Congressman Stands By His Letter

Writing on Townhall.com, Dennis Prager said only a Bible was appropriate for a swearing-in ceremony.

"If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress," Prager wrote.

Still, others ardently defended Ellison's choice as proof of the country's religious tolerance. In a lengthy counterpoint to Prager's posting, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh argued he had misread the American constitutional system.

"A nation should both create a common culture and leave people with the freedom to retain important aspects of other cultures, especially religious cultures," Volokh wrote. "That notion is deeply American, and expressly enshrined in our Constitution."

A Historical Perspective

As ABC News correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg reported earlier this month, Ellison's decision to use a Quran wasn't without precedent. Governmental swearing in ceremonies involve personal choices that politicians have historically chosen to approach in different ways.

For instance, Osman Siddique, a Virginia businessman born in Bangladesh, reportedly used the Quran in 1999 to take the oath as U.S. ambassador to Fiji and three other Pacific nations. The News-India Times reported that Siddique, the first Muslim to serve as a U.S. ambassador abroad, took the oath on both the Bible and the Quran. The Quran was on top, the newspaper said.

Goode Stands by His Words

In response to Goode's letter, the Council on American-Islamic Relations issued a statement Wednesday calling for an apology.

"Rep. Goode's Islamophobic remarks send a message of intolerance that is unworthy of anyone elected to public office," CAIR National Legislative Director Corey Saylor said.

Goode has no plans to apologize.

"I do not apologize and I do not retract my letter," Goode said today during his press conference. "The letter stands for itself and I support the letter."

ABC News Jan Crawford Greenburg contributed to this report.