Consider that the Constitution allows for "freedom of conscience" that is the right to worship some god(s), or be a non-theist, or atheist. Moreover, the US is not a xian *state* -- it is a secular state.

If an atheist ever got into the senate/congress what would he take his oath on?

On the off chance I get elected to anything, I'd swear upon the index book of an encyclopedia.

Sam Harris posted these 10 reasons and I thought they were good enough to repost.

Given that we know that atheists are often among the most intelligent and scientifically literate people in any society, it seems important to deflate the myths that prev

If an atheist ever got into the senate/congress what would he take his oath on?

Personally, I wouldn't take the oath on anything; I'd just raise my hand and affirm it. The idea that people will somehow be prevented from lying by placing their hands on a book strikes me as rank superstition. Either the voters should trust their candidate to do what is right based on the candidate's own integrity, or they shouldn't vote for that person at all.

No, in a rational world people would not even consider making a decision so ludicrous to be swearing in on either the Bible or the Koran.

That's a good point, Archi Medez, and one I didn't think of myself. Maybe I can say in my own defense that I was only referring to a world more rational than ours, not maximally rational. :)

I share your concern over Ellison's rumored connections to disreputable groups. But the voters put him in office knowing who he is and what he believes, so I think he at least deserves a chance to show that he doesn't share the evil, theocratic beliefs held by so many members of his faith. If it turns out he does, then that is a problem and I will join any right-wing politician or pundit in condemning him (just as I condemn Christian politicians who interpret literally the similarly odious statements in their holy text). Fortunately, in either case we have a Constitution that protects American citizens from the theocratic depredations of elected officials, no matter what faith they belong to.

Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars brought up similar points on his blog here. There are some interesting comments in that second link, which offer some suggestions as to how a free society might prevent itself from being destroyed by elements in that society using the society's freedoms against it.

Actually "knickers are in a knot" in regards to both texts, or, more accurately, the fact that people still follow these texts today. As I said, in a rational society, neither Bible nor Koran would be used in the swearing in process. The topic in this thread deals with swearing in on the Koran. I am addressing that topic. If the topic were swearing in on the Bible, I'd address that topic, and explain why doing so is problematic.

Chris says: "Those concerns ought to have been raised on the campaign trail, so that the voters could make a decision on their validity. (You do remember democracy, right?)"

It is ridiculous for you to imply that I am somehow not observant of democracy, just for asking some reasonable questions. Democracy requires people to be well-informed. The sorts of questions I've raised should have been raised and thoroughly investigated, but were they? Not that I'm aware of. On the other hand, if you know the answers to my questions, then please do inform.

"Certainly the Koran contains some passages I find odious; but I could quote you as bad or worse out of the Bible and the Torah, to say nothing of the historical acts of all three Abrahamic religions. (Four if you count Mormonism as a separate religion and not a form of Christianity.)"

Your point is what? Again, it is reasonable to object, as a matter of opinion, to anyone who would swear in on either the Bible or the Koran, since both documents are full of hate and contain propositions that are contrary to the principles contained in the Constitution. In this case, the issue was over swearing in on the Koran. The Koran contains statements that are contrary to the constitution and American law. I'm pointing a few of them out by citing them.

"I don't know whether Ellison personally believes in any of that agenda, is just paying lip service to a cultural tradition he was raised in, or somewhere in between. All that is beside the point, because we have a no religious test clause. If the voters of Ellison's district don't think his religion is sufficient reason to deny him office, we shouldn't try to second-guess them."

On the contrary, if the voters have mistakenly elected someone who does not truly represent their views, then we have a problem, and yes, we should be concerned, and we should continue to examine this case until the issues are clarified.

In addition, as I mentioned in my post, Islam is not merely a religion. It is a political ideology and legal system. Now, you may object to Christians injecting their theocratic views into politics and law. So do I; and I also object to Muslims injecting their theocratically-based views into politics and law.

"I would prefer if we had an electorate that would reject any politician whose agenda is based on *any* sacred scripture (they wouldn't even have to be atheists, just people who respect the principle that government shouldn't take sides in religious disputes - and for all I know Ellison himself may be in this category), but we don't, and attempting to close the barn door to Islam while Christianity has already stolen the horse is absurd. And unconstitutional."

It would be absurd if that's what I'd claimed, but I didn't claim that. I said neither the Bible nor the Koran should be used for swearing in--a personal opinion.

"You can't construct an argument that it's OK to swear on the Bible but not the Koran without, at some level, arguing that the Bible is *better* than the Koran"

I didn't make that argument; nor do I agree with it (i.e., swearing in on one versus the other). As I said, my opinion is that neither the Bible nor the Koran (nor, indeed, any religious text) should be used in the swearing in process.

"- which is a type of argument government is expressly forbidden to engage in, by the Constitution and basic principles of religious freedom."

I'm not the government, and I'm not forbidden from making such an argument if I chose to do so, by the principle of freedom of expression.

"Don't you find it odd to be more concerned about one Muslim in the House than about five hundred or so Christians? If not, why not?"

