Bismarck Tribune - News » Columnists » Jenkinson - Freedom of religion stretches across the board

Freedom of religion stretches across the board

Jan 14, 2007 - 04:04:40 CST

I have great respect for freshman Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison for taking the oath of office Jan. 4 on a Koran. Ellison, who was elected to represent Minnesota's 5th District on Nov. 7, is the first Muslim representative in American history. It's about time. There are more than 5,000,000 Muslims in the United States.

And not just any Koran. In his private swearing-in ceremony, Ellison had the honor of placing his hand on a copy of the Islamic sacred text owned by Thomas Jefferson, America's greatest advocate of religious liberty. "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man," Jefferson wrote in 1800, after an election in which his own religious views were the subject of intense national debate. Jefferson was constantly accused of being an atheist. He was in fact a deist and a Unitarian. And he believed that it's none of your business.

There was a double solemnity to Ellison's oath-taking. Not only has he sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution on the book that matters most to his soul, but he has done so on a copy of that book owned by one of America's greatest individuals, the philosopher of the American dream, the religious thinker who gave us the phrase "wall of separation between church and state."

The Koran was loaned to Ellison by the Library of Congress, which took delivery of Jefferson's immense private library (6,487 volumes) in 1815. Most of Jefferson's collection was burned in a Library of Congress fire in 1851. His Koran, fortunately, survived to play an important role in the ongoing debate about the place of religion in American public life.

Using Jefferson's Koran in his private congressional swearing-in ceremony was an act of real insight by Ellison, not to mention political shrewdness. In placing his hand on Jefferson's Koran, Ellison showed that he has a greater understanding of the fundamental values of the American tradition than do his critics, like Virginia Rep. Virgil Goode and talk show browbeater Sean Hannity, who argued that if you can take the oath on the Koran, how long will it be before someone wants to take the oath on "Mein Kampf." It's only a matter of time, Sean!

Jefferson believed that religion is a purely private matter and that a person is entitled to believe anything she or he wishes if it does not lead to illegal activity. "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg," Jefferson wrote.

Led by Los Angeles talk show host Dennis Prager, some American conservatives argued that if Ellison wouldn't take the oath on the Bible, he didn't deserve to be a United States representative. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Prager declared, "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," he wrote. "If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress."

I'm glad Ellison didn't cave in to the demands of the narrow-minded. The whole controversy merely proves the poverty of evangelical conservatism. Ellison had the right to take the oath on any book he might choose: the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad-Gita, "Black Elk Speaks," the "Book of Mormon," or for that matter Ron Hubbard's scientological text "Dianetics." No American law requires that the oath of office involve a book of any sort, much less the Bible.

The Constitution of the United States is quite clear on this question. It requires the incoming president to swear or affirm an oath of allegiance. Article II, Section 1 says, in its entirety, "Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation, 'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'" Nothing more. No book specified.

The Constitution also says (Article VI), "Senators and Representatives ... 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."

Three things are immediately clear. First, the founding charter of the United States makes no reference to God anywhere in its text - no mention of providence, deity, the Judeo-Christian tradition, Jesus or the Bible. Second, the Constitution does not require that these oaths or affirmations involve a book of any sort. Third, insisting that Rep. Ellison take his oath on a Bible would constitute a "religious test," and that is explicitly prohibited by the Constitution.

Constitutional niceties aside, it might be useful to examine the idea of oaths from a purely rational point of view. If oaths have any actual value beyond ceremony, they are meant to bind an individual to a responsible course of action. If I - a Congregationalist - swore an oath on a sacred book that was not sacred to me (the Koran, for example), it's not clear how that text, which I neither know nor regard as authoritative, could shape my behavior.

Ellison's sacred book is the Koran. Which text is more likely to inspire Ellison to be a congressman of integrity: the Judeo-Christian Bible, which is a book about a religion that he does not subscribe to, or the Koran, which articulates his God's expectations for humankind? If you don't believe the book has divine energy in and about it, you may as well be taking your oath on a novel or a phone book. In other words, the very logic of swearing an oath on a book would seem to link Ellison with the Koran, not the Bible.

I think it's wonderful that Thomas Jefferson owned a copy of the Koran. How many of us do? Like his hero Francis Bacon, Jefferson took "all knowledge to be my province." It's not clear when Jefferson purchased the book or precisely why. Jefferson's copy is an English translation by the orientalist George Sale printed in 1764. He may have purchased it as part of his study of international law. He may have acquired it in the name of his occasional study of comparative religion.

