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.