An Historical Perspective on a Muslim Being Sworn into Congress on the Koran

Part III

by David Barton

January 2007

When President Madison took office, he was immediately engulfed with the issues that led to the War of 1812, and was unable to respond with military force against the renewed terrorist attacks. (Significantly, during that time, American Jewish Diplomat Mordecai Noah negotiated with the Muslims in an attempt to secure the release of captured American Christians. [i])

When the war with the British ended in 1815, Madison dispatched warships and the military against Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli, placing the American forces under the command of Stephen Decatur and William Bainbridge (two veteran military heroes of the war on terror under Jefferson). America quickly subdued Algiers and brought her to the peace table where in July 1815, Algiers ratified a treaty freeing all Christians and ending future slavery of Christians. [ii] The American fleet then sailed for Tunis, but immediately after their departure, Algiers renounced the treaty. However, two of the other nations being harassed by Muslim terrorists (Great Britain and the Netherlands) brought their fleets against Algiers and promptly defeated her, convincing Algiers to sign a new peace treaty. [iii]

Meanwhile, the American forces confronted Tunis, and later returned to Algiers, where in December 1816, another treaty was signed to replace the one Algiers had renounced. [iv] Thus America's first War on Terror against Muslim terrorists was finally ended. After thirty-two years of conflict and six years of armed warfare, the terrorist attacks against Americans finally subsided.

During that extended conflict, the American public learned much about the character of the Muslim terrorists through the official correspondence between the State Department and its diplomats. For example, in addition to the insights gained from diplomats such as Adams and Jefferson, General William Eaton informed the Secretary of State why the Muslims were such dedicated foes:

Taught by revelation that war with the Christians [i.e., America] will guarantee the salvation of their souls, . . . their [the Muslims'] inducements to desperate fighting are very powerful. [v]

Even further insight came from General Eaton's writings after he commenced military action against Tripoli:

April 8th. We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Musselmen [Muslims]. We have a difficult undertaking! [vi]

May 23rd. Hassien Bey, the commander in chief of the enemy's forces, has offered by private insinuation for my head six thousand dollars and double the sum for me a prisoner; and $30 per head for Christians. Why don't he come and take it? [vii]

Throughout the extended conflict, Muslims viewed their actions in terms of a holy war against Christians; America, however, engaged in no religious war. Therefore, in the numerous treaties with the Barbary Powers, America sought to convince the Muslims there was no holy war – that as Christians, America had no hatred of Muslims per se. (Language typical in the treaties was that America had no "enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility" of the Muslims, and that our substantial differences of "religious opinions shall [n]ever produce an interruption of the harmony between the two nations." [viii]) America did not retaliate against Muslims because of their faith but rather to end their terrorism against Americans.

 At the time the Constitution was written in 1787, and ratified from 1787-1790, Muslim attacks against Americas had been occurring for years. It therefore became an understandable concern of citizens as to whether a Muslim might ever be elected to federal office under the new Constitution. The question was raised because of Article VI in the Constitution, which declared:

The Senators and Representatives . . . shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Citizens wanted to know if the clause prohibiting a religious test (i.e., prohibiting the federal government from examining the religious beliefs of any candidate) meant that Muslims – then warring against America – might be elected to federal office. Not only was that question specifically raised but it was also succinctly answered in the process of debating and ratifying the U. S. Constitution. For example, in the North Carolina ratifying convention, Governor Samuel Johnston explained:

It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans, Pagans, &c., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans (or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion) can never be elected to the office of President or other high office but in one of two cases. First, if the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves. Another case is if any persons of such descriptions should, notwithstanding their religion, acquire the confidence and esteem of the people of America by their good conduct and practice of virtue, they may be chosen. [ix]

Signer of the Constitution Richard Dobbs Spaight similarly explained:

As to the subject of religion. . . . [n]o power is given to the general [federal] government to interfere with it at all. . . . No sect is preferred to another. Every man has a right to worship the Supreme Being in the manner he thinks proper. No test is required. All men of equal capacity and integrity are equally eligible to offices. . . . I do not suppose an infidel, or any such person, will ever be chosen to any office unless the people themselves be of the same opinion. [x]

Supreme Court Justice James Iredell (nominated to the Court by President Washington) agreed:

