It’s like there’s some kind of permanent, rotating stupidity championship under dispute at Townhall, and everyone there is constantly striving to win it.

Dennis Prager goes bull-goose loony over somebody else’s religion, natch, in today’s column - a hate-filled orgasm of ignorance and prejudice that is simply staggering to behold.

What’s got his panties in a twist? The fact that (as near as can be determined) every member of the incoming Congressional class this January plans to take the oath of office with their hand on their book of religious scripture.

Every one, that is, including Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, who uses a Koran when he swears religious oaths. Prager simply can’t stand the thought that a public servant, taking a (needlessly) religious oath of office, would make their oath in light of their own religion - when that religion isn’t his. Yes - Prager believes there is some sort of established necessity to swearing oaths only by his god - and that people who don’t share his religion should use its ceremonies when taking office. And civilization hangs in the balance. Really.

[Ellison] should not be allowed to [swear on the Koran] – not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

Here we see ignorance and stupidity beginning their deadly tango in Prager’s juddering, spastic neo-cortex:

First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism — my culture trumps America’s culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

I would have presumed what he was “saying” is that he doesn’t regard religious oaths as binding unless they arise from a religion he actually believes in . . . the same thing Christians are implicitly saying when they swear on the Bible. And I hardly think that simply . . . having your own religious beliefs. . . implies any “trumping” of “America’s culture” (whatever that even means). Nor am I aware that America has a “holiest book”. Aren’t people - even non-Christians - supposed to hold and act on their own sincerely held religious beliefs? There’s certainly more than enough Christian triumphalism to go around, but until now I had never heard anyone suggest that non-Christians were actually supposed to engage in Christian ceremonies - still less that having their own ceremonies threatened civilization. But Prager’s just getting warmed up.

Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress. . . . Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

Prager’s too ignorant to know it, of course, but America does no such thing. There is, in fact, no requirement whatsoever in the Constitution or federal law specifying that any book must be used as a prop while taking the oath of office, still less that everyone must use the same one, or that anyone must use one they don’t believe in. In fact, the Constitution states:

Article VI

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, 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.

In every place in the Constitution in which an “oath” is specified, it is followed immediately by the words “or affirmation”. An “affirmation” is a statement of conscience not predicated on a religious source. The right of affirmation was included explicitly in the Constitution out of respect both for those who hold no religion and for those whose religious beliefs prohibit swearing religious oaths (some Christians regard it as a form of “taking the lord’s name in vain”). And needless to say, nothing at all requires you to stick your hand on a particular book, or any book, or anything else. (The same is true for private citizens. If you are called as a witness in a court case, you have the right to affirm the oath and not use a Bible - but you’d better hope your jurors are smarter than Prager.) Prager might like to notice that specific religious commitments are not only not required of Congressmembers, they are explicitly prohibited by the Constitution.

He goes on:

[F]or all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either. . . . Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon.

I don’t know how he knows this, but I doubt it’s true. I would bet money that more than a few members of Congress, at one time or another, have either used their own religious books in swearing ceremonies or have affirmed their oaths. (For another thing, the Judeo/Christian Bible is a holy book for Mormons; the situation is not comparable, but since Prager doesn’t have a clue what the situation actually is, this hardly matters.) At any rate, it’s irrelevant.

Prager goes on to rant about “multiculturalism” some more (the dreaded fact that some people have beliefs he doesn’t share). Somehow he manages to equate swearing a religious oath on the Koran to worshipping the New York Times editorial page, the works of Voltaire, and, inevitably, Mein Kampf. In fact, it would be perfectly legal to use any of those as a prop during the office-taking ceremony, should anyone choose to do so. The tradition of holding a Bible is just that - merely traditional. No one is required to do so, and no one is prohibited from holding anything else. But facts aren’t part of a Prager editorial.

Hysterical lunacy is:

When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book [they won't], they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization [they don't, and it doesn't]. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11.

That’s right: if we fail to impose mandatory Christianity on members of Congress, then the terrorists will have won. Ellison, by not merely being a Muslim, but actually acting like one, is himself a terrorist. And he undermines American civilization . . . such as it is.

UPDATE: Mahablog has the goods on past practices, from Robin Marty of The Minnesota Monitor:

In our country’s history, four presidents have been inaugurated without swearing an oath on the Bible.  Franklin Pierce was affirmed, and swore no oath, Rutherford Hayes initially had a private ceremony with no Bible before his public ceremony, Theodore Roosevelt had no Bible at his ceremony, and Lyndon Johnson used a missal during his first term.

Despite Prager’s insistence that “for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament,” it is clear that he is wrong.  Linda Lingle, Governor of Hawaii, took the oath of office on a Torah in 2001.  Madeleine Kunin, a Jewish Immigrant and Governor of Vermont “rested her left hand on a stack of old prayer books that had belonged to her mother, grandparents, and great grandfather” as “a physical expression of the weight of Jewish history.”

And in North Carolina, the Notary Public has a written code for swearing in:

“A person taking an oath should place one hand on the Holy Scriptures. This book will vary depending on the person’s religious beliefs: Christians should use the New Testament or the Bible; Jews, the Torah or the Old Testament; Moslems, the Koran; Hindus, the Bhagavad-Gita; etc.”

. . . U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) made headlines earlier this month when she could not find a Hebrew Bible for her swearing in; she refused the Christian Bible proffered by House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and eventually borrowed one from Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.).

Where does Prager even get his nonsense? Makes it up, obviously. 

RE-UPDATE: Oops. Apparently, Prager is Jewish, but, apparently, not very observant. So I was wrong in claiming he wants to impose his religion on everyone. He apparently wants to impose the dominant religion of his conservative in-group on everyone. (Presumably also himself - he really seems to have no inkling of what it would mean to adopt a rule forcing people to take religious oaths they don’t believe in. Forced conversions and participation in Catholic ceremonies were prominent among the historical complaints of Jews against mistreatment; Prager not only wants to impose them on Muslims, he seems willing to sign on himself. Medievalism really is a dominant value for conservatives.) You can substitue “the Christian religion” for “his religion” at the top; the rest stands. It doesn’t make him any more clueful, but it does make him even weirder.