I don’t think so. And neither did the founding fathers.

Yet now we have the all-too-typical hypocritical “conservative Christians” (an oxymoron) coming out of the woodwork, foaming at the mouth, full of fake outrage, all over a Muslim Congressman-elect, who has the audacity to NOT be a hypocrite regarding his own faith.

Keith Ellison, the Democrat Congressman-to-be from Minnesota, and a Muslim, has stated that he plans on placing his hand on the Koran, rather than the Christian Bible, when he takes his oath of office. Being that he’s a Muslim, I certainly wouldn’t expect anything different. As a matter of fact, I’d be quite surprised if he chose to use the Bible instead. This is a man who apparently is trying to be true to his faith – a commendable trait amongst our leaders, don’t you think?

Yet there are some who claim the moniker “Christian”, who can’t seem to grasp the integrity behind this simple act. Last week, a friend forwarded an email to me from a group called the “American Family Association” (spare me), calling for Congress to make it the law of the land that elected officials must take their oath of office swearing on the Christian Bible. Here’s an excerpt from the email, quoting the infamous Dennis Prager:

“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.

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. 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. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.”

I pointed out to my religious friend that as much as some on the Christian right would like it to be otherwise, we have a separation of church & state in our country, and rightly so. I also noted that orthodox Islam considered Christ on the same spiritual level as their own prophet, Muhammad; while those in the “conservative Christian” movement are not nearly as tolerant of the Islamic faith, even though Christ always preached tolerance. I further pointed out that the radical wing of Islam has given the rest of that faith a bad name, but that doesn’t mean that the radical wing of Christianity should do the same to our faith.

She responded that this issue wasn’t about tolerance. Huh?? Then what the hell is it about? She also argued that we were founded on “Judeo-Christian morals and law”. Yes, with a specific separation of church and state – um, what’s your point? She then made the comment that this was about “truth”. Nope your argument is about faith. And that Christ “would want us to stand up for truth in love. But love doesn't mean allowing others to create their own truth and forcing it upon others and that is what is happening.” Bingo! That is exactly what is happening. Problem is, she didn’t realize that this is exactly what the “conservative Christians” are doing – forcing their “truth” upon others.

I responded that bottom line, this is constitutional issue, not a religious one, and that constitutionally speaking, Mr. Ellison is in the right. As a matter of fact, the issue of the separation of church and state is more clearly delineated in the section regarding taking an oath of office than probably any other section of the constitution.

From Article VI:

“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.”

That pretty much puts the nails in the coffin of the "conservative Christians' " ridiculous argument. There is little ambiguity here. If this issue were ever brought up before the U.S. Supreme Court, Mr. Ellison would win the case. Period. I’ll go even further… It would be a unanimous decision, even with the current conservative-leaning court.

Now I suppose the conservatives could push to change the constitution to require that the Bible be used in swearing-in ceremonies. I doubt that they would be successful. But if they were, I’m sure it would be touted as a great day for “conservative Christianity”. Perhaps. But in my humble opinion, it would truly be a sad day in the history of our republic.