But some Constitutional provisions are more equal than others

The Constitution indicates that there should be no religious test for holding of government office. Huzzah. But that simple requirement (designed to prohibit oppression of minority religious views) seems far too controversial for some folks.

In a letter sent to hundreds of voters this month, Representative Virgil H. Goode Jr., Republican of Virginia, warned that the recent election of the first Muslim to Congress posed a serious threat to the nation’s traditional values.

Mr. Goode was referring to Keith Ellison, the Minnesota Democrat and criminal defense lawyer who converted to Islam as a college student and was elected to the House in November. Mr. Ellison’s plan to use the Koran during his private swearing-in ceremony in January had outraged some Virginia voters, prompting Mr. Goode to issue a written response to them, a spokesman for Mr. Goode said.

In his letter, which was dated Dec. 5, Mr. Goode said that Americans needed to “wake up” or else there would “likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran.”

“I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped,” said Mr. Goode, who vowed to use the Bible when
taking his own oath of office.

May I say, as a Christian, how unutterably offensive such a set of statements by Rep. Goode is? Replace “Muslim” with “Jew” or “Catholic” and you get a better sense of how godawfully wrong and un-American such a sentiment is.

And let me say how equally disappointed I am in Dennis Prager, who is usually more conservative than I am but also usually thought-provoking.

The fracas over Mr. Ellison’s decision to use the Koran during his personal swearing-in ceremony began last month when Dennis Prager, a conservative columnist and radio host, condemned the decision as one that would undermine American civilization.

“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,” said Mr. Prager, who said the Bible was the only relevant religious text in the United States.

“If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress,” Mr. Prager said.

WTF? Prager’s full article is here, where he makes the … well, bizarro assertion that,

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. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what
book its public servants take their oath.

Um … what, exactly, is the point of taking an oath on a text one does not believe in? The whole reason for such an oath is not to demonstrate that one believes in what everyone else does, but that one is guaranteeing one’s fidelity to an oath by committing under a text sacred to oneself. Swearing an oath based on a text one doesn’t believe in doesn’t seem to be very meaningful, regardless of what a majority vote might indicate is the “right” sacred tome.

An individual doesn’t need to be a multiculturalist, a political correctionist, or an Islamicist Terrorist to consider Prager and Goode’s stance to be both offensive and silly. For shame.