Dennis Prager, conservative radio talk host and commentator, wrote a column last week where he suggested that Representative-elect Keith Ellison's desire to take the oath of office using the the Koran instead of the Bible "undermines American civilization", and that he shouldn't be allowed to do so. There are two things I want to say about this "teacup tempest":
1) Prager is being attacked and labeled a bigot and racist for his column. That's patently unfair, if anyone listens to Dennis on the radio for 10 minutes or reads his writings, you will know without a doubt that he is not a bigot, and I don't believe he has a hateful bone in his body. Unfortunately, postmodern leftists do not counter ideas with other ideas, rather they resort to ad-hominem attacks in a attempt to discredit their opponents idea's by discrediting and besmirching the character and integrity of their opponent. Dennis doesn't use ad-hominem arguments, in fact he has stated several times that his position has nothing to do with Islam or the Koran, but rather protecting what he sees as traditional American culture.
2) I disagree with Dennis Prager on his position. The only reason people swear upon the Bible for the oath of office or the witness oath in our court system is to demonstrate the sincerity of their oath. Unfortunately, politicians have violated their oaths of office by incredible acts of dishonesty and greed, and many witnesses have lied under oath. As a Christian I'm a bit uncomfortable with requiring everybody to swear on the Bible. If they are not devout Christians, what purpose does using the Bible serve?? During most of our history America has been a "Christian" culture with most people believing in and practicing the their faith and belief in what the Bible teaches. This is no longer true, America is not a "Christian" culture, far from it!! It makes more sense for devout believers of other religions to use whatever book or even object serves for them as a demonstration of the sincerity of their oath. For atheists it makes no sense to have them swear on the Bible, since we can hardly think that they hold the word of God in any semblance of regard other than a piece of literature. Furthermore, if you examine the scriptures carefully, you'll will find that "swearing on something" is not regarded as a righteous act because so many have abused their oaths. Rather we are to let our yeses be yes and our no's be no (Matthew 5:33-37). Tradition is a very poor reason to use the Bible for a secular ceremony (Mark 7:6-13). If those using it for ceremonial purposes don't believe in it's truths, then it is even sacrilegious to do so. Some people seek to use the Bible for their own purposes without believing it's teachings (John 5:30-46), or that it is the Word of God (Hebrews 4:12).
So, I think there's more reasons to NOT use the Bible for oaths of office than there are arguments in favor of it. In fact, if we truly believe in the Word's Holiness we should seek to ban it's use in civic oaths of any type.
Comments