Already, Ellison has broken new ground as the first practicing Muslim elected into Congress and the first African-American elected by Minnesota to serve in the House of Representatives.

The congressman swearing in ceremony occurs Jan. 4 on the chamber floor of the House of Representatives. Traditionally, members raise their right hands, while placing the other on the Bible, in a fashion similar to testifying at a trial.

The ritual is seen by many as nothing more than a ceremonial photo-op.

Once Ellison’s plans were announced, controversy erupted. The event, still a month away, has generated heated opinions throughout news media, gaining coverage on major news networks, in newspapers across the country and on thousands of online blogs both in the United States and out.

To some, the issue is one of religious freedom and tolerance for other cultures.

“The Constitution guarantees for everyone to take the oath of office on whichever book they prefer. And that’s what the freedom of religion is all about,” Ellison said.

The Constitutional guarantee he speaks of is Article VI of the Constitution, which states, “... no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” However, others see this in a different light.

For others, the issue is not one of religion, but of maintaining some level of moral solidarity in government.

“When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization,” wrote conservative radio show host Dennis Prager in an editorial.

Prager sees Ellison’s decision as an affront to tradition that goes beyond religion. A practicing Jew, he comes from a non-Christian standpoint, yet he points out that most Jews elected to Congress have opted to be sworn in on the Bible — a Christian book. “Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon,” he writes. Elsewhere in his editorial, he wrote, “[Ellison’s decision] perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism — my culture trumps America’s culture.”

Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Center for American-Islamic Relations, considers the controversy to be reflective of American attitudes regarding Islam.

“With the rising level of Islamophobia in America, you have some people who see the empowerment of any Muslim as a threat to the Constitution. In reality, they should see the empowerment of such an individual as strengthening the Constitution,” he said.