The Koran is now the enemy of democracy

Don't believe me? Ask Los Angeles radio nutball Dennis Prager.

Prager has written an outrageous column over at Townhall.com suggesting that Keith Ellison, (D-Minn), be forced to take his oath of office on a Christian bible. The only real problem is, Ellison is a Muslim. He intends to take his oath on the Q'uran.

Prager, totally ignoring the fact that the book he insists Ellison hold while taking the oath/affirmation is soley a Christian publication suggests that Ellision swearing an oath on anything but "The Bible" is an act of hubris and multicultural activism. (All emphasis mine)

Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

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.

Get ready with the vomit bag - it gets worse.

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. 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. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

Ohhh... really? That would mean it's in the US Constitution - right? Hmmm... let's see... that would be Article VI, if I correctly recall that day back in the 8th grade.

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.

Oh shit! Nothing about a bible of any kind! In fact, religious examination is forbidden.

Prager goes on and plays a little game of deceit here:

But 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, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either. Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible. Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of "Dianetics" by L. Ron Hubbard.

Umm, he forgot to mention that several new congressional representatives and senators have taken the oath without using a bible at all. Must have been an oversight.

Prager can be thankful that others have a greater grasp of US constitutional rights and requirements than he has. He might want to refresh his memory with regards the 1st Amendment. It kind of protects him from being prosecuted for writing bizarre columns which could easily be interpreted as being written by a bigoted idiot.

Dennis Prager has written a book, by the way. You can get it cheap, just in time for Winterfest. To help you out, here is an excerpt from one of the top reviews:

... sloppy thinking, intellectual pretentions, and a kind of benevolent, patronizing conservatism.

Hey! I wouldn't know. I wouldn't read any American writer who knows less about the US Constitution than most Canadians.