On the January 3 broadcast of Fox News Radio 600 KCOL's Mornings with Keith and Gail!, hosts Keith Weinman and Gail Fallen praised the criticisms made by conservative talk show host and Townhall.com columnist Dennis Prager and U.S. Rep. Virgil Goode Jr. (R-VA) of U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison's (D-MN) decision to use a Quran for a ceremonial swearing-in photo opportunity. Weinman and Fallen also repeated and praised numerous falsehoods regarding the decision by Ellison, who is the first Muslim elected to Congress.

Calling Prager's November 28, 2006, article a “fabulous piece,” Fallen repeated Prager's critical comments about “allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done -- choose his own most revered book [the Quran] for his oath.” Fallen noted that Prager asserted Ellison was allowed to use the Quran because “Ellison is a Muslim” and that Ellison's choice to use the Quran “exemplifies multiculturalist activism.” She later asked if Ellison's use of the Quran is “something that should give us reason for pause, or should it send us running and screaming into the night?”

Weinman repeated Prager's claim that Ellison's use of the Quran during the ceremonial swearing-in photo-op “will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists rightly or wrongly see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal, the Islamitization of America.”

As Media Matters for America has noted, other conservative media personalities have made similar statements. On the November 30 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity repeated Prager's “Islamitization of America” argument, saying that Ellison's decision “will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, and they'll see it as the first sign and realization of a greatest goal, which is the, you know, making Islam the religion of America.”

Weinman also uncritically repeated comments by Goode, who drew criticism for a letter he wrote to his constituents denouncing Ellison over the swearing-in ceremony and connecting Ellison's use of the Quran with immigration of Muslims to the United States. Weinman said, “A congressman from Virginia, Republican Virgil Goode Jr., jumped into the fray, saying, 'Ellison's oath on the Quran might encourage other Muslims to seek office.' Goode, from Virginia, said, 'I am for restricting immigration so that we don't have a majority of Muslims elected to the United States House of Representatives.' ”

After Fallen described the congressional swearing-in ceremony as being done “en masse,” in which “there is no holy book ... there's no Bible,” Weinman then falsely asserted that Ellison would be “swearing on the Quran instead of doing it en masse with all the other people who've been elected to the Congress of the United States.”

In fact, as USA Today noted in a December 1 article: “Members of the House of Representatives traditionally raise their right hands and are sworn in together on the floor of the chamber. The ritual sometimes seen as the swearing-in is actually a ceremonial photo op with the speaker of the House that usually involves a Bible.”

As the weblog Think Progress reported, "[N]either the Christian Bible, nor any other religious text, ha[s] ever been used in an official capacity during the ceremony," although "[o]ccasionally, Members pose for symbolic photo-ops with their hand on a Bible."

Claiming that Ellison's faith presented a “very, very serious problem,” Fallen also uncritically repeated a number of falsehoods from an instant message sent in by a listener during the broadcast.

FALLEN: But here's where it gets interesting, says [listener]: Ellison is a Sunni Muslim and due to their beliefs, there is nothing higher to them than Shariah law and the Quran. So in this instance, Ellison is bound to those edicts, rather than having to adhere to those stated in the U.S. Constitution. As you can understand, this presents a very, very serious problem.

As Media Matters has noted, conservative pundits have tried to raise doubts about Ellison's commitment to his country because of his Islamic faith. On the November 14 edition of his CNN Headline News program, host Glenn Beck said to Ellison during an interview: “I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.' ” Beck added: “I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.”

Contrary to Fallen's assertion that “Ellison is bound to those edicts [of the Quran], rather than having to adhere to those stated in the U.S. Constitution,” Ellison asserted during a December 24 National Public Radio Weekend Edition broadcast that “the document that we all should focus on is not any religious text -- that's personal -- but the Constitution; that's where our focus needs to be. And the Constitution explicitly prohibits any government body from having a religious test for an elected official.”

Fallen later uncritically repeated a passage from the listener's instant message, stating: “It seems, continues [listener], that Ellison has been connected to Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. This group is subversive; their hatred of whites and Jews well known.”

As Colorado Media Matters has noted, Ellison acknowledged a brief association with the Nation of Islam in the 1990s but has since denounced Farrakhan and the organization. In a May 28, 2006, letter to the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas, Ellison wrote:

I saw in the Nation of Islam, and specifically the Million Man March, an effort to promote African-American self-sufficiency, personal responsibility, and community economic development. I did not adequately scrutinize the positions and statements of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, and Khalid Muhammed. I wrongly dismissed concerns that they were anti-Semitic. They were and are anti-Semitic and I should have come to that conclusion earlier than I did. I regret that I didn't. But at no time did I ever share their hateful views or repeat or approve of their hateful statements directed at Jews, gays or any other group.

