Separation Anxiety

Neocons, evangelicals, and fearmongers all over the United States are having a collective shit over recently elected Representative Keith Ellison’s swearing-in ceremony. Rep. Ellison is a Muslim, and asked to be sworn in using a Koran rather than the standard King James-version of the Holy Bible.

I’m not quite sure what the fuss is all about. First off, why would a non-Christian want to swear on a Christian document? It would be like swearing allegiance by placing your hand on a copy of George Orwell’s 1984, which some might argue may be slightly more relevant these days given the post-9/11 paranoia. Secondly, in a country in which the separation of church and state is written clearly into the Constitution, why should a member of the government have to swear on a holy book at all?

Over the past six years, neocons, Christian activists, and ideologues have worked their collective butts off to interject as much religion into politics as humanly possible. In 2004, a vote for George was a vote for Jesus, despite my inkling that if Jesus were alive today, he would want nothing to do with this president or any of his cronies. Fast-forward to now and Rep. Ellison’s swearing in, and here’s the deal: when you invite religion into government, that doesn’t mean you get to choose which religion comes in.

There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, and a portion of that population resides in the United States, under the basic law of averages, you have to figure they are going to have at least one representative in the national government. I’m sure there was at least one Jewish representative that asked for a copy of the Torah at their swearing in ceremony. I’ll even be so bold as to predict that with the large Indian population accumulating in the U.S. that within the next ten years, we will have a Hindu representative as well who just might asked to be sworn in on a copy of the Bhagavad-Gita.

Let’s cut through the bullshit, this whole uproar isn’t about the book that Rep. Ellison wanted to put his hand on; it’s the fact that he’s a Muslim. There is such a fear of Islam right now in this country that the very idea of a moderate Muslim, let alone one who has pledged his allegiance to the United States, is incomprehensible to the general public.

Herein lies the reason why religion and politics should never mix. If the citizenry of this country is afraid of an Islamic fundamentalist takeover then they should be voting for candidates who want nothing to do with religion in politics. The moment a candidate says he votes in line with his religion on any subject he should be kicked out on his ass quicker than Courtney Love at a Seattle house party.

Does this mean abandoning good morals and values? Not at all. However, the morals and values that our political system should be involved in (i.e. murder, theft, caring for the poor, etc.) are pretty universal across all forms of faiths. Even Satanists would agree that providing health care for a mentally retarded person or dismantling a meth lab is a good idea.

Aside from separation of church and state, our Constitution was designed to provide “liberty and justice for all.” This doesn’t mean liberty and justice for Christians, only. It means accommodating peoples of all nations, backgrounds, and beliefs.

We live in a Christian nation, and as a non-Christian, much like the bulk of non-Christians, I realize that and I have absolutely no problem with it. However, when one faith wants to create a theocracy in a democracy, they should proceed with caution, because they may find out that when the majority rules, it might not be the majority they had in mind.