Keith Ellison stirred up controversy back in January by requesting that he be sworn in on the Koran instead of the Bible, and in turn Dennis Prager stirred up more controversy by claiming he shouldn't be allowed to. Well I don't think he should either but then again I have the undoubtedly insane-in-the-eyes-of-Christianists belief that a politician should swear his oath only on the Constitution but that is just me.
I am wondering whether Romney will wish to be sworn in on the Book of Mormon and whether that will attract the same criticism. He undoubtedly won't. He has said that atheists should not be elected to political office and that only a person of faith should occupy the presidency. Apparently though it doesn't matter a stitch to Romney what that faith actually is as shown by his annoyance at being questioned on his religious beliefs. Well screw him I say. He has categorically labeled an entire group of people as unfit for office because of their beliefs. He is entirely fair game for vetting based on his.
If elected I have no doubt he will be sworn in on the Bible and claim he has no problem with it. After all he is plenty willing to abandon any number of beliefs to please the public. But i would just love to see the explosion of theocratic fury if a pol ever asked to be sworn in on the Constitution and not the Bible. Is the Constitution an unfit document not reflective of American values? Is it subordinate to the Bible? They would be compelled to say such things or remain silent. Michael Newdow should bring a lawsuit.
How will Mormons react if he does use the Bible?