Not An Issue

Keith Ellison, who will become the first Muslim member of Congress next month, has offended some conservatives with his plan to use the Quran during his ceremonial swearing-in. The decision by Ellison, D-Minn., to use the Muslim holy book for the ceremony instead of the Bible triggered an angry column by Dennis Prager on the Web site Townhall.com this week.

Headlined, "America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on," Prager argued that using the Quran 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."

Conservative bloggers have picked up the criticism and run with it.

I know why people are trying to make a big deal about Keith Ellison and his intent to be sworn in on a koran instead of a bible. It's a big deal to be the first Muslim sworn into the House of Representatives.

But here's the thing. The Constitution addresses the issue quite adequately. No where does it make any religious qualification for the office of Representative or Senator. No where does the Constitution require the swearing in on a bible.

Indeed, the First Amendment states things quite nicely:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Note that this does not require the separation of church and state, but rather the prohibition of government interference in the exercise of one's religion or creating an official religion sanctioned by government action.

While once can have questions and doubts about Ellison's politics, his request to be sworn in is fully within his rights.

More to the point, there were quite a few conservatives who disagreed with Prager on the matter, including Mark Levin on his radio show on Friday. Levin, whose legal knowledge is quite considerable, broke down the Ellison matter into simple legal terms - outlining what I noted above.

The fact is that Prager is wrong and one of the reasons that this nation is so great is that we do not have religious tests for political offices. Indeed, there are no such tests at all other than the ability to win elections. Voters in Minnesota found Ellison worthy of their votes and that was sufficient.

It will be up to his constituents to determine whether he does a good job for them over the next two years, and whether he or someone else should represent them.