Though I am not suggesting that we exclude in a legal sense potential candidates because they have not read the Bible, voters would do well to recognize that to function in a system you must understand the system and your role. If I am to babysit, I need to understand the responsibilities on me in protecting and entertaining the children as well as details about whom to call in an emergency, where the snacks are, and whether the kids may watch cartoons. Who can be an effective member of our government system without at the very least respecting the Book whose values provided the foundation of our country?
On the contrary, the book that Mr. Ellison wants to have present at his ceremony, while having high value to him, has proven itself as a founding document of other countries' governments to be antithetical to the values Americans hold dear. The very freedom of religion Mr. Ellison attempts to claim in his defense is not to be found in his book, or in countries built in the context of his religion.
Does he know and respect the Bible? Is he acquainted with history? Will he impose the values of his book on a diametrically different system? If his answers are satisfactory, why does he refuse to have the Bible present at his ceremony? His oath of office is:
"I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
To God be all glory.
See Introduction.
No comments:
Post a Comment