I understand it's not required, but it's the default to make religion (esp. Christianity) part of official government doings. And, even if this is true of swearing in, courts still make people swear on the Bible before testifying, right? And to refuse that makes you look like a liar... which is silly to me. I'd have no probably swearing on a Bible and then lying.

I would have much more respect for somebody who responded to all this with "While I am Muslim, as a government official, my religion has no bearing on my work, and should stay out of all things related. I can pray on my own time."

It's symbolic, actually and is a part of our country's heritage. The swearing in on the Bible reminds citizens of the promise the elected official is making. He or she promises to mislead the public with lies and distorted facts which are simply made up and not based on fact or reality in order to benefit themselves - just as the Bible does for religion.

Since no one seems to know how all this Quran bidness got started, here's what I know from a CSPAN radio interview I heard with Ellison that was conducted after his victory:

When asked on the program what his response to Virgil Goode's statement was, Ellison described how Goode was reacting to a rumor that was initially started by the media. In fact, according to Ellison, the media had picked up on the story a few months earlier after a pre-election interview he had done with a reporter for a Muslim-based news source. During this earlier interview, the reporter asked Ellison if he would use the Quran to swear in after he won his district. At this point, in the CNN interview, Ellison describes his response to the earlier interview; saying that he laughed and told the reporter that there was still an election ahead and that for the time being, he was focused on winning and he hadn't won yet. The reporter then asked him the same question, posing it as a hypothetical, "if you win will you..." At this point, Ellison stated that he hadn't thought things through that far and admitted that he knew virtually nothing about the process of the swearing in ceremony and that he wasn't even sure if Congressmen are sworn in on anything. In the CNN interview, Ellison then points out that, after this pre-election interview, some media sources began carrying the story that Ellison would be swearing in on the Quran if he won. Ellison states that after he was elected, more and more news sources started reporting the earlier false media reports as fact... enter all the madness that has followed. So the fact is, all of the media speculation was based on statements Ellison never made USA! USA! USA!

Since the point is to remind the elected official of the promise he or she is making, I for one, would rather have the official swear in on something that carries some import to that official--- like say, a Quran for a Muslim official...

Melon, that was meant to be sarcasm. I'll try to lay it on thicker in the future.

and mine was meant to reflect my personal feeling on the issue. I'll try to make it more personal next time.

So.......sex later?

Best news I've read all day.

You win this round!

These are very tolerant attitudes; I'm really glad you shared. It's comforting to know that 25 years of having my own religious beliefs have just been disproved by two snippets of your ignorance towards religion, mine specifically.
Is there a reason why people bad mouthing religion is tolerated but people bad mouthing any other belief or lifestyle marks you as a bigot?

Yes, there is a reason. Because your delusions are demonstrably a choice you've made, and continue to make, in denial of all evidence. Any other "lifestyle" is just how nature made you, and you can't be blamed for that.

I'm not saying you ought to be rounded up and shipped off to the GULAG, or even that you're a bad or stupid person (unlike a lot of militant atheists, I don't blame "religion" for nearly everything bad that's ever happened to humanity), but, if you believe in god, you're delusional, and that's a simple fact, so it's no use complaining about it when people make fun of you for it.

I'll have you know I was raised Catholic. I decided for myself at a young age that the Bible that I was required to read three times a week was based on ignorance and impossibilities - not to mention hypocrisy. My father was horrified when he found out I had learned evolution in public school and used science in my own "Catholic home" to challenge and disprove the possibility of the Creation to him.

When you come to such a realization yet you're still forced to go to mass, you start to look at those who are supposedly following "Jesus" and how they act towards others in the church and outside the church. You also pay more attention to what sort of scandals and sick acts are performed by church leaders of every denomination or brand.

If anyone's posts offend you, then I urge you to be stronger in your faith and turn the other cheek as you are told to do in the New Testament - or perhaps question the Bible and religion intelligently.

What about personal evidence? Are you going to try and tell me that there are no intangibles in human life that affect one person and not the other? Things like which girl/boy you're attracted to, what kind of foods you like, how sex feels to you, what your favorite color is, which movies or songs make you feel certain ways, all of these are based on things you can't see or measure or even predict from one person to the next. Believing in God is not a simple fact of "delusion". It's a choice made based on your own evaluation of the world around you. You've made your decision on religion and I wish you all the best in it. How you came to your decision is not relevant to me nor should it be, it's your decision. I respect yours I'd appreciate it if you respected mine.

I'm sorry that you were exposed to things like this in your experience with religion but I fail to see how this justifies you telling me that my choice in what I believe is a lie.

Well, as pointed out above, the media did ask.

And do you really think this would somehow be less of a story if he didn't answer the question? Because I can gaurantee you that it wouldn't have. I can just see O'Reilly et al salivating over a non-answer in this case. "WHAT DOES KEITH ELLISON HAVE TO HIDE!?!?!?!?!!!!!"

Get real.