Quran or Not?

There is much ado about Keith Ellison's decision to take his oath of office (actually the photo-op after the oath - NOT the actual oath) with his hand on the Quran instead of the Bible. Much is being said about whether or not this is appropriate and my colleagues on the more conservative blogs are positively incensed. I would urge us to take a moment and step back.

To begin with, why did our founding fathers use the Bible to take an oath? One would presume that it was because they were all Christian and this being the holiest book of the Christian faith, it would thereby give the oath the utmost legitimacy. At no point did they mandate the use of the Bible (although they would have probably all agreed on its use) because it wouldn't have occurred to them that anyone would use anything else.

As the demographic of our country changes, the commonality of the Bible as the holiest book in one's religion is becoming less and less widespread. I would think the fact that Keith Ellison wants to take his oath on the holiest book of his religion would be something that we could all get behind (although his history suggests that his motives are more toward activism and rabble-rousing than legitimate concern over the value of his oath).

To ask Mr. Ellison to take the oath with his hand on the Bible, while calming to the Christian majority, and being in keeping with the precedent set, would give his oath the same weight as if it were taken with his hand on Tolkien's The Hobbit. It would be a book that he may respect, he may understand that many people hold in it high esteem, and it may even be a book he enjoys reading, but it wouldn't be the holiest book (in his eyes) that he could use.

I would think it admirable (and refreshingly honest) for any politician, be it Muslim, Jew, or even Druid, to honor the oath of office of any elected position enough to want to take it with their hand on the most sacred item they can find, be it the Bible, Torah, Quran, or even just a copy of the US Constitution (for our atheist friends). It signifies their willingness to devote everything they hold dear to the proper execution of the position. Anything less is to forsake true belief in anything of value and cave in to popular opinion for the sake of re-election (are you listening Hilary?)

Now whether that is Keith Ellison's true motivation is a completely different question that is certainly open for much debate and study.