Columnists
Wrong on Basics
by I.J. SINGHI know that we get the leaders we deserve, but could we really be so ill-deserving?
On television recently, two Republican Party stalwarts appeared, one after the other. They were reacting to the election of a Muslim, Keith Ellison, as Congressman from Minnesota. (Incidentally, Ellison traces his roots in America to over 250 years ago.)
Virgil Goode, Congressman from Virginia, had sent letters to voters in his district alerting them that the election of a Muslim-American posed a danger to the United States. The other Congressman, Duncan Hunter, from California, was warning listeners that if Ellison was allowed to take his oath of office on a Koran, it posed a serious threat to the integrity of the nation. In his view, all official functions of the government required that the oath be taken only on a Bible. Any other kind of oath would be illegal. When George Washington took his oath as President on a Bible, he laid the foundations of American culture, continued Hunter. So that remained the bedrock tradition; any change in this would undermine fundamental American values.
Years ago, I was a witness at a trial in Portland, Oregon. When asked to take an oath on a Bible, I pointed out to the judge that I was willing to do so, but he should know that I am a Sikh and not a Christian. After brief consideration, he accepted my offer to pledge my honor instead, with God and Guru as "witnesses".
The whole purpose of an oath is a public declaration in which a person swears by what is immeasurably valuable to him or her. Yes, I know of many who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. But, we are talking here of value, not price. So, an oath is not meaningful when taken, for example, on something tangible like a house, car or bank account, irrespective of their material worth.
He who lives in the shadow of God might fulfill his oath on a Bible, Koran, a gutka or similar religious text. To an agnostic or atheist, these would not be meaningful, but laying his honor or self-respect on the line would be. If the law dictates the nature of what to a person is more precious than life itself, then it has inseparably mixed "church and state." And that would surely be un-American.
I know politicians often cater to the lowest common denominator, but I hope that the likes of Hunter and Goode have merely underestimated the common folk. I hope and pray we are better than that.
mailto:%20ijs1@nyu.edu