I'm back in North Carolina for a few days and one of the main news items is Rep. Keith Ellison taking a ceremonial oath of office using a Koran. One comentator I saw on the news last night argued that as the United States' values are built on the bible (the Liberty Bell has biblical passages inscribed on it etc) he should have sworn on the Bible.
In the spirit of 'plural identities' I propose the solution should have been that he did both - take the oath, including whatever Christian overtones it had, and swear on the Koran, ie show that he is both loyal to US values and that because he is a Muslim, an oath on the Koran carries more weight for him and adds to his testimony to his loyalty to the US, and indeed it appears that is more or less what he did. Apparently taking the oath for new congressmen/women is an en masse event, and you raise your hand and don't have to touch a Bible, and is not especially religious in content ("so help me God"). Then you can opt for an individual ceremony, which is what Ellison did too, for which he chose to swear on the Koran. The issue here seems to be that certain Christians in the US are arguing that you cannot be loyal to the USA unless you are also Christian. Ellison is clearly trying to say Muslim identity and US cultural identity are not mutually exclusive, you can have both.
Later:
After posting this I began to have doubts as to whether I really know enough about US politics to pass any comment, especially after reading some right wing blogs alleging that Keith Ellison had links to the Muslim Brotherhood, Wahhabi organisations etc etc but then found this posting by Jeff Weintraub, politics professor in the USA, which reassured me. It was particularly fascinating to discover that America's founders had already considered and accepted the possibility that a Muslim might be a congressman, so strong an American value is religious freedom.
Comments