Shlog Section-f

WASHINGTON — Keith Ellison, who will become the first Muslim member of Congress next month, has offended some conservatives with his plan to use a Koran during his ceremonial swearing-in.

The decision by Ellison, a Democrat, to use Islam’s holy book for the ceremony instead of a Bible triggered an angry column by Dennis Prager on the Web site Townhall.com this week.

Prager headlined the post, “America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on.” He argued that using the Koran for the ceremony “undermines American civilization.”

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

Read More

What are your thoughts?

When I first read this, I was in agreement.  Why would it be allowed in the first place?  However, after some thought, I’ve decided it really doesn’t matter that much.  Since he is a muslim, the Koran is his holy book.  Taking an oath on this book would be solomn for him and binding if he’s practicing his faith.  While I don’t agree with his religion, and believe wholeheartedly that he is wrong in his beliefs, it is his faith, and only the Holy Spirit can prompt his heart to change.

I would be much more apt to see his oath as a solomn one if it we’re taking on the Koran than the Bible, simply because the Bible doesn’t mean anything to him and would not be binding to him according to his religion.  If I took an oath based on the Koran, it would have no meaning or significance to me and I’d probably be offended for thinking that it should matter to me at all.

Just my two cents,

Beth

It doesn’t bother me.  The Koran is much more important to Muslims than the Bible is to Christians anyway, so perhaps he will take his duties very seriously!

If we, as a country, start banning other religous books, the bible won’t be far behind.