Religion and Politics I: Making Statements

(Caveat: This article was written with the understanding that the "swearing on the Bible" is more of a tradition than anything else. The actual swearing in is apparently done on the floor of Congress)

Keith Ellison, a Muslim from Minnesota elected to Congress, is making waves because he has chosen to be sworn in with his hand on a Quran, not a Bible. This article does quite a good job of covering the issue, as well as lambasting Dennis Prager, a conservative columnist and radio personality, for taking issue with this fact.

Both men make good points (really, read the article for Clarence's view, which summarizes some of Dennis' points) but I'm not here to talk about it from a constitutional standpoint, nor from a politically correct tolerance perspective.

One of my pet peeves is "making a point" at the expense of others.

Bear with me for a moment and an example or two.

I must admit that if I were elected (as a Christian) in a Muslim world, and I was asked to put my hand on the Quran to be sworn in, I would give a resounding "no". The Quran holds no meaning for me (well, no *positive* meaning, anyway).

So how can I be intolerant of Keith Ellison's choice without being a hypocrite?

Let's flip around my comment, and pose it as a question to Muslims: What does the Bible mean to you? I think many Christians (and, unfortunately some Muslims!) may be surprised at the answer.

What does the Bible mean to the world of Islam?

For those who choose not to follow the link, it discusses the Quran's own oft-repeated view of the validity of God's word as brought to us in the Old and New Testaments. There is some debate in the Muslim world on this, just as some Christians reject much of the Old Testament, or claim it no longer has any pertinence.

Now, I shall pose a new hypothetical situation. I (a Christian) am elected to a position in a Jewish nation where I am required to be sworn in with my hand on a Torah. What would I do?

What would Jesus do? (Sorry, I couldn't resist...hmm that's actually a very good question!)

I would have no qualms about swearing in on a Torah, as it is considered Scripture to me and a part of my history as a Christian. Now, I *may* choose to swear in on a Bible, but that would serve no purpose other than to make a point. My hypothetical point? In this example, I guess it would be that I'm a Christian in a Jewish nation representing Christians.

So now to bring it home, according to my logic derived from the link above and my reasoning, it would seem that Keith is a Muslim who is interested in representing Muslims, not Christian Americans. Therefore, he has turned his back on much of his constituency (dare I say a majority?). Keith could use the same logic I did to justify his swearing on a Bible as I used for swearing on a Torah, but he chose to make his point, instead...

...and I think we got his point.