what “The Bible” is that they’re referring to. Is it the Catholic’s Bible, complete with the apocryphal (that’s deuterocanonical to the Catholics) works removed by Protestants? Is it the Hebrew Tanakh, which excludes that later section about Jesus? You’d think that would be enough to shame Mr. Prager.
But wait! He has room in his mouth for one more foot–which he crams next to the other on Fox News’ Hannity and Colmes (scroll down):
What is the book that these people affirm as the central text of American life? Now, some people will say the Constitution. But the Constitution derives its legitimacy from that Bible. Secular congressmen have all used the Bible. They don’t believe in it. Mormons do not ask for the Book of Mormon. If a Scientologist ran, would he ask for Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard? If a racist ran, would he ask for Mein Kampf?
Notice how Prager has lumped all the fringe groups into one looney bin: Muslims, secularists, Mormons, Scientologists and white supremacists, oh my! It’s little wonder that the Anti-Defamation League condemned the Jewish Prager’s “intolerant, ugly views” and reminded him that “what truly unifies all Americans is a value system built on religious freedom and pluralism, not dogmatism and coercion.”
And I thought that our constitution owed more to Rousseau’s Social Contract than to the Bible. Last I checked, the God of the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible to my Jewish friends, who have only one testament) wasn’t very big on electoral democracy, outlawing slavery, implementing checks and balances, and separating church and state. Prager isn’t big on separating church and state either. He seems to have forgotten this little tidbit in Article VI:
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.
One aside: that “Affirmation” bit was put in to appease the recalcitrant Quakers, and two presidents with Quaker heritage, Hoover and Nixon, affirmed the oath, rather than swearing it. It’s possible too, that Hoover didn’t put his hand on the Bible. At any rate, it sounds to me like Prager is suggesting a religious test for Congress.
Finally, one more little thing that Prager seems to have forgotten, from the very first clause of the first of the ten Bill of Rights:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
However he spins it, Prager’s arguing for a state religion. I used to think that American conservatives stood for strict interpretation of the Constitution, but Dennis Prager and the religious right have proved me wrong. Again.
I admire Representative Ellison’s integrity. I hope he can expose more hypocrisy and provoke a little more discomfort at the expense of the religious right while in office.
11 responses so far ↓
1 C. L. Hanson // Dec 5, 2006 at 4:55 am
I agree with your assessment of this absurd controversy. I just have one trivial, tangential question:
What does he mean when he says “Secular congressmen have all used the Bible. They dont believe in it.”?
I had heard that there has never been an avowed atheist elected to the US Congress. Did I hear wrong? Or is he just talking about deists or something?
2 PodMonkeys // Dec 5, 2006 at 5:43 am
As the saying goes, Prager makes bay Jesus cry.
This sort of stuff turns my stomach, and makes me sad for humanity. Prager’s interpretation of the Constitution is definitely not the same one I signed up to defend.
3 Miko // Dec 5, 2006 at 7:56 am
“If a racist ran, would he ask for Mein Kampf?” I don’t know, Mr. Prager, what would you ask for?
This is just stunning. Good for Congressman Ellison for exposing these hacks. One of reasons the world hates us, boys & girls.
4 amelia // Dec 5, 2006 at 9:52 am
thanks, john. i couldn’t have said it better myself. it just makes me boil to see this kind of hypocrisy and bigotry. and to know that it’s subscribed to by so very many people–many of whom i believe are good at heart but just can’t see past the bullshit rhetoric designed to obscure all reason.
5 Elise // Dec 5, 2006 at 9:53 am
Thanks for your well written summary and analysis of this situation, John. I’ve been a bit out of the news loop lately and thought I had heard breifly about this controversy, I hadn’t learned many of the details yet.
I think the most interesting part of this all, which you pointed out in your argument, is that the book itself has nothing to do with actually swearing to uphold the constitution etc, it is simply symbolic. What if we just ditched the whole book part altogether? Would the oath/affirmation be any less meaningful? It seems to me that a separation of church and state would call for abandoning the religious book symbol all together. Putting your hand on a bible seems like more of a P.R. move more often than not.
6 Jonathan // Dec 5, 2006 at 12:24 pm
I agree that this ’swearing on the Bible’ thing is obviously Christian, and is probably no longer appropriate in a religious pluralistic nation (which is a healthy sign that freedom of religion is still alive), but we can’t deny the power of symbol. What symbol could a politician use to communicate to people that they are not driven by selfish motivations for running the country, but rather by morals and principles higher then him/herself? Maybe by putting their hands on and swearing by a copy of the Constitution itself? The Constitution does have moral principles in it. I dunno. I guess I like symbols - I’m a visual designer.
7 pilgrimgirl // Dec 5, 2006 at 1:03 pm
Jonathan:
How about putting a hand on their heart rather than on a book (it works for lots of other Americans pledging their fidelity to their country)?
I think putting their hand on the Constitution makes a lot more sense than on the Bible.
8 amelia // Dec 5, 2006 at 2:35 pm
i have no problem with anyone swearing on the bible. if it’s their religious text of choice. it indicates that the duties and obligations they assume with office are of enough importance that if they were to violate them, they would also be desecrating their own sacred text. but if this is supposed to be the significance of swearing on the bible, then someone should have the right to choose to swear on some text that represents their personal value system. like, in this instance, the qur’an. and if someone chooses to refrain from swearing on a holy text, they can take hastert’s (and apparently most of the rest of congress’s) route of not using a book at all.
the idea is not that people swear allegiance and diligence on the bible, but that they swear allegiance and diligence by something so sacred to them that the action represents their commitment. if there’s no belief in the bible, how can that act be symbolic for that person? this seems more ideal to me than the option of simply abolishing all use of holy texts. i don’t like the european approach to banning all representations of religious allegiance in public life. i think individuals should be able to demonstrate their personal religiosity as their conscience’s dictate. and those of us who do not share those religious beliefs should tolerate such demonstrations.
9 John // Dec 5, 2006 at 10:59 pm
Chanson, you’re sorely missed. It’s good to see you.
I took note of the “secular congressman” as well. I think that “secular” is softer than “atheist,” which is why you can have secular Catholics or Muslims. I also wonder if it’s an open secret that many in congress only make a show of believing, or believe in things so loosely that it’s almost beyond belief. Not sure what Prager means, though.
10 nee // Dec 6, 2006 at 3:09 pm
When I heard about this hulabaloo yesterday it made me smile. Just another reason to support my move to MN in the next year - progressive people.
11 What’s Your Calling? at The Cultural Hall // Jul 6, 2008 at 12:35 pm
[…] John Remy says, “I feel that if I have a calling or vocation, it is in part to minister to the marginalized ones…to be a preacher of doubt, to embrace the rejected, to heal the hearts of the wounded, to help the silenced find their voices and to sing and shout aloud with them.” […]
Leave a Comment