Under House rules, the official swearing-in-ceremony is done in the House chambers, with the Speaker of the House administering the oath of office en masse. No Bible or other holy books are used at all. [ADL (Anti-Defamation League) Statement on Dennis Prager’s Attack on Muslim Congressman for Taking the oath of…]

Religion has, once again, become the topic of heated controversy in the U.S. Keith Ellison, a Black Muslim, was elected to the 110th Congress from Minnesota. As far as Mr. Ellison is concerned, there shouldn’t be any controversy about his oath-taking-ceremony. He will take the oath in a traditional manner in which no book is used for the ceremony. The controversy was sparked by a news item in The New York Times of November 9, 2006, which included a statement, “Arabs news reports highlighted the fact that Mr. Ellison would probably take the oath of office on the Koran, something which also upset Muslim-bashers in the blogosphere... Some suggested it meant he would pledge allegiance to Islamic law rather than to upholding the Constitution.”

It was picked up by the radio-talk show host and columnist, Dennis Prager, who wrote on November 28, 2006, “that the Minnesota Democrat ‘has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.” This is a hateful accusation. Aside from the basic issue of the oath, his assertion of Koran being the bible of Islam is ridiculous. He should know, as many Christians and Jews do, that Muslims recognize Bible as the Word of God so that Muslims’ bible is not different from the bible of the Christendom. However, Koran is not a bible. He further went on, “He should not be allowed to do so – not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.. In so far as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible.”

This again is a distortion of facts. American civilization is not the Christian civilization. America’s constitution is secular which does not discriminate among religions and states upfront, “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States,” (Article VI of the U.S. Constitution).

Although Mr. Ellison has not said that he wants to take oath on the Koran, if he wants to do so in a private ceremony, his wishes should be honored. Religion in America is a personal and a private belief-system; Christianity is not the religion of the U.S although it is conceded that it is the religion of the majority. Secular constitution precisely guards against such exploitation where the majority tries to impose its will on the minorities.

According to “The Oath of Office” (http://usinfo.gov/special/inauguration_oath.html), The president-elect traditionally takes the oath with his hand on the Bible. However, this is not a requirement – Theodore Roosevelt took the oath in 1901 without swearing on a Bible.”

According to Randy Hall (Muslim Congressman Won’t Use Koran When Taking Oath of Office), “Ellison will not use any book during the ceremony, Dave Colling, who served as the Minnesota Democrat’s campaign manager, told Cybercast News Service, ‘Neither will any other member of the House…since no one has ever taken the oath of office in Congress with a Bible, a Koran, a Torah or anything else.’”

It appears that Dennis Prager, a Jew, and the other Muslim-bashers are pathetically allergic to Koran, the holy book of the Muslims. They found opportunities, where none exists, to attack Islam, the Muslims and their holy book. Fortunately, the national constitution provides protection against such harassment. If according to their logic, oath should be taken on Bible because of a long tradition, it should be remembered that tradition is no substitute of the constitution. If a member with a religion of say Hinduism doesn’t want to use the Bible for oath-taking-ceremony, it only makes sense because he doesn’t believe in the Bible. Such an act would only be hypocritical. If instead he wants to use Gita for the ceremony, it should be quite sensible because he has faith in Gita.

But this is all besides the point. The constitution doesn’t require any book to be used in the oath-taking-ceremony and that is how it should be.