There is no logical or constitutional basis for denying a duly elected member of Congress the right to select the holy book he chooses to use in taking his oath of office.

In January, all 435 newly elected members of the House of Representatives will take the same oath, pledging to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Most House members will choose to pronounce the oath on some version of the Bible — often bringing along a cherished volume of their own that represents an honored family heirloom.

Other congressmen may opt to employ the constitutionally mandated phrase "I do solemnly affirm" — as opposed to "I do solemnly swear," explicitly authorized in Article II, Section I — and will use no holy book for the purposes of their oath-taking.

This year, one newly elected House member — Keith Ellison of Minnesota, the first Muslim ever elected to Congress — will choose to take his oath of office on his own sacred scripture, the Koran.

Some religious conservatives have made themselves look terrible — mean-spirited and intolerant and theocratic — by objecting to this innocuous gesture, and generating a phony controversy over longstanding traditions of religious pluralism.

A number of leaders and organizations on the right (including the powerful American Family Organization) have begun arguing that Mr. Ellison "should not be allowed" to use his Koran in taking his oath of office.

My good friend and highly respected talk radio colleague Dennis Prager goes so far as to suggest that this personal choice "undermines American civilization" and "will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal — the Islamicization of America."

It is hard to see how the prospect of one House member out of 435 using his Koran to swear allegiance to the Constitution represents the "Islamicization" of anything.

If some Muslim fanatics insisted that we change our currency to bear the legend "In Allah We Trust," or demanded that government cafeterias stop serving daytime food during the fasting month of Ramadan, that would represent an outrageous attempt to Islamize the nation.

But Congressman Ellison has never asked to impose any aspect of his faith on anyone else, or on the public at large. He's requested an ordinary courtesy: the ability to bring his own holy book for the purpose of reciting an oath (an oath that remains word-for-word unchanged in his recitation.)

If this personal decision represents the "Islamicization" of the society, then what does my friend Dennis make of the yearly invitations to Muslim Imams to conduct opening prayers for the House or Senate? We've also seen White House celebrations under both Clinton and Bush of major Muslim feasts (Eid al Adha and Eid al Fitr) in which Presidents publicly honor Islamic traditions.

There's even a stamp from the US Post Office to celebrate Islamic holidays — complementing similar stamps that honor Christmas, Hanukah and Kwanzaa.

These benign gestures fall within our long-standing traditions of religious pluralism (like allowing Hanukah Menorahs, alongside Christmas trees, in public places) and serve to recognize the presence in our midst of several million Muslim citizens, who play a role in our economy, our educational system, our military and, now, our Congress.

We may not like their religion, but as long as its adherents conduct themselves as loyal and law-abiding Americans we have no right to restrict its practice.

Personally, I'm no fan of the stridently liberal Mr. Ellison. During his campaign, I spoke on radio against his candidacy, especially in light of his past associations with the racist brand of Islam associated with Minister Louis Farrakhan.

But the voters in his Minnesota district ignored my advice (and that of other prominent conservatives) and elected him as their representative in Congress by an overwhelming margin.

His Islamic faith received extensive coverage during the campaign and no one from his district will be surprised when he takes the oath on the Koran. If we respect the electoral process, aren't the voters entitled to choose a Muslim representative, and having made that choice, aren't they also entitled to expect that his new colleagues won't compel him to hide or disregard the Islamic faith he very publicly professed?

Unfortunately for conservatives who argue against Mr. Ellison, there's also the inconvenient but highly relevant matter of the Constitution of the United States. Article VI, Clause 3 states: " … no religious Test shall ever be required as Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Continued...