Posted by
This Guy on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 11:10:12 AM
There's been a bit of a debate recently over
Keith Ellison's (D-Minn.) desire to take his oath on the Koran instead of the Bible. It raises a very important issue that I think everyone is overlooking. Allowing Mr. Ellison to take his oath on the Koran instead of the Bible might very well be the first step to freedom for many of our congresspeople.
In our current system of goverment, members of Congress must recite an
oath, while laying a hand on the Bible, presumably because any man or woman who holds the Bible sacred surely wouldn't lie while touching one. The whole practice is outrageous, being wholly discriminatory against Christians who wish to hold office.
Consider Mr. Ellison's position. If he were forced to take his oath on the Bible, the power of his conviction would be greatly reduced. After all, swearing upon a book that holds no authority in one's life should have no significant influence on one's decision to keep or break one's oath. The same holds true for any other member of Congress with no special affection for the Bible.
But now consider the plight of the poor Christian Congressperson, forced to swear an oath upon the very foundation of his or her faith. After such an oath, that Congressperson is unfairly shackled by the power of conviction in a way that none of his or her peers are!
And who are we as a country to require anyone to "swear" an "oath" anyway? What if circumstances change? People change all the time! Who can predict the future? Shouldn't we just strongly recommend that the men and women of our Congress do the best they can with what they have?
If we as a nation insist on the continuance of this barbaric oathing practice, we should at very least allow Christian Congressmen and Congresswomen to choose an alternate book upon which to swear, such as a
Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, or a copy of
Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion", to avoid placing them in any greater crisis of conscience than their peers.