|
AMP Report – December 16, 2006
Controversy continues over Ellison’s oath on the Quran
First American Muslim congressman, Keith Ellison, a Democrat from Minnesota, has not yet started his new job but he is already under fire. When he indicated that he will carry a Quran to his swearing-in ceremony on Jan. 4, rightist talk host show Dennis Prager called it "an act of hubris ... that undermines American civilization." He wrote: "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."
Yakima Herald-Republic - Religious freedom trumps all in congressman's case
In a country where the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, his rationale was shaky at best. Prager had written in his column: "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." Wrong. America is not interested in only one book. Christianity may be the dominant religion in the country, but it's certainly not the only one. The swearing-in ceremony is symbolic. Ellison has the right to choose the symbol that best suits his religious beliefs as one of the props.
People For the American Way: Attacks on Muslim congressman-elect's faith undermine religious freedom
People For the American Way President Ralph G. Neas’ statement: "It appears that some on the Religious Right need to review the Constitution, which expressly prohibits a religious test for public office. Every congressman has a right to swear or affirm the oath of office according to his own personal faith. It would violate our constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion to require an official to swear on a Bible against that official's own religious belief. "At a time when Religious Right leaders are falsely trying to turn "happy holidays" into an attack on Christianity, Prager has given us a real example of religious intolerance."
The Jewish Daily Forward - Pundit ripped for telling rep to keep Quran out of congress
Several prominent Jewish organizations and leaders have also publicly criticized Prager. In an unusually barbed rebuke, the Anti-Defamation League called the pundit's argument "intolerant, misinformed and downright un-American."
"If Prager were merely a blogger and radio talkshow host trying to be relevant and provocative, these views might not merit a response," the ADL wrote in a December 1 statement. "But as a newly appointed member of the United States Holocaust Council, Prager and his views must be held to a higher standard." The ADL's criticism was echoed by Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, who issued a statement urging the commentator "to rethink his position and apologize."
News & Observer Editorial entitled On My Faith:
Religious freedom means that American Muslims should have the right to use their sacred text when swearing an oath…. An echo of this issue was heard in North Carolina last year. A Muslim woman who had been called to testify in a Guilford County courtroom was asked to place her hand on the Bible and take an oath to tell the truth. She declined, asking "Do you have a Quran available?"
The court allowed her to raise a hand affirming that she was telling the truth, or to swear by God that she was telling the truth without laying a hand on the Bible. But no Quran -- even after a local Muslim organization offered to donate copies.
The Guilford court's options were an accommodation, but they were not equality. Religious people may well feel that their courtroom testimony will be discounted if they don't swear by their sacred text. And to make their oath most meaningful, people of faith will want to use the text that means the most to them.
In the interest of religious freedom, then, North Carolina needs to make a change. A chance to do so is offered by a case brought by the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, urging an update in the oath-taking policy following the Guilford County controversy. The ACLU challenge was heard in September by the N.C. Court of Appeals; there's been no decision yet.
In Congress and in North Carolina we're being tested on how well 21st century America will adjust to increasing religious diversity. Our 18th century Constitution offers an excellent guide -- we swear.
Christian Science Monitor: At swearing in, congressman wants to carry Quran, outrage ensues
US courts have dealt with the issue in various ways. In a 1997 federal terrorism case, a Washington, D.C., judge permitted witnesses to swear to Allah. In North Carolina in 2005, a woman was not allowed to take the oath on the Koran when testifying. The American Civil Liberties Union has sued, and the case is in appeal.
At least 17 state constitutions explicitly prohibit discrimination against witnesses or jurors on religious grounds. Some allow people to swear or affirm "under the pains and penalties of perjury," omitting "so help me God." Judges generally have jurisdiction over how oaths are administered in their courts. Arsalan Iftikhar, CAIR's legal counsel, says that some judges have allowed the use of the Koran.
CAIR Bulletin – December 8, 2006
Dennis Prager supporters spew anti-Muslim hate
WASHINGTON, D.C., Dec. 8, 2006 - The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) says that it has received hundreds of hate-filled e-mails from supporters of radio talk show host Dennis Prager who says the first Muslim elected to Congress should be prevented from taking his oath of office using the Quran.