Ellison also stated in the letter, “I have long since distanced myself from and rejected the Nation of Islam due to its propagation of bigoted and anti-Semitic ideas and statements, as well as other issues ... and I reject and condemn the anti-Semitic statements and actions of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, and Khalid Muhammed.”

From the January 3 broadcast of Fox News Radio 600 KCOL's Mornings with Keith and Gail!:

WEINMAN: Dennis Prager said: “Using a Quran undermines American civilization. An act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multicultural activism. If you are incapable of taking an oath on the Bible, don't serve in the United States Congress.” A congressman from Virginia, Republican Virgil Goode Jr., jumped into the fray, saying, “Ellison's oath on the Qur'an might encourage other Muslims to seek office.” Goode, from Virginia, said, “I am for restricting immigration so that we don't have a majority of Muslims elected to the United States House of Representatives. Keep in mind, the oath of office is a ritual intended as a way for the takers of the oath to invoke God as a witness to their promise. Swearing on a sacred religious book is a way to make the oath of office more significant. John Quincy Adams declined to take his presidential oath on a Bible. He said the Bible should be reserved for religious purposes. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg swore on a Hebrew Bible. Is attempting to force Ellison to swear on a Bible taking the oath for the office of Congress of the United States representing the state of Minnesota un-American?”

[...]

FALLEN: Fabulous piece on TownHall.com, titled “America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on,” written by Dennis Prager. To excerpt: “Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest since he believes in the Quran and not in the Bible he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. ”But" -- says Dennis Prager -- “for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament. And the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either, yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office, say, on the collected works of Voltaire, or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible. Nor,” says Prager, “has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. And it's hard to imagine a Scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of 'Dianetics' by L. Ron Hubbard. So why,” asks Dennis Prager, “are we allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done -- choose his own most revered book for his oath? The answer, of course, is obvious: it exemplifies multiculturalist activism and, need we be reminded, Ellison is a Muslim.”

[...]

WEINMAN: Talk show host Dennis Prager says, why are we allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done: choose his own most revered book for the oath to the Congress of the United States. The answer is obvious: Ellison is a Muslim, and whoever decides these matters -- not to mention virtually every editorial page in America -- is not going to offend a Muslim. In fact, many of these people argue it'll be a good thing because Muslims around the world will see what an open society America is, and how much Americans honor Muslims and the Quran. The argument appeals to all of those who believe that one of the greatest goals of America is to be loved by the world and especially by Muslims because then fewer Muslims will hate us, fewer will bomb us, says Prager, but these naïve people don't appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Quran for the Bible in his oath of office. In fact the opposite is more likely; Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists rightly or wrongly see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal, the Islamitization of America.

FALLEN: Now, [listener] via IM this morning obviously has done his homework, and he writes -- you're welcome to do so as well at 600 kcol.com -- the issue has changed from a discussion of whether he should be permitted to take his oath on the Quran or not. According to [listener], Ellison will not be the first to take the oath on something other than a Bible: Debbie Wasserman Schultz [D-FL] took the oath on the Torah when she officially became a U.S. congressperson four years ago. But here's where it gets interesting, says [listener]: Ellison is a Sunni Muslim and due to their beliefs, there is nothing higher to them than Shariah law and the Quran. So in this instance, Ellison is bound to those edicts, rather than having to adhere to those stated in the U.S. Constitution. As you can understand, this presents a very, very serious problem. It seems, continues [listener], that Ellison has been connected to Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. This group is subversive, their hatred of whites and Jews well known. There is a picture on the Internet showing Ellison distributing a Nation of Islam newspaper -- it could be a fake, but I doubt it very much. Then there is this fact: Ellison was an invited speaker and attended the conference put together by the famous, or should I say infamous, “flying imams” -- yes, the ones who caused the ruckus for USAir last month.

[...]

FALLEN: Here's what I didn't realize: Apparently when congressmen are sworn in, it is done en masse. And apparently there is no holy book. There's no Mad Magazine, there's no Voltaire, there's no Bible, it's just done en masse. This whole controversy over Keith Ellison will transpire during a private swearing-in, but here's where it gets really interesting: It's a private swearing-in ceremony, but it's also a photo-op. [laughs] So what does that tell you?

WEINMAN: So it's a private swearing-in, so it's also a photo-op so that he can take the oath, swearing on the Quran instead of doing it en masse with all the other people who've been elected to the Congress of the United States, in which none of them are standing with their hand on a Bible.

FALLEN: Right, right. Now apparently, the actual swearing-in will take place tomorrow, but I'm trying to find out, I'm trying to ascertain when exactly this private photo-op, swearing-in fiasco, for lack of a better term, will take place. But the question stands: Are we making a mountain out of a molehill here by the fact that Keith Ellison wants to do this private swearing-in ceremony using a Quran in accordance with his faith? Is that something that should give us reason for pause, or should set us running and screaming into the night? Is it a constitutional issue?