He Should Be Rejected

I recently listened to a Muslim convert to Christianity explain how Muslims, who live in foreign countries, do not have to honor oaths that they take. They are in fact allowed to deceive as necessary. Such as is the Religion of Islam. Allah is a God who is not bound by anything, even oaths that He may take.

Newsmax has reported that, "Keith Ellison, 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 Quran instead."

So we now have a man elected to an office who will not swear to uphold his authority by taking an oath that gives rise to the very form of government he intends to serve. In other words, the foundation for government and the oath of office may be ignored while serving in the capacity to defend those very foundations for freedom.

"Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Quran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in . . ."

If he were honest he would admit that even though he is not a Christian, since he is serving a nation that is built on the premise of the Bible, then he must swear by that God to fulfill his duty. If he is not willing to do that, then he is not fit for the office.

Some may counter by saying, "What about religious freedom and pluralism?"

My response is simple. There is no religious pluralism without Christianity as the foundation of government. Please show me one Muslim nation that has religious freedom? or religious pluralism? Show me a nation that is atheistic that has maintained religious freedom over a significant amount of time? You will not find any that is comparable to the United States.

Islam seeks to install Sharia Law wherever it can. If this Muslim representative could, don't think for a moment he wouldn't try. If they are getting away with setting up their own court system in France and England, they will do it here.

Dennis Prager is absolutely right in the article when he says, "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."

Don't think for a moment the Framers (who took oaths very, very, very seriously) would not have bounced this guy out on his ear. If they would not have tolerated it (for very good and solid reasons), why would should we?