This week, CAIR called on President Bush to rescind Prager's appointment to the United States Holocaust Memorial Council because of his intolerant views toward Islam in American society. CAIR had earlier called on the head of the museum council to remove Prager from his post because his views are incompatible with the mission of that taxpayer-funded institution.
A number of other commentators and groups, including the Anti-Defamation League, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism and the American Jewish Committee, have rejected Prager's views.
On his radio program, Prager asked supporters to come to his assistance by writing letters to those, like the Minneapolis Star Tribune, who have been critical of his views. A few examples of the hundreds of Islamophobic e-mails CAIR has received from Prager's supporters include: (Spelling errors have been left unedited, while expletives have been alerted or removed.)
* "ROT in hell with your allah and that pig Mohammed. Take your islam [expletive deleted] back to the desert sand n**ger. We are watching you"
* "nobody give a [expletive deleted] about you camel [expletive deleted] raghead dog breathe smelling antiamerican [expletive deleted], get the hell out of my country you [expletive deleted]. . .dennis prager speaks the truth. . .
* "I would suggest that those in attendance at the upcoming swearing-in just murmur [expletive deleted] as the oath with the Koran is taken."
* "Dennis Prager has more right to serve on ANY committee or board in this country than you morons even have to EXIST in this country. Go back to the deserts and take your ignorance with you."
* "Quit trying to force your [expletive deleted] coran and your towel head way of life on us! respect our traditions and blend in [expletive deleted]!"
* "No way, [expletive deleted] the stone aged pigs. Including our new congressman"
"Mr. Prager must recognize by now that his call to permanently exclude Islam and other minority faiths from the public arena has added substantially to the level of anti-Muslim bigotry and interfaith mistrust in our society," said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad. "We urge Mr. Prager to issue a statement calling on his supporters to repudiate anti-Muslim hatred and to respect the religious rights of all Americans."
Awad said that Prager should take responsibility for the harm his views have caused to interfaith relations by resigning from the United States Holocaust Memorial Council.
The U.S. Constitution states that "no religious test shall ever be required" to hold public office. No books of any kind are used in the actual swearing-in ceremony. Representatives may use any book they choose, or no book at all, during later ceremonial events.
Jurist (Pittsburg University) - December 4, 2006
A Muslim lawmaker enters the US Congress
Ali Khan
On January 4, 2006, Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) will make history by taking the oath of office as the first Muslim elected to the US House of Representatives. He has decided to take the oath on the Quran, the holy book of Islam.
January 4th should be a day of celebration for Americans as well as Muslims in the World. It should be a day of celebration for Americans because Ellison’s election to the House affirms the openness, generosity, and vivacity of American democracy. It is a day of celebration for Muslims because a Muslim will now sit as a lawmaker and show to the world that America can be a friend and not an enemy of Islam. It must also be a day of celebration because it will challenge the warped ideologies of bigotry, prejudice, violence, and Islamophobia.
Unfortunately, some American opinion-makers doubt Ellison’s loyalty to the United States Constitution, which states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Some make the catastrophic suggestion that Ellison should be forced to take the oath of office on the Bible. Dennis Prager, for example, objects to Ellison’s taking the oath on the Quran by arguing: “I want Jews like myself to take the oath on the Bible, even though the New Testament is not our Bible.” Some object to Ellison’s relations with the American Muslim groups, such as the CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations). Gary Bauer, the architect of the advocacy group American Values, mentions these relations to surmise that Ellison would “vote against any kind of serious war against Islamofascism.”
The 5th District of Minnesota has sent Keith Ellison to make laws for America. Ellison must discharge his office within the confines of the US Constitution. Ellison is a Muslim and has no intentions of trading his faith for political gains. He deserves to serve his term without harassment from groups who see America as their jaghir.”
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hotline/2006/12/muslim-lawmaker-enters-us-congress.php
|
