The problem is not about religion, but rather the alteration of a defined process. For a process to be valid, it must be applied identically to all participants.
While I realize that being sworn-in to office is largely ceremonial, and that you could take your oath on a stack of Hustler magazines and have the same effect, are there any consequences to this type of behavior? Does this Congressman's oath still mean anything in the lands and laws of the United States? Where does the change stop? Shouldn't a Jewish congressman be allowed to swear on the Torah? How about an atheist swearing on a picture of Carl Sagan? As this change becomes more pervasive, the process becomes invalidated and the very concept of an oath becomes unclear.
I don't care if swearing on the Koran will make the oath more sincere because this has nothing to do with religion. I don't care that it's a Koran. I care that it's not a Bible. I care that a well-established process is being invalidated by it's alteration to suit the desires of specific individuals or groups.
|