We do know that the Enlightenment had a kind crush on Islam. Surveying mankind from China to Peru (as Dr. Johnson put it), the thinkers and reformers of the Enlightenment became fascinated by the different ways different peoples went about the business of life, from economics to constitutional settlements to religion. Scientific freethinkers like Jefferson, Madison, David Hume and Voltaire were frankly embarrassed by some of the Bible, by some parts of Christian doctrine, and by much of Christian history. Because the idea of the Trinity (three is one, one is three) particularly offended the Unitarian sensibilities of the rationalists of the Enlightenment, they turned with coy respect to Islam, which is more rigorously monotheistic. There was a kind of Islamic chic during the eighteenth century.

In his monumental "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," Edward Gibbon wrote an appreciative chapter on Mohammed and the religion he helped to found. Jefferson would have been alienated by the militarism and imperialism omnipresent in the Koran and the history of Islam, but he was, to put it in simplest terms, fascinated by the idea that tens of millions of people could see the world in a way very different from his own.

And unlike today's nervous Nellies, who think that western civilization is so fragile that it has to be defended from all sorts of lovely variety and individual freedom, Jefferson kept his mind open to the idea that other traditions have a core of wisdom, just like ours.

(Clay Jenkinson is the Theodore Roosevelt scholar-in-residence at Dickinson State College. He lives in Bismarck. Contact Jenkinson at jeffysage@;aol.com.)

News > Columnists

Printer friendly version Freedom of religion stretches across the board

Comments

BDC wrote on Jan 23, 2007 6:21 PM:

" First of all, I am a Christian. I know Jesus Christ as my personal Savior. I don't think that any Muslim should be in comtrol of our country. America was once founded on the Bible and on Biblical morals and most of all on Jesus Christ. America, what in the world has happen to us. They take prayer out of our schools, they make abortion right, which it is murder, now the homosexual lifestyles. What else will these people do next. I am proud to be living in a free country. But not just proud, I am very blessed that I dont live in a place like Iraq or Sudan or Saudi Arabia where I would be dead now because of my faith in Jesus Christ. What would George Washington or Abraham Lincoln or any other person from when this country was founded say if they saw the way our country is today? What are we to do America? It was because of Terrorist and Muslims that almost 4,000 people lost there lives on 9/11/01. And down we have them in office. What is next America? IF you figure it out, please let me know... THank You! crownprincess2009@yahoo.com "

Don Dutcher, Boise, ID wrote on Jan 22, 2007 1:06 PM:

" You have a half-truth reporting here that carries the EXACT OPPOSITE message of the full truth. Jefferson had the Quran in order to understand the Muslims who were enslaving Americans and many others on the high seas and friendly ports (men, women, children, castrating and killing and maiming; a slavery trade). He wanted to understand how to STOP them and eventually concluded that WAR was the only answer. Here's the whole story if you dare to print the whole truth. I've never written to a paper before. You're the first because I think we simply don't look hard enough for the truth anymore: Ellison's use of Jefferson's Quran as a prop illuminates a subject once well-known in the history of the United States, but, which today, is mostly forgotten - the Muslim pirate slavers who over many centuries enslaved millions of Africans and tens of thousands of Christian Europeans and Americans in the Islamic "Barbary" states. Over the course of 10 centuries, Muslim pirates cruised the African and Mediterranean coastline, pillaging villages and seizing slaves. The taking of slaves in pre-dawn raids on unsuspecting coastal villages had a high casualty rate. It was typical of Muslim raiders to kill off as many of the "non-Muslim" older men and women as possible so the preferred "booty" of only young women and children could be collected. Young non-Muslim women were targeted because of their value as concubines in Islamic markets. Islamic law provides for the sexual interests of Muslim men by allowing them to take as many as four wives at one time and to have as many concubines as their fortunes allow. Boys, as young as 9 or 10 years old, were often mutilated to create eunuchs who would bring higher prices in the slave markets of the Middle East. Muslim slave traders created "eunuch stations" along major African slave routes so the necessary surgery could be performed. It was estimated that only a small number of the boys subjected to the mutilation survived after the surgery. When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the "Dey of Algiers"--an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria. Because American commerce in the Mediterranean was being destroyed by the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784 to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States. Congress appointed a special commission consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations. Lacking the ability to protect its merchant ships in the Mediterranean, the new America government tried to appease the Muslim slavers by agreeing to pay tribute and ransoms in order to retrieve seized American ships and buy the freedom of enslaved sailors. Adams argued in favor of paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce in the Mediterranean moving again. Jefferson was opposed. He believed there would be no end to the demands for tribute and wanted matters settled "through the medium of war." He proposed a league of trading nations to force an end to Muslim piracy. In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the "Dey of Algiers" ambassador to Britain. The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote to appease. During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey's ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts. In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise." For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800. Not long after Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, he dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Declaring that America was going to spend "millions for defense but not one cent for tribute," Jefferson pressed the issue by deploying American Marines and many of America's best warships to the Muslim Barbary Coast. The USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid all saw action. In 1805, American Marines marched across the dessert from Egypt into Tripolitania, forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the freeing of all American slaves. During the Jefferson administration, the Muslim Barbary States, crumbling as a result of intense American naval bombardment and on shore raids by Marines, finally officially agreed to abandon slavery and piracy. Jefferson's victory over the Muslims lives on today in the Marine Hymn, with the line, "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, we will fight our country's battles on the land as on the sea." It wasn't until 1815 that the problem was fully settled by the total defeat of all the Muslim slave trading pirates. Jefferson had been right. The "medium of war" was the only way to put an end to the Muslim problem. Mr. Ellison was right about Jefferson. He was a "visionary" wise enough to read and learn about the enemy from their own book. "

