Swearing on the Koran

There is a good deal of controvery over the fact that Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to the US Congress, has announced his intention to take the Oath of Office with his hand on the Koran rather than the Bible.

Three points should be observed:
1. The Constitution does not require that ANY book be employed, simply that officials take an oath, the text of which is established by statute. The actual "swearing-in" is done in a group setting; the individual oath-taking is merely ceremonial and has no legal significance.

2. The value of the oath sworn by any particular official is only as meaningful as the underlying value system to which he holds, i.e., if he doesn't mean to keep his word, it doesn't matter whether he holds a Bible, Koran or the Reader's Digest. In the case of Rep. Ellison, it is a question of his personal integrity as well as the degree to which, as a Muslim, he is bound to keep his word to what he must consider an "infidel" society.

3. Rep. Ellison's claims that it is his right to use whatever book he chooses because the US is a nation of religious tolerance. It is legitimate to ask whether the Koran, as a system of belief and law, could create and sustain such a culture of liberty.

Perhaps Rep. Ellison could point out where such a Muslim based culture of liberty currently exists or has ever existed.