First of all, in regards to the American situation, I do not perceive one Muslim in the House as being a bigger problem than the general theocratic Christian trend. Indeed, I think Mr. Ellison has probably benefited from the whole "religious, therefore good" assumption on the part of largely Christian voters (who are much more likely to vote for a Muslim than an atheist). Nevertheless, the issue is not what I perceive to be the bigger threat. The topic of this thread is Keith Ellison's choice to swear in on the Koran. I am addressing that topic and, in doing so, believe that it is appropriate to cite relevant verses from the Koran which are contrary to the constitution.

I would prefer if we had an electorate that would reject any politician whose agenda is based on *any* sacred scripture (they wouldn't even have to be atheists, just people who respect the principle that government shouldn't take sides in religious disputes - and for all I know Ellison himself may be in this category), but we don't, and attempting to close the barn door to Islam while Christianity has already stolen the horse is absurd. And unconstitutional.

You can't construct an argument that it's OK to swear on the Bible but not the Koran without, at some level, arguing that the Bible is *better* than the Koran - which is a type of argument government is expressly forbidden to engage in, by the Constitution and basic principles of religious freedom. Don't you find it odd to be more concerned about one Muslim in the House than about five hundred or so Christians? If not, why not?

My apologies for the tangled run-on sentence. My point was that the majority of the U.S. population is Christian, Jewish, or otherwise non-Muslim, yet the Koran mandates warfare against non-Muslims. Hence my concern about Ellison swearing in on the document that contains that mandate.

No, in a rational world people would not even consider making a decision so ludicrous to be swearing in on either the Bible or the Koran.
For rational critics who live in a predominantly irrational society, to actually read the Koran and find out whether there is cause for concern in such a “swearing in with Koran,” seems to be a rational move. Given that the Koran (9:29) mandates warfare ostensively in the name of religion against Christians, Jews, and other Non-Muslims (also see 9:5) and is now, and has always been, understood as mandating such by all major schools of Islamic jurisprudence, which make up the majority of the U.S. population, I think it is reasonable to be concerned about someone swearing in on such a document. The Koran asserts that Islam must dominate over all religions (9:33), and that Muslims must fight until all religion is for Allah (8:39).

What are Ellison’s views on all of this now, today? Does he accept those injunctions against the majority of Americans today, or does he view those injunctions as historically-specific commands that have no place in our society today? Until we have answers to such questions, no, the story should not end. On the contrary, we should be highly skeptical, highly suspect of his motives, and certainly no less so than Christian theocrats.

"No religious test shall ever be required." How much clearer can you get?
Americans are fortunate to have that statement in their Constitution. However, swearing in on a Koran is not merely a religious test. It is a political test. The Koran is, in its substance, a political and legal book (albeit a highly ambiguous, vaguely-worded one). It asserts that anyone who judges law by any other standard than “Allah’s” is a wrong-doer, disbeliever, etc. In Islam, merely being a “disbeliever” is considered a crime (not merely a ‘sin” but an actual criminal offence—indeed, the worst crime in Islam is disbelief and the penalty for apostasy today according to islamic jurisprudence is generally death) that must be punished at the very least with subjugation in accordance with 9:29 and the policy of subjugation now known as dhimmitude. Furthermore, the Koran is a document of Islamic supremacy, asserting that those who believe in Islam are “not equal” to those who disbelieve it (32:18); those who believe in Islam are the best of creatures (98:7) and that those who do not believe in Islam are the worst of creatures (98:6). The Koran promotes a quasi-racial notion of “cleanliness,” whereby non-Muslims and especially those regarded as polytheists, are unclean (najisun, 9:28). The Koran orders Muslim men to beat their wives from whom they “fear disobedience” (4:34). The Koran permits Muslim men to have slave-girls for sex, (4:24, 70:29-30, 23:5-6) in addition to their multiple wives (4:3), and takes for granted the legality of marriage to pre-pubescent girls in its divorce rulings (65:4). The Koran stipulates that Muslim males must inherit twice what their female siblings inherit (4:11). Islam forbids any free expressions that are in any way critical of Islam or Muhammad (again, the penalties are severe, including death).

“On the contrary, it is based on the very principle Ellison intends to uphold, the principle of individual freedom to choose which religion one will practice.”

We don’t know that Ellison intends to uphold individual freedom to choose which religion one will practice. For example, what are his views in regard to people of so-called “non-Abrahamic” faiths (i.e., basically everything other than Islam, Christianity, and Judaism)? We know what Islamic orthodoxy and the Koran say (i.e., there is no religious freedom in any meaningful sense of the phrase). So, what is Ellison’s interpretation of the Islamic scriptures? How does he explain away the hate, insults, discrimination, and conflict in the Koran? Does he take some kind of approach like liberal Christians and shrug it all off as metaphorical, historically-specific, etc.? Until I have answers to these questions, I think it is quite reasonable to be concerned about Ellison being a member of a highly political “religion” that is so contrary in its core princples to the U.S. Constitution and the values of free countries generally.

We also need to know if there is any substance to allegations that Ellison is a former member of the black supremacist Nation of Islam, and whether he is (or was) involved in any illicit dealings with CAIR (which has known terrorist connections).
Until such issues have been investigated, and until we have clear answers to these questions, the fact that Ellison has sworn in on a Koran is hardly cause for celebration (and I'm not saying that anyone here is celebrating the swearing in on the Koran).