It's both amusing and alarming. When the American people are polled on issues of civil liberty, large percentages say they would not grant bedrock rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion.

Through a combination of rank ignorance, blinding partisanship and religious fervor, these folks are willing to pull the rug out from under the country they claim to love.

Thankfully, opinion polls don't officially decide anything, least of all the status of our constitutional rights. Men and women who tend to know a little better about such things have done a generally good job of preserving these and other rights for more than 200 years.

But the battle never ends. Almost every day, there is an attempt somewhere in the nation to limit our freedoms in some manner.

One individual who appears to have trouble understanding the Bill of Rights is Rep. Virgil Goode. The Virginia Republican, who somehow passed a bar exam, is disturbed that a new fellow congressman, Democrat Keith Ellison of Minnesota, is a Muslim and took the oath of office with his hand on the Quran instead of the Bible.

Rep. Goode appears to have forgotten the course back in law school in which his professor explained that the Founding Fathers wanted the United States to embrace religious freedom.

In a brilliant move, Ellison took the ceremonial oath using a Quran once owned by Thomas Jefferson, the third president and a legendary advocate of freedom.

The bottom line is that Goode is attempting to tarnish Ellison's character by association with Islamic extremists. Goode is suggesting that because Ellison is a Muslim, he is some kind of security risk.

This is unfair and ugly -- and, sadly, all too common. The shameful American Family Association and bigoted Bush administration appointee Dennis Prager have called for a law requiring the use of the Bible for oaths in Congress.

Set aside the obvious First Amendment violation for a minute. Another problem with requiring use of the Bible is it would violate Article 6 of the Constitution, which says that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

But just as Christian congressmen today should not be punished for the Crusades or abortion clinic bombings, Ellison should not be punished for sharing a holy book with Osama bin Laden.

And by the way, Ellison is far from the first elected leader in this country to eschew the Bible while taking an oath, according to Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor. Writing in USA Today, Turley notes that presidents John Quincy Adams, Theodore Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover chose not to use a Bible, and Franklin Pierce did not take a sworn oath at all.

Turley argues that Goode, Prager and their supporters are "doing the greatest damage to the unity of America by fostering religious divisions and promoting prejudice as principle."

He's right. But I would go a step further. In addition to embracing religious tolerance, I would advocate a more complete separation of church and state, reflecting the prevailing view of the nation's founders.

"A secular government, independent of all religious sects, was seen by founders of diverse religious beliefs as the essential guarantor of liberty and conscience," writes Susan Jacoby in "Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism." "The descendants of passionate religious dissenters, who had fled the church-state establishments of the Old World in order to worship God in a multiplicity of ways, were beholden to a godless constitution."

James Madison was a leading advocate of keeping religion and government separate, on grounds that "ecclesiastical establishments ... have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of civil authority" and "in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberty of the people."

World history is stained with the tragic results of religious zealotry. Almost every faith has a woeful record of bloody conflict and cruelty in God's name.

To be fair, the various faiths have ebbed and flowed over time in the intensity of their fervor. Muslims are clearly on the upswing in this regard, with extremist violence in the Middle East, Africa and beyond reaching epic proportions.

But don't blame Rep. Ellison, who traces his family roots in the United States back to 1742.

While school prayer may be a thing of the past, religion is still a major factor in American politics, as the oath controversy demonstrates. The Christian right remains a force in Washington and in most states. Christian motivations underly campaigns to overturn abortion rights, limit stem cell research, restrict sex education and require the teaching of creationism in schools.

I bristle at the oft-heard claim that the United States is a "Christian nation." It is not and never was. It is a secular nation of laws that strives to keep religion out of its policymaking. It is a nation that allows Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hinduists, Scientologists, pagans and atheists to believe whatever they want (or not believe at all) and to enjoy equal opportunity in the pursuit of happiness.

If Tom Cruise is ever elected to Congress, I would expect him to take the oath of office with his hand resting on a dog-eared copy of "Dianetics."

But more to the point, I would prefer that all our elected officials take their oaths with hands on a copy of the Constitution.

You need not agree with the tenets of Rep. Ellison's faith to respect his right to practice it. His taking of a ceremonial oath with his hand on the Quran is not an affront to but an affirmation of America's most fundamental rights.

Geoff Schumacher (gschumacher@ reviewjournal.com) is Stephens Media's director of community publications. He is the author of "Sun, Sin & Suburbia: An Essential History of Modern Las Vegas." His column appears Sunday.