No Swearing Please

So, Keith Ellison wants to swear in on the Koran rather than the Bible. What's the big deal? I mean, consider the facts. Congressmen are sworn in as a group without any book present at all. The "Bible swearing" is a "photo op", a statement by the congressmen after the actual swearing in and isn't binding in any way ... since they were already sworn in. It's just so they can get their picture taken, and lots of them choose the Bible because it's the standard thing, whether or not they believe in the Bible. And there is that fact. How many atheists or, at least, practical atheists have done this "swearing in" thing (which we've already determined isn't a real swearing in) on a Bible that they don't actually believe? Is that a good thing? Isn't it better if Ellison, the first Moslem elected to Congress, does so on a book he values? Besides, religion isn't a test of office and we have a separation of Church and State here, so why would this be any issue at all?

I'm going to toss my two cents into the ring (just to mix metaphors). I think it is an issue.

Why is the Bible used for these events? It is because it is the standard -- it is what has always been done. There is no denying that the founders of America founded it on biblical principles. Even those who weren't "Christians" respected the principles of the Bible. So it is natural to include it. Doing so doesn't violate the 1st Amendment because there is no enforcement or demand made to honor it. It simply recognizes the roots of the country and the values of the values therein.

But there is more. We often hear of "multiculturalism" without actually thinking about what that means. A culture (in these terms) is defined as the common behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular group. "Multiculturalism" is a denial of culture. That is, if there is an American "culture", it is predicated on commonality, not diversity. The areas in which we are diverse are not "culture". They're not bad, but they're not culture. Thus, "multiculturalism" is an embrace of the destruction of commonality. It says, "America cannot have a culture." On the other hand, if we were to speak of what America has in common, what would that be? Well, there is the geography (which, given the vastness of this country, isn't much in common). There is a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, but most civilized countries have similar documents, so that isn't strictly "American." One of the keys, one of the undeniable facts, is that a vast majority of Americans label themselves as Christian. This isn't a legal label, but a cultural label. The majority may not follow Christianity or the Bible, but they consider it worthwhile to some extent. Our laws are often based on Judeo-Christian values found in the Bible. There is much in our culture that has at its roots (perhaps deeply and sometimes obscurely) the Bible.

Enter Congressman Ellison who decides to substitute the Koran for the Bible in his ceremonial (not actual) swearing in. What is the purpose? The original purpose for all such events is to make a statement: "I'm your new congressman and I want you to believe that I will do my job." What is Congressman Ellison saying? I can't imagine a clearer way of saying, "I want to set aside the normal beliefs and the common culture of America and substitute my own." I cannot imagine a more obvious way of saying, "I want to replace the Bible in American Law with my own beliefs." This is only exacerbated by the fact that many Moslems view the Bible as a largely good book, ironically more so than many of the elected officials who have posed for their picture with one. Yet Congressman Ellison is unwilling to allow that possibility, wishing instead to force a statement against the Bible and American culture.

Go ahead ... rant and rave about racism and bigotry and islamophobia and the like. Complain that Christians are trying to violate the Bill of Rights and make our religion the American religion. I can't imagine what any of that has to do with this. It seems to me an obvious statement that the Bible has to go and the Koran should replace it. I understand the arguments that I offered at the outset, but I think there is more going on here and I am concerned about the effects that such arguments don't take into account. Are we really ready to toss out any basis for American Law and culture? Or is it a good idea to shift the basis from the Bible to the Koran? Is that really where we want to go?