Steve Morris wrote on Jan 21, 2007 10:49 AM:

" To Bookworm: Why argue with me about iraq. Read my post. Where do I mention anything about Iraq or Iraqi's. But since you brought it up, you're right. Iraqi's didn't fly the planes into the WTC. They were muslims, all of them, filled with hate. Which was precisely my point. By the way, you don't need to speculate what muslims say about Christian values or the west in general. They basically are telling everyone in the world, all the time. Go to YouTube and query "Undercover Mosque". See the latest example of muslim hate speech for yourself. Find out who the "Kuffar" are. With regard to the deaths of iraqi's. You're right, thousands have been killed. But most of the killing has been done by Saddam himself, and fellow muslims who are trained, equipped, and supported by Iranian and Syrian muslims who are deathly afraid of a free Iraq. Do the research instead of just quoting the party line. To "the light": My faith isn't shaken by the evil that muslims are doing in the world. I expect it based on what I hear from their leaders. It strengthens my faith. What shakes me is the blindness of people like yourself. You say "they" should be able to burn down churches, torture me, and burn bibles. In the case of muslims, "they" are doing all of these things all over the world as we speak. But you forgot about beheadings. Hmmm, how many school children were murdured by muslim separatists in Beslan, Russia in 2004? Several hundred I think. Again, refer to YouTube for their thoughts on the west. Yes, I celebrate religious freedom but Islam does not. That's because Islam is not a religion. It is more of an all-encompassing political force that seeks to control every aspect of a person's life, from birth to death. Wherever islamic or sharia law is the law of the land, a muslim who changes his religion is given the death penalty; people of other religions are third class citizens subject to persecution and murder. Their churches are burned down, and when a church burns down, they are not allowed to rebuild. Women are inferior beings who are not allowed an education, such as it is, and can be killed by their husbands for adultery, real or imagined. Homosexuals are not tolerated, and are given a death sentence for this practice. I could go on but I don't think it's necessary. Also, when I refer to "our", like I said, I refer to the values of 99.9% of the people who ever lived in this country. I don't know what your religion is and I don't care. I speak of values. And the values of this country stem almost entirely from the Bible, not the koran, not buddhism, and not confuscious. If you don't know this then there's no sense in me going on. And I'm still not comforted by a US congressman swearing an oath on the koran, not at all. So, when you're head is forcibly pulled out of that safe place in the sand, and you're forced to become a muslim or else, don't say you weren't warned. "

the light wrote on Jan 19, 2007 10:12 PM:

" Great column Clay. As some of the posts here indicate, it never ceases to amaze me how insecure a lot of religious folks in this country are that they consider it a threat whenever they see someone else has a different god or religion. How, if a person truly has a sincerely held belief in a supreme being, can that be affected by what any other person believes? They should be able to torture you, burn down the churches, and burn all the bibles, and that should have no affect on your relationship with your god. I don’t care what Joe Blow believes in because I’m secure in the belief that my soul is in the hands of my god. I don’t need to fight to have a Festivus Pole in every courthouse across the country so that I will get into heaven. Yet, a public official takes an oath on a book other than the bible and their whole faith is apparently shaken and “woe is the good ol’ USA.” That he is allowed this type of religious freedom should be celebrated, rather than condemned. Rather than what the religious fanatics believe, allowing the practice of a religion does not mean that the tenets of that religion should constitute our public policy. Steve Morris claims Ellison was supposed to swear on a bible because it represents “our” values. Who is this “our”? The people of the Christian National Religion? Ellison was elected by the people of a congressional district who presumably knew his values when they voted for him, and apparently they were comfortable with them. Supposedly, we don’t have a national religion but as soon as an incident like this comes along, it becomes apparent that some people think we do. How many people have died in the history of this world in the futile quest to determine who are the righteous and who are the damned? "

Bookworm wrote on Jan 19, 2007 6:15 PM:

