response to Qo'ran swearing in debate

Please note that I'm an atheist before we continue. I don't care one way or the other and therefore am a detached observer of this firestorm over Keith Ellison. I'm not all that happy he was elected, not because of his Islamic faith, but because his past suggests the delightful arrogance of an Islamic order incompatible with a Western-secular democracy (read: Nation of Islam). But as he was elected, I'll instead deal with the 'problems' people see with him ceremonially swearing in on the Qor'an instead. This is to be taken as a response to a worldnetdaily column (dennis prager, who appears to be an idiot posing as an advocate for Judeo-Christians) and its remarks on this issue by which I was much put off what with its lack of coherent logic.

"And that Creator and those inalienable rights emanate from the Bible"

I would challenge you to prove this statement before presenting it as factual. The mythology behind the Bible and other canonical texts (like the Qor'an) are generally shared, and in fact show a similar idealized figure of God in all forms. Therefore, presenting the Bible ahead of that 'shared' God is ridiculous. God is recognized by peoples of many different faiths in different manners, and the Bible happens to be the manner in which many here in this country have chosen to see and share in. But to presume that without the Bible we would not have these "unalienable rights " or even a "creator" is patently absurd. If we believe in God, then the presentation of that God is merely that which we practice and refer to as religious dogma and canon; not somehow a vital and required documentation of our belief. Neither should it be brandished as a replacement for actual faithful attendance to our moral conduct. As unsavory as it sounds, what Mr Ellison has attempted to do is demonstrate his moral commitment and I salute this at least. The firestorm it has caused is natural and his intentions were perhaps mixed with a more volatile substance in order to foment this disturbing debate. Or it could simply be a pretense of religious observance, which should and will go unchallenged. His personal past is of course, something of a question mark, but a seperate issue.

Secondly, as you skirted around, the official swearing in does not require any religious testimonial or the use of a Bible (or other texts) for the official occupation of the seat in Congress. It requires instead a faithful execution of the duties and standards of the US Constitution, a secular document. "Constitution. It derives its values from the Bible." While there are indeed religious overtones, to refer to this document as religious in nature and value is likewise an unfounded statement. It is philosophical in nature, an inspiring and powerful document of the rights and powers of a republican government. But as now, the Christians who inhabit this broad land could not agree on the varieties and vagaries of their practices anymore than Muslims and Christians can today. As such, any claim that presupposes the Constitution to represent solely the values of a Christian society is likewise ridiculous (as those values would be considerably confused). Was there some holy exposure that crafted its wordings and just accommodations for law and order? Or was it a gathering of influential men; men who doubtless had a shared moral-religious background, but men nonetheless?

"cannot name any Western European country that does not have a document similar to the American Constitution and something akin to our Bill of Rights."
In fact this is false. Most European nations do have customary rights and laws, but England for example has no written Constitution. There is no one document to point to with anything resembling our Bill of Rights (go read the Magna Carta). There is rather a complex weaving of case law and customary practices of the Parliamentary authority. British authorities do not have search and seizure warrant requirements for example. The current French constitution was not written until post WW2, perhaps indicating it was based on something less divine, and on this goes. What we are seeing is not a Christian code of laws, but the spread of our republican ideals in a more secular logic.

"let everyone choose their own text at swearings-in" - This 'slippery slope' logic is also patently absurd. As it is a ceremonial gesture and not officially required, who cares? It is their right to take an oath to whatever document they believe with most fervently. If they were to take "Dianetics" seriously, I seriously doubt they would get elected anyway (anyone planning on voting for that lunatic jumping on a couch?). I see no reason to standardize the ceremonial oath. Is there for example a standard required for the ceremony of marriage? Do we recognize marriages as legal regardless of how and where the ceremony occurs so long as legal rights are attended to? I believe we do. The ceremony is a personally important moment, but actually irrevelant in legal terms. Does this premise in fact give us any civic religion or even legitimize any one religion over others? Or does that religion flow from a secular nature that allows us the freedom to explore our deepest personal beliefs on these matters? I believe it is the second question that has an answer. We have a secular society that is permeated with religious interference, sometimes a good and healthy thing. In your case I fear, it is unhealthy.

Please invest in an iota of logic and a modicum of history before making future ridiculous claims.