A brief summary: Mr. Ellison, who is black, is an incoming first-term Democrat and the first Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress. Shortly after the midterm election results were declared, Ellison announced his intention to use a Koran instead of a Bible at his swearing-in ceremony. Predictably, few on the political left decried the decision, and surprisingly few voices were raised against it even in conservative circles. The decision and its announcement generated few waves and appeared destined for obscurity. However, that all changed with Dennis Prager’s November 28^th column, in which the noted radio talk show host and commentator blasted Ellison’s decision as “...an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- my culture trumps America's culture.” Despite a carefully-crafted argument, Prager found himself on the defensive, and labeled as a hater of Muslims, a racist or the like. In his November 5^th column, Prager offered some modifications to his previous views, detailed responses to his critics and a challenge to Ellison to honor American civilization by bring a Bible as well as a Koran to his ceremony.

As the news cycle left the story behind, I continued to ruminate upon this affair. Something about it troubled me, something I could not put my finger on. Ellison himself appears to be intelligent and ambitious, and headed for a successful career in liberal politics both in his home state and nationally. If he possesses any character flaws, they aren’t immediately apparent. I do not agree with his politics, but that is not sufficient cause for my uneasiness. Nor am I uneasy because of his race; I am racially blind – or at least strive to be. Character is more important to me than skin color, and always has been. What is the source of my trepidation? Could it be his religion, since he is Muslim? I cherish the freedom to worship the God of my choice, or no God at all, and agree that there cannot be a religious test for holding elected office in the United States. I fully acknowledge that there are many decent Muslims whom I would welcome as neighbors and fellow citizens. So why was I still ill at ease?

The answer is surprisingly simple: Ellison belongs to a religion that divides the world into two camps, believers and infidels, the houses Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. The cause of my concern is the cognitive dissonance between Ellison himself and the religion he follows. Unlike Judaism and Christianity, which have renounced violence as a means of spreading their beliefs, Muhammad himself sanctioned the sword as a means of spreading the influence of Islam. No Reformation and Enlightenment have occurred to curb its harsh nature, as they did in Christianity. Islam recognizes no separation between church and state, or between the private and the public spheres of life.

Mr. Ellison, like every American, is entitled to the presumption of innocence. He has not broken the law or acted seditiously. But if his behavior has been correct and legal, it has left many questions unanswered. Sometimes, it is what is left unsaid that is important, and not just what is said. Every Congressional representative – regardless of race, creed or religion – should strive to maintain transparency and open lines of communication with the electorate. Voters want to know where their representatives stand. This is doubly so when the Congressman in question is a Muslim, and we are fighting his coreligionists overseas. It is perhaps unfair that Mr. Ellison should be in such a position, but it is a reality that people fear change. As a pioneer, Ellison should recognize that he has a special responsibility to answer forthrightly questions about his religion and its possible effects on his choices as a legislator. Yet, he has chosen to remain silent. In the absence of stated positions, and given the choice Ellison has made to use only the Koran at his swearing-in, it is more understandable that many conservatives – including this author – feel tension and unease about the growing influence of American Muslims. Like nature, politics abhors a vacuum. One is led to wonder about many things.

Any number of questions could be reasonably asked of Mr. Ellison, such as:

1. You appear to be well-trained in the law, but what about history? I hope you learned at a young age that the United States is founded upon Judeo-Christian values, and that our founding fathers had an abiding belief in God. This is not mere opinion, but verifiable fact. If one reads through the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and the Federalist Papers, nowhere is the Muslim faith or Allah or Muhammad mentioned. Instead, theses sacred documents invoke a Judeo-Christian God and speak of values derived directly from the Bible and the Ten Commandments. Although this fact makes many multiculturalists acutely uncomfortable, it is nevertheless true. That raises a question: How will you decide when the values of the Koran disagree with those of the Bible and our Judeo-Christian heritage? Whose vision of the law and governance do you support, that of the Founding Fathers, or of Muhammad?

2. Prior to being elected, you refused to outline your positions on the various issues facing our nation today, per a request by the nonpartisan group “Project Vote-Smart.” Why is that, Mr. Congressman? Do you have something to hide?

3. Do you support the war against Islamic Extremism? If so, why haven’t you publicly declared that support? You have remained silent about the heinous crimes of your fellow Muslims, who see no evil in beheading Indonesian schoolgirls whose only “crime” was to attend a Christian school, or in the killing of Western volunteers working nonviolently in the Islamic world. Sadly, another act of Islamic terrorism will occur soon somewhere in the world. Will you condemn it or will you offer excuses and apologies as so many of your Muslim brethren have?

4. Will you work to support the introduction of basic human rights into repressive states such as Saudi Arabia and the many other places that deny their citizens the basic right to choose their own religion or to even own a Bible? Will you continue the relentless leftist multiculturalist critique of Christianity even as you forgive anything that Muslims do? I hope you don’t need to be reminded, but you work for the voters and not the ACLU or CAIR.

Almost a half century ago, Presidential hopeful John F. Kennedy faced a dilemma not unlike yours in some respects. He strove to be the first Roman-Catholic elected as President of the United States. Skeptics questioned whether he would serve the Vatican before the electorate. Would Kennedy be independent of Rome or beholden to it? To answer his critics and lay the issue to rest, Kennedy boldly took a stand in front of an audience of Protestant clergy in Texas, declaring his allegiance to American interests first. Never would his Catholicism interfere with his duty. By answering his critics, Kennedy told us whose values he would serve.

Whose values will you serve, Congressman Ellison?