" Yes, Steve Morris, as you say, stupidity reigns supreme. As when the USA attacked Iraq and tens of thousands of Muslims died -I read of 34,000 in 2006 - and continue to die because they are guilty of having a stupid, brutal leader. Who knows what the final toll will be for these poor folks? And do not talk of the WTC in the same breath! No Iraqis were involved. I wonder what Muslims would say if asked about Christian values or our Prince of Peace. "

Steve Morris wrote on Jan 18, 2007 4:59 PM:

" Wow. What can one say. When stupidity reigns, it reigns supreme. So, I'm supposed to feel comforted that a Congressmen of the United States has sworn on the Koran to uphold the Constitution of the United States. However, isn't the Koran the book that exhorts muslims to kill or persecute the unbelievers/infidels, i.e., people who don't believe that muhammed was a prophet or that his allah is God? Aren't they doing this right now all over the world? Well that's me... an infidel. You know, I don't really care that Ellison doesn't believe in the Bible. His swearing on it would have meant that he respects the beliefs, traditions, and history, of 99% of the people who ever lived in this country. It would have been a confirmation of OUR values, not his. That's what is important. He could have sworn on both books but didn’t even do that. You may say that the Bible contains verses that exhort the believers to drive unbelievers from their midsts and maybe even kill them, and maybe it does in places, but that would be in the old testament. Our Bible also contains the new testament where Jesus has His say. The Koran has no Jesus to temper its ferocity. Just ask the people who were in the WTC. Oh woe is the United States of America. No, I'm not comforted at all to see us go down without even a whimper. "

No longer a fan wrote on Jan 18, 2007 10:21 AM:

" how long will it be before someone wants to take the oath on "Mein Kampf." It's only a matter of time, Sean! I love the exclamation mark Clay. It shows your true enthusiasm for stupidity and lack of respect. I am sure the Jewish community just loves your "freethinking" ideas. "

Charis Sophia wrote on Jan 17, 2007 6:28 PM:

" I had heard Rep Ellison did swear on a Qur'an; I had not heard it was Thomas Jefferson's! How utterly delightful! What marvelous promise that at least one U.S. Representative has not only read the constitution, but understands it! I had long ago given up even the hope of any such thing. Thank you for highlighting that. You have made my day! "

Lowell wrote on Jan 15, 2007 5:02 PM:

" Since I don't see Sean Hannity being elected to any office anytime soon, swearing an oath on "Mein Kampf" won't be an issue. "

xaero wrote on Jan 15, 2007 10:33 AM:

" A neocon's favorite quote: "I'm OK, you're not OK" -- meaning that you're not OK if you're not like "me" - the neocon. This is what happened to Congressman Ellison as a result of him being sworn in (in a private, non-official ceremony BTW) using Jefferson's Koran. I'm glad the author brought up the clause in the Constitution regarding a religious test for office. Nowhere is it stated that you have to be a "Christian" in order to serve in the U.S. Government. America is not a "Christian" nation. And these so-called neocon "Christians" - I dare say that there is nothing Christ-like about them. "

I'm Glad Clay's Here wrote on Jan 15, 2007 10:11 AM:

" This article should be nationally syndicated. As always, a wonderfully thought out, expertly written, thought provoking piece of work. I'm glad you're a North Dakotan, Clay. "

Noblestar wrote on Jan 15, 2007 9:36 AM:

" While I wouldn't disagree with Clay Jenkinson's claim that Thomas Jefferson was a deist and a Unitarian, Unitarianism and Atheism are not mutually exclusive (based on my recollection from attending a Unitarian Sunday school for several years 40+ years ago). What is certain is that Jefferson and many others of that era were not Christians. The second point that I would like to raise is why Representatives and Senators use Bibles, Korans, etc. to swear in a second photo op ceremony. Article 6 of the Constitution states: "... no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." It is time for politicians to focus on the civic needs of people and leave the spiritual needs of people, if any, to religious establishments. Bob Ritter Founder, Jefferson Madison Center for Religious Liberty "

Edward wrote on Jan 15, 2007 9:07 AM:

" Was he really sworn in on the Koran or was the Koran just used for the photo op after the swearing in? "

Bookworm wrote on Jan 14, 2007 5:45 PM:

" Neither rationality nor the Constitution holds any sway when it comes to some American conservatives. The purpose for the criticism of Ellison is to sustain the climate of fear that is needed for conservatives to maintain rule. As for the Constitution, who really reads it? Not our President, who has no intention of following it when it doesn't suit him and he took an oath to uphold the Constitution. To some, "The Pledge of Allegiance" and "In God We Trust" are all they need to know. The controversy over Ellison might be just a footnote in the history of how our Republic was transformed into a Theocracy. "

Post Your Own Comment

All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.