Swearing in on the Koran?

December 9, 2006 by Dr. Mc.

This week on Townhall.com Weekend Journal, Michael Medved and Dennis Prager square off on whether congressman-elect Keith Ellison should be allowed to substitute the Koran (Qur’an) for the Bible at his swearing into office ceremony. Prager says, “No,” as I understand him, because the Bible symbolizes the values upon which America is founded. This makes sense, because, regardless of one’s personal faith, these are the values that must be upheld. Medved says, “Yes,” as I understand him, because Ellison should be allowed to swear on the religious text of his adherence. (What good is an oath upon an object to which you have no allegiance, besides the personal religious affront?) Christianity is often accused of being intolerant, because its book holds that Christ is the only way to salvation; but the book also holds throughout that we must be allowed to choose our way (Deu 30:19), even if it is the wrong way, because without choice there can be no love (Deu 30:20). Like it or not, this is at the foundation of every “free” nation. Yet from either Prager’s or Medved’s position, it should be obvious that we wouldn’t even be having this discussion in a Qur’an-based nation. Islam’s book holds that no one should even be allowed to follow any other way (Surah 9:33). i.e., individuals and governments are admonished to FORCE all within their power to follow their book. Medved and Prager (interestingly enough, both Jews) conclude that both books should be present: the Bible to represent the values of our nation, and the Qur’an (or whatever volume a person might choose) to represent their personal accountability. Ellison speaks of respect for all beliefs when speaking of Islam, but I will be amazed if both books are present by his choice. The position of the Qur’an is quite clear about all other religious books.

Posted in Culture & society, Politics | No Comments »