Dennis Prager really is an ass

Andrew Sullivan linked to this inanity from Dennis Prager: "America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book Keith Ellison takes his oath on." Keith Ellison is a newly-elected Congressman from Minnesota, the first Muslim in Congress, and he's said that he'll take his oath of office on the Quran. Well, duh, he's a Muslim. Why on earth would a Muslim swear on a Bible? And, contrary to Prager's headline, America doesn't decide what book Keith Ellison takes his oath on. I can't refute any law Prager cites in defense of his position, because he doesn't cite any law. He doesn't cite any law in his defense because no such law exists. In fact, the Constitution itself, in Article VI, comes right out and says:

The Senators and Representatives ... shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

A Sullivan reader notes further that

The very first law passed under the Constitution was ... "An Act to regulate the Time and Manner of administering certain Oaths." That law says nothing about what someone taking the oath of office is supposed to do with his hands; nor does it say anything about Bibles or any other books being involved in the process.

I took an oath of office myself two years ago when working for the City of Pico Rivera and was only asked to raise my right hand while reciting it. My understanding is that courts regularly use Qurans, Bibles, or an absence of books, depending on the swearer's preference.

After arguing essentially that Christianity is the state religion of the U.S., based on nothing but vigorous assertion, Prager (a Jew, actually) then just appeals to tradition, noting that Jews and atheists have taken their oaths on Bibles that they do not believe in. I have no idea if this is true or not*, but in making this argument, Prager has gone from offending me as an American to offending me as a Christian. What he's saying is that the Bible should be used not because the oath-taker believes it is the holy word of God, but merely because of its symbolic link with tradition. Sorry, bud, but to me the Bible is more than just a prop, and if my representative in Congress didn't believe in it, I would be more offended if they did use a Bible than if they didn't.

It's also worth noting that Prager isn't just an anti-American pro-blasphemy moron, but goes out of his way to be inflammatory. He doesn't just object to Ellison's use of the Quran, he says it "undermines American civilization" and compares it to Hitler's Mein Kampf. Some of his commenters are worse, lumping Ellison in with the Islamic theocrats and terrorists who hate America and want to see us destroyed. No, you idiots, Keith Ellison is precisely the kind of man I'd like to see more of in the Middle East, a leader who understands that being a Muslim doesn't mean you have to oppose democracy and religious freedom.

*This article notes that atheist California governor Culbert L. Olson omitted the words "so help me God" from his oath of office, but doesn't note whether he used a Bible.

Update: Eugene Volokh writes eloquently on the subject. Excerpt:

Much folly has been urged in the name of multiculturalism. But this is no reason to dismiss the core notion that a nation should both create a common culture and leave people with the freedom to retain important aspects of other cultures — especially religious cultures.