Sometimes it’s interesting to take an idea to its logical conclusion. Regular readers may recall that I weighed in when Dennis Prager questioned whether it was right to remove the Bible from a Congressional swearing-in ceremony. I originally thought Mr. Prager had erred because he wasn’t thinking about the nature of oath-taking. Thanks to a very astute comment from JJ, though, I started really thinking about the Koran and the Constitution, and whether the two can exist simultaneously in the same political universe. Those thoughts resulted in this article at the American Thinker.
I’d like to emphasize here, as I did at the end of this article, that I have absolutely no reason to believe that Keith Ellison is anything but a staunch American. I disagree with his political positions, not because they are Koranically based and therefore antithetical to the Constitution, but because they are liberally Democratic based, and therefore antithetical to my conservative political viewpoints.
Just as Kennedy wasn’t commanded by Rome, I do not believe Ellison is commanded by Iran or any other Islamic theocracy. Nevertheless, I think it’s worth thinking about the implications of his willingness to place his holy book front and center when it comes to his Congressional position. Fairly pure logic, mostly untainted by a politician’s real world conduct and statements, indicates that there may be a Constitutional problem brewing in America’s future.
(Welcome, American Thinker readers.)Email This Post To A Friend
14 Responses to “Reductio ad absurdum”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.