Let's make one thing perfectly clear: The United States is not a Christian nation. It is secular.

The Founding Fathers wisely left matters of conscience to individuals, and they created a government that must neither endorse nor oppose any religious creed. Unlike, say, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the United States may not establish any particular religious creed as the law of the land. While various laws may arise from a general moral orientation of the people, that's not the same thing as putting religious doctrines overtly into law. Religion and government do not mix here. They coexist.

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries," Madison wrote. One need only look at the Middle East, where sectarian strife is part of daily life, to see the wisdom in his words.

There are some in the United States who don't seem to understand this principle. They seem to think that Christianity is, somehow, the de facto state religion, and everyone should either bow to it or get out.

Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim in the House of Representatives, set off a firestorm when he announced that he would take his oath of office with his hand on a Quran rather than on a Bible. Conservative Christians saw that as un-American.

Conservative talk-show host Dennis Prager said, "Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress."

Prager and others just don't get it. People cannot be forced to swear on a religious book. Such a rule would be unconstitutional. Indeed, it violates a core American value that Prager should insist that members of Congress uphold, namely religious liberty.

The idea of requiring the Bible in swearing-in ceremonies not only flouts the First Amendment, it runs afoul of Article VI, which states that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Members of Congress, as well as the president and members of the military, swear to uphold the Constitution, not the Bible.

Nor is there any legal requirement to use a Bible -- or any other symbol intended to impart gravitas to the ceremony -- when administering an oath. John Quincy Adams took his oath of office on a law book that contained the Constitution, while Theodore Roosevelt chose to no book at all.

Use of the Bible in oaths has evolved as a tradition in some localities and contexts. But it has no legal bearing on the validity of the oath itself. It's just a prop. A person entering public office need take no oath at all; the alternative of affirmation is permissible, to the relief of atheists, agnostics or Christians who take Christ's admonition against swearing seriously. From the law's point of view, the operative part of the ceremony is contained in the words. When you swear to tell the truth in court, you can be held to it. Perjury is punishable.

Swearing-in ceremonies carry less weight but are designed to bolster the resolve of the person entering public office to carry out his duties and to protect the Constitution. If that means swearing on a Bible, a Quran, a Constitution or a Urantia Book, so be it. The key is to discover what the swearer holds in reverence. If it's nothing, then let it be nothing.

The Prager crowd's insistence that the only valid ceremonial prop is a Bible inappropriately mixes church and state. It suggests that those taking the oath are swearing allegiance to one set of ideals.

(Never mind that the Bible contains more than a set of Christian ideals. The Old Testament is revered by Jews. It is also a violent history, a volume of poetry, a cosmology tome, an intellectual jigsaw puzzle and an action-adventure story book. We won't get into the pointless question of which version of the Bible to use.)

The best course for oaths of office is to allow the person being sworn to decide what, if anything, to include in the ceremony. When Ellison takes his oath on a Quran, he will be incorporating a powerful personal symbol that presumably lends weight to the words that he will utter. A Muslim holds the Quran in greater regard than many Christians do the Bible. To a faithful Muslim, the Quran represents the literal, pure word of God. It is so sacred that many Muslims wash their hands and faces before handling the book so as not to defile it.

Forcing one to swear upon the Bible who does not view it as sacred would undermine the whole purpose of taking an oath in the first place. The unbelieving person might as well take his oath on a phone book or a bowl of spaghetti.

If the use of a Bible, Quran, Hindu Vedas or other sacred text helps a member of Congress to reinforce his commitment to upholding the principles of the Constitution -- including freedom of religion -- his book of choice, whatever it is, ought to be welcomed.

This story appeared in The Daily Herald on page A8.