Note to the Right: Concentrate on Something Important

To see the spectacle of countless right-wing pundits upset over Keith Ellison's swearing in being planned using a Qu'ran instead of a Bible is something that nearly crushes my belief that the Conservatives are the people we need to fight this threat. It saddens me when I see Dennis Prager become the opposite extreme of Multi-culturalism and say that the Bible should be the only book of which our public officeholders swear upon. The more I read Mr. Prager's November 28th column, the more I find his justification for this to be more and more vacuous. According to Prager:

He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

Okay... sounds like a stretch of the imagination, but let's give him a chance to explain.

First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- my culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

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.

His first assertion is that this is all the work of the multiculturalists. Sorry Dennis, I am hardly what you would call a "multiculturalist". I do in fact believe that Secular Western Culture is superior to the rest of the world. I also believe that the Koran does not hold any divine influence behind it and that it, like the Bible has warm and fuzzy quotations, as well as parts that encourage intolerace, hate, and bigotry. And I don't believe in cultural relativism. However, if the cultural relativists say that what is important in using as a book or other object for the swearing in should be what the individual being sworn in deems important, then I have no problems with the multiculturalists there.

Mr. Prager also fails to make a decent point in his statement that "America is interested in only one book..." Swearing on something that other people believe in but you do not is ultimately meaningless. Ellison, as a Muslim, believes that the Koran is the divine word of God, or Allah, if you like, not the Bible. If those who see the Bible as the divine, inspired word of God were to swear upon a Koran in a Muslim majority society, it would be just as silly.

To illustrate this, imagine this fictional and a little out-there example of an alternate Earth. In this Earth, the politicians in the United States swear upon the Sacred Rubber Chicken of the Church of Chickenology, the majority religion of the United States. However, a member of another religion has been elected to political office. He decides that instead of swearing to uphold the Constitution on the Sacred Rubber Chicken, he instead will swear upon the Divine Plastic Cheeseburger, as he is a member of the Church of Beefology and that is the sacred object of which his religion is based. The Right, however, furious that this one individual wants to break a tradition, they furiously demand "This tradition has never been broken! For centuries, we have sworn on the Chicken, even some of us who didn't believe in it because that is what America thinks matters." The stupidity of these statement is of the same stupidity of what Mr. Prager is stating. Like the Sacred Rubber Chicken in my ridiculous fantasy universe, the Bible is not believed by all, even if the majority supposedly does. And even so, Ellison, like the fictional politician from the fictional universe, does not believe in the Bible as the most sacred object or word of God or whatever. To him, the Koran is what is most important. Swearing upon that thing is what is important to him and carries more weight.

Of course, Mr. Prager isn't finished, and neither am I:

Of course, Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. But 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, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either.

This supposed precedent is unimportant and of no consequence. The deference to tradition in performing a serious oath is unimportant. Whether Jews and other practitioners of different religions have sworn with the Bible before is unimportant as well. In fact, it shows a lack of honesty in deference to a Judeo-Christian traditon in a secular and increasingly religiously-diverse country. Isn't it better to ask them to swear to uphold our Constitution on something THEY believe in, or should we continue a supposedly written-in-stone tradition where the person doing the swearing-in is swearing upon something which the majority of the country believes is extremely or the most meaningful, while the elected office-holder deems it to be of lesser or of no importance?

So why are we allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done -- choose his own most revered book for his oath?

The answer is obvious -- 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. In fact, many of these people argue it will be a good thing because Muslims around the world will see what an open society America is and how much Americans honor Muslims and the Koran.

This argument appeals to all those who believe that one of the greatest goals of America is to be loved by the world, and especially by Muslims because then fewer Muslims will hate us (and therefore fewer will bomb us).

But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible. In fact, the opposite is more likely: 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.

I only agree to a very small extent. I do believe much of this ado-over-nothing is over the fact that Mr. Ellison is a Muslim and that this is a leftist publicity stunt. But, it goes both ways. There is as much evidence that this is also a concern of the Right for the very same reasons. What better way for the Republican party to get supporters back from the great Election loss of '06 than to create a tempest in a teacup that is the use of a different book for a swearing-in? Ultimately, this is a publicity stunt for both groups. The Left is using this as bait to capture their opponents and distract them. Like an all too eager catfish catching a minnow on a fisherman's hook, they have let the ravenous appetite of the Religious Right blind the Republican Party from uniting the country against the shark that is Jihadist Islam, among other issues that matter (one can make a parallel between the Right in this issue and the plethora of Secularists who are more concerned with getting rid of Christmas trees than Islamic Terrorism). And of course, the Left and the Saudi-sponsored CAIR organization and their ilk are using it to show how intolerant the right and America is to Muslims. For the Right, this is a battle not worth fighting, as it is unwinnable and has nothing to gain.

While I believe that the Politically Correct Leftist crowd has ridiculously bent over backwards to avoid offense of Muslims or Islam itself, I don't think that this is primarily a case of that attitude here. In fact, imagine if Mr. Ellison's plans for his swearing-in are implemented. What is there to lose or gain? There are only three losers I would see in this scenario. The first are, of course, some of the misguided Right-wingers who decided to march alongside Mr. Prager in this issue. The second, are the multi-culturalist left-wingers who constantly hammer the insane idea that America is an intolerant country, afraid of social progress, change, and tolerance, especially to Muslims. To have a Muslim elected and use his holy book for the swearing-in would be a slap in the face to that narrative. And most importantly, we have the the ones we really want to lose, the corrupt holy leaders who are constantly searching for gullible Muslims to die for their 72 virgins. One of their most important places of recruitment are within the borders of the United States, in the Islamic communities. How can the extremists be taken seriously when they claim that the United States is hostile to Muslims and there are people in the communities that know of, or even voted for a Muslim candidate who won and had a swearing-in ceremony. What would even make it harder for the Jihadist leaders is that this Muslim was allowed to swear upon his holy book! This will obviously not "embolden" them when their recruitment numbers begin to dwindle. Chances are, they will not see this as a victory for their sick cause, as their cause demands the destruction of the United States, not integration into and cooperation with it, as Mr. Ellison has done so far. The fear of the "Islamification of America" coming from this is so absurd, it almost exactly matches the hue that the Anti-War Multiculturalist Left wants to paint all of us who are serious about fighting terrorism with one swift stroke. The Right should go back to fighting the real enemies of our civilization, instead of making up new imaginary ones.



Add to del.icio.us