Category Archives: Religious Liberty

Much Ado About Nothing

Stephen Bainbridge and James Joyner both comment on this Dennis Prager column at Human Events. Prager. it seems, is atwitter because Keith Ellison, a Democrat elected in the 2006 elections and the first Muslim elected to Congress, wants to take his oath of office with his hand on the Koran, not the Bible.

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.

There’s just one problem with Prager’s hypothesis. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about Members of Congress, or Senators, or the President, taking their respective oaths with their hand on a Bible, or any other book. True, its been a long standing practice that dates back to George Washington, but it is not a requirement. If a member of Congress wanted, there is nothing preventing them from taking their oath with their hand on a copy of the Manhattan Yellow Pages.

Moreover, Prager’s insistence that only the Bible can used would be a clear violation of this provision of Article VI of the Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

No religious test, and no requirement that you place your hand on any book when being sworn into office. Seems pretty simple to me.

Religious Freedom vs. The War On Terror

There are few symbols of Islam that arose more controversy in the West than the burqa, a covering that some Islamic women wear, either by force or by choice, that completely covers their body and hides even their eyes from public view. In what may well be a sign of things to come in Europe, the Netherlands is preparing to completely outlaw the wearing of the burqa:

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) – The Dutch government agreed on Friday a total ban on the wearing of burqas and other Muslim face veils in public, justifying the move on security grounds.

Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk will now draw up legislation which will result in the Netherlands, once one of Europe’s most easy-going nations, imposing some of the continent’s toughest laws against concealing the face.

“The cabinet finds it undesirable that garments covering the face — including the burqa — should be worn in public in view of public order, (and) the security and protection of fellow citizens,” the Dutch Justice Ministry said in a statement.

Here’s the question. If a woman truly believes that her religious beliefs require her to wear a burqa, or a headscarf, or whatever garment one might name, does the state have the right to make it a crime for her to do so ?

Clearly, I think the answer is no.

However, this move in the Netherlands is only the latest development in what looks for all the world like a clash between European values and those of its predominantly Muslim immigrants:

Existing legislation [in the Netherlands] already limits the wearing of burqas and other total coverings on public transport or in schools.

France has banned the Muslim headscarf and other religious garb from state schools while discussion in Britain centers on limiting the full facial veil, or niqab.

Italy has a decades-old law against covering the face in public as an anti-terrorism measure. Some politicians have called for this rule to be enforced against veiled Muslim women.

So, one can expect things like this to continue. Whether that makes it right, though, is another question entirely.

1 15 16 17