Very Bloggy Today

This morning I received a message sent by my father that included the following discussion:

"Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United
States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the
Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.
He should not be allowed to do
so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act
undermines American civilization.

First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies
multiculturalist activism -- my culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison
and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence
what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual
holds to be his holiest book.
Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot
what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. 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. In your personal life, we will fight for your
right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish
cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what
book its public servants take their oath. Devotees of multiculturalism and
political correctness who do not see how n damaging to the fabric of American
civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a
racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein
Kampf," the Nazis bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will
those defending Ellison's right to choose his favorite book deny that same right
to a racist who is elected to public office? Of course, Ellison's defenders
argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and
not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the
book he believes in. But for all of American history, Jews elected to public
office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in
the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in
the Old Testament either. Yet those secular officials did not demand to take
their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of
New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members
of Congress than the Bible. Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand
on the Book of Mormon. And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed
to take his oath of office on a copy of "Dianetics" by L. Ron \n Hubbard.

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith
Ellison's favorite book is. 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. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer
any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking
our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public
servants take their oath.

...When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11.

--Sincerely, Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and
Chairman American Family Association

I wrote back to my Dad and told him I disagreed entirely. I normally don't acknowledge political distributions that offend me but I found this particularly malignant. What I said to my father is that this letter demonstrates the Right's ability to manipulate thought by confusing issues. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, are not cultures. They are faiths, religions. The Bible, the Koran, the Torah, those are sacred and historical texts. They're not "favorite books".

I was taught as a very young girl, which was admittedly some time ago, that this country was settled by religious pilgrims who were hoping to build a government that allowed individuals to practice their chosen religion without civil implications. The fact that these early settlers were all Christians in happenstance---they provided a framework for governance that explicitly requires the separation of church and state and guarantees the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. The liberty part is important, kids. Its religious freedom they were talking about.

If we do indeed require oaths backed with some sort of comitment, why is it even the Bible? Does that not offend our founding father's vision for seperation of church and state? Is it not enough to pledge allegiance based on citizenship and remove the religion from this process?

It is clear the much of America is disenchanted with the shifting distribution of ethnicity and religion in our country. To them I say: Sorry. Above all, this country is about guaranteeing personal liberty and freedom from political and religious persecution.

My Dad was unhappy with my response, I think. He said those who don't love America should leave. I think its possible to love America while pushing for adherence to the very basic tenets of our freedoms. I love America. And I hate to be trite but I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said "America was founded by political dissenters". Its true. The more we insist on the status quo, the more we become what our founding fathers were seeking relief of.

Change can be challenging. Let's step up.