Recent dialogue regarding Congressman-elect Keith Ellison and his preference to take the oath of office with his hand on the Koran and not the Bible has spawned many responses from citizens on both sides of the issue.
On the one hand, there is the desire of some to continue the United States’ tradition as begun by our forefathers.
On the other is the issue of religious freedom and that, by the Constitution, religion has no place in official government actions.
What to do?
I have two possible solutions. I can imagine that the tradition of taking an oath of office with a hand on the Bible may have begun as a symbol of the elected official making a promise before what he believed to be his highest authority.
At that time, most Americans were of a Christian belief.
This is just my opinion, as I am not a historian. If, though, this is true, then to have an individual of Muslim or any other non-Christian faith swear an oath on the Bible would be meaningless to that individual.
I suggest that an oath would be far more binding, either personally or symbolically, if the elected official were allowed to choose which article of scripture to use.
The above argument still leaves out one group of Americans: those who are atheist. And so I offer a second option, which I think would be acceptable to everyone. That is to remove religious symbolism completely, as many already believe we should do. Since elected officials are really taking an oath to the U.S., why not have them take it with a hand on or in the presence of the U.S. Constitution, which they are truly pledging to uphold?
