First Muslim U.S. Rep. to Swear on the Koran. So, What Does the Constitution Say?

Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will take his oath of office on the Koran rather than the Bible.

In response, conservative pundit Dennis Prager has written a column criticizing Ellison. Prager's column is posted on the American Family Association website. The AFA, a religious right organization, is also asking people to push for "a law making the Bible the book used in the swearing-in ceremony of Representatives and Senators."

There's only one slight problem: it's blatantly unconstitutional to require a member of Congress to swear on the Bible, or to swear on any holy book for that matter:

Article VI of the U.S Constitution reads in part:

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.

Forcing a person to swear on the Bible or get lost is not an option. Also note the option to offer an "Affirmation" rather than an "Oath."

Look, I'm a card-carrying member of the religious right, and I'm also very concerned about our abandonment of the Melting Pot ideal in favor of a mushy multiculturalism (just look at Western Europe if you want to know where the wrong path leads).

But these are complex issues, requiring principled thought, prudent action, and careful rhetoric. While it may get even more difficult to decide the best ways to stop the hemorrhaging on the cultural issues front, we can start by eliminating the Prager/AFA approach. Brute force that ignores the Constitution is dumb, it won't be effective, and it's wrong. We have to continue to argue for and from America's first principles, which are conveniently summarized in the Declaration of Independence and given the force of law in the Constitution. Let's leave the blatant disregard for the plain meaning of the text to the Left, shall we?