Rattle wrote:

The first Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress, attacked for planning to use the Koran at his swearing-in instead of a Bible, will use a copy of the Muslim holy book once owned by Thomas Jefferson, an official said on Wednesday.

Representative-elect Keith Ellison, a Minnesota Democrat, requested the 18th century copy of the Koran for the unofficial part of his swearing in on Thursday, according to Mark Dimunation, chief of rare books and special collections at the Library of Congress in Washington.

Ellison, a Muslim convert who traces his U.S. ancestry to 1741, wanted a special copy of the book to use, Dimunation said, and approached the library for one.

The third U.S. president, serving from 1801 to 1809, Jefferson was a collector with wide-ranging interests. His 6,000-volume library, the largest in North America at the time, became the basis for the Library of Congress.

I've been ignoring all the silly bickering about Ellison getting sworn in using a Koran, because frankly, it's too damn stupid for me to take seriously. As far as I'm concerned, the item used in any oath should have significance to the individual taking the oath. What is the use of taking an oath on something you don't find personally significant? He could use a picture of his mother for all I'd care.. However, I do think it's really neat that he is using Thomas Jefferson's copy of the Koran.

Aye. It seems like technically one shouldn't have to use an article of faith for the oath.

"...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" -- US Constitution, Article VI, Section 3

There's no Consitutional basis for such that I can see.

Hijexx wrote:
Aye. It seems like technically one shouldn't have to use an article of faith for the oath.

"...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" -- US Constitution, Article VI, Section 3

There's no Consitutional basis for such that I can see.

There isn't one. The official oath doesn't involve a religious text. Some Congressmen do an information photo-op with the Speaker later where they often bring religious texts. Its not an official process.

Decius wrote:

Hijexx wrote:
Aye. It seems like technically one shouldn't have to use an article of faith for the oath.

"...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" -- US Constitution, Article VI, Section 3

There's no Consitutional basis for such that I can see.

There isn't one. The official oath doesn't involve a religious text. Some Congressmen do an information photo-op with the Speaker later where they often bring religious texts. Its not an official process.

Ah... So this is much ado about nothing then.

Nah - some Congressmen have refused to be sworn in, and were 'confirmed' instead.

It was a smooth move, using Jefferson's copy.