But it is objected that the people of America may perhaps choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. . . . But it is never to be supposed that the people of America will trust their dearest rights to persons who have no religion at all, or a religion materially different from their own. [xi]

Theophilus Parsons (Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts) also affirmed:

No man can wish more ardently than I do that all our public offices may be filled by men who fear God and hate wickedness; but it must remain with the electors to give the government this security. [xii]

The scope of Article VI was made clear by the writers and ratifiers of the U. S. Constitution: Muslims could be elected to office – but only if the people of that district desired it. Justice Joseph Story, placed on the Court by James Madison, therefore explained in his famous Commentaries on the Constitution that because of Article VI, on the federal level it was possible that . . .

the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Armenian, the Jew and the Infidel [Muslim], may sit down at the common table of the national councils without any inquisition into their faith or mode of worship. [xiii]

Through the Constitution, the Framers had constrained the federal government; however, they had left the people completely free – that is, the federal government could not apply any religious test, but the voters could. As a court explained in 1837:

The distinction is a sound one between a religion preferred by law, and a religion preferred by the people without the coercion of law – between a legal establishment which the present constitution expressly forbids . . . and a religious creed freely chosen by the people for themselves. [xiv]

Keith Ellison was selected by the voters of the 5th Congressional District of Minnesota in the process specified by the U. S. Constitution. Perhaps Ellison was chosen because the voters there "laid aside the Christian religion," or perhaps because Ellison "acquired the confidence and esteem of the people by his good conduct and practice of virtue," or because "the people themselves are of the same opinion." The reasons matter not, for Ellison was the legitimate choice of the voters of the 5th District, and neither the federal government nor citizens outside Minnesota's 5th District may do anything about it. The rest of the nation may be offended by what Ellison did with the Koran, but that is irrelevant to the legitimacy of his office; he was not elected to represent the nation but rather the voters in his district – as the other 434 Members in the U. S. House of Representatives were elected to represent the voters in their respective districts.

Yet, that being said, is there still an understandable element of concern with Ellison's election? Certainly. After all, America and Americans are currently the target of attacks by members of the same Islamic faith that Ellison professes; and while Ellison may not hold the same specific beliefs as America's enemies, he nevertheless holds the same religion. That America might be concerned about Ellison because of the behavior of others in his religion may seem unfair, but it is reality. Consider the recent election results as an example.

Exit polls affirm that the top issue for voters in 2006 was "corruption and ethics." [xv] This was logical considering the highly-publicized indictments (and near indictments) of so many Republicans over the previous two years: Rep. Duke Cunningham, Rep. Tom Delay, Rep. Bob Ney, Scooter Libby (Chief of Staff for the Vice-President), Tony Rudy and Michael Scanlon (from the office of the House Majority Leader), Governor Bob Taft, Governor Ernie Fletcher, Karl Rove's multiple visits to a Grand Jury, the Jack Abramoff scandal, the sex scandal of Rep. Mark Foley, etc. Clearly, Republicans appeared "dirty" (even though Democrat U. S. Rep. William Jefferson was tainted, there were far fewer Democrats in the news for corruption problems); and since "corruption and ethics" was a top issue for voters, Republicans paid the price. Consequently, voters threw several dozen Republicans out of federal office.

Yet many Republicans who lost in that political tsunami were completely clean from any charge of corruption (e.g., Rep. Jim Ryun, Rep. John Hostettler, Sen. Jim Talent, etc.); nevertheless, they were the victims of their scandalized associates – that is, the perception accorded the guilty Republicans was projected onto the innocent ones simply by virtue of the fact that they, too, were Republicans. The same is true with Keith Ellison's Muslim faith.

Ellison may not have the same beliefs as the Muslims who openly decry and even attack America; nevertheless, their behavior reflects on him. It is therefore understandable that citizens outside his district are highly concerned. This concern was heightened by the fact that Ellison himself publicly flaunted his abrogation of American precedent by making his swearing-in on the Koran a national issue. After all, the ceremonial swearing-in is always a private ceremony, and what he did there would not have been an issue; however, he chose to make that private ceremony a public demonstration in the face of all Americans. Did any of the other 434 Members make a national issue of what they would do in their private swearing-in? No, only Ellison; he therefore should not decry the national controversy that he created.

By David Barton Click here for bio and archived articles