Wow, somebody's had a nerve struck to post something as trivial as this. Worried that they're going to be more Keith Ellison's in the world than JohnnMoJo's according to your projections? I have most of the contents of a half-gallon of milk on my kitchen counter ready for you if you want to sob over that, too.

What is the point in swearing on a book other than the one you hold sacred? I'd ban swearing on any book, because it's a frickin' joke. Especially if Christians expect people of other faiths to swear on their Bible. That is beyond dumb.

Hmm. Does it say in the Constitution that Congressmen must swear on the Bible? Has this been made a law?

One, it's cheating to say that Jews have sworn on the Bible, because the Torah is just a truncated version of the Bible, with different translation and end point. Also, Mormons are Christians, and therefore the Bible IS the holiest book - the Book of Mormon is just an extension of the best book in town.

Two, this comes up every so often when you run into candidates who feel uncomfortable swearing on a Bible, and there are options. In fact, Quakers have had problems with the idea of swearing oaths in general, Bible or no. Thus, since the writing of the Constitution, there has been the option to recite an affirmation instead of an oath. Plenty of people have used that option, including two U.S. Presidents, Franklin Pierce and Herbert Hoover.

Three, oaths of office have never included reference to God. The presidential one is the only one that appeals to a deity, and even then, it's only out of a tradition that George Washington started, nothing absolute in the oath itself. The British, however, had everyone swear on a Bible back in those days to rule out non-Christians from serving office and jury duty; that legal atmosphere was transported to America, of course. But I'd like to think we've moved past that.

Four, who says it's America's holiest book? Certainly not American Muslims. Do you mean to say that the majority of Americans believe it is the holiest book? Should we then forgo the rights of the minority to please the whims of the majority? The ideas behind the Constitution are preservation and protection of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If we start legislating the majority's desires at the expense of the minority's rights, then we lose that preservation and protection of liberty we hold so dear.

Your statements above have certainly proved one thing: that clearly whatever this is, it's not about him serving in Congress, either. It's about what he chooses to believe in his personal life.

So, should I take the time to go grab a bunch of choice quotes from the Bible too, or would that be equally petty and unfair to your beliefs as this attack thread on Keith is to his?

First, is this a theocracy or a secular government?

Second, on the topic itself, here's a better question: if someone takes an oath of office on a book they don't believe in, doesn't that make that oath immediately invalid? Wouldn't you rather someone swear on something they believe in, be it the Bible, the Quran, the Holy Spaghetti-O, or the Precious?

So did Congress make a law establishing a state religion? Because I seem to remember something in the Constitution about that. You may hold the bible as your holiest book, but - and I know this comes as a shock to evangelical Christians - just because you believe it doesn't make it so.

I think if all politicians had to swear on their lucky charms we'd all be better off.

I think Johnny is right in that the bible is America's holiest book. If you add together all the people that believe in the holiness of various books, the bible would come out on top. Just because it's not holy to some people doesn't mean it's not America's holiest book.

I think you mean when placed in certain interpretations, but we've already had that thread.

No, not interpretations. The ones we have discussed are clear enough. One can't dismiss all reading to interpretation.

"Sorry officer, I just interpreted that stop sign different than you. Can't you respect my interpretation?"

Oh, and:

You should understand that Congress isn't about the Bible, or you shouldn't be voting.

Are we really going to play take-the-holy-book-out-of-context?

I can go get the parts that say that slavery is a good thing too if you want.

It's like kicking a wasp's nest.

I couldn't care less what he chooses to believe in his personal life. If he doesn't want to take an oath on the Bible, that is fine...he can swear his affirmation and be done.

My point is that we are allowing Mr. Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever gotten to do...substitute a book of his own choosing for the Bible. Part of the purpose of the oath is affirmation that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. That purpose supersedes his individual desire.

"But mom, I didn't get to date until I was seventeen! Why does Sally May get to start dating at 16?! It's not faaaaaaiiiiiiir!!!"

Has this issue ever been brought up in Federal Courts? I see that it has been brought up in N.C. State courts, but that was going with state law. Is there a Federal law that states "You must swear on the King James Bible"?

Actually, in the same article the writer cites an example where a Federal judge allowed witnesses in a case to swear to Allah. I think we are reaching definite grey area here.

That's a good point. I'd like to swear on "The Message: Remix" (http://www.amazon.com/Message-Remix-Bible-Contemporary-Language/dp/1576834344/sr=8-1/qid=1164737161/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-0727419-2375161?ie=UTF8&s=books) if I ever have to take an oath. It's still the Bible, sort of, so it should be all good.