Is it true, like he says, that Jews swear on the Bible and not the Torah?

Update: Prager is a member of the United States Holocaust Memorial Board. That's just great.

"Wouldn't it just make more sense to have everyone put there hands on the Constitution? "

That would make a lot of sense, wouldn't it?

So, what if you don't believe in any kind of bible? You might was well just say "cross my heart and hope to die" like little kids do.

I am curious to see your response to Tariq. I believe that Prager simply wants the Bible to be brought along so as to honor the tradition set by George Washington (a supposed deist who thought for some reason he would swear on the Bible and not on the constitution). This would actually unite Christians and Muslims as opposed to divide them as some have suggested. Lastly, Dennis Prager may be completely wrong, sure. The only thing I see wrong is all the ad hominem attacks about him being bigoted or anti-muslim instead of responding to his argument. His argument (which I already stated very well could be wrong) is simply that he believes that the Bible is where the constitution and the founding fathers got their values from. Since he believes that that is the case, it seems reasonable that he would be worried that the Bible is being replaced (not added to like some very few Jews and mormans have done...it has always been present and I believe that is all prager wants) and the tradition that George Washington started is not being honored. He doesn't want a law passed requiring anyone to swear on anything. If he did, that would be a serious problem.

All in all, Prager may be wrong, of course. But this namecalling does not reflect on Prager but on those doing the namecalling. What ever happened to simply disagreeing with someone and responding to their argument (as opposed to the arguer)? Why does everyone we disagree with nowadays have to be a bigot or intolerant or something akin?
I hope to see a thoughtful response. Thanks

Starters - thanks for the time it took to respond. It is genuinely appreciated.

* If the US was a truly "Christian nation" (i.e. in a sense similar to how Saudi Arabia, Iran or Taliban-era Afghanistan are Islamic states), swearing on the bible would be appropriate"

No one is saying that it is or ever was (at least that isn't what Prager is saying). We have never had a theocracy.

"* I do not accept that premise, that Christianity defines what our government is, was and shall be"

I don't believe Prager stated that, either. He simply believes that the Bible was the text that influenced the founding fathers and the Constitution. He never stated that there is no other influence and/or that christians are the only ones with these values (as far as the historocity of these values go). Sure, they (founing fathers) might not have all been Pat Robertson Christians, but Prager isn't speaking of theology here (or religious testing). Prager is speaking of values. We get our laws (not our values) from the Constitution. Prager believes that, historically speaking, we (and the Constitution) get our values from the Judeo-Christian Bible, that's all.

"* I feel that it's so self-evident that Prager's column is full of hyperbole (a Muslim wanting to swear on the Koran is as threatening to our nation as electing a Nazi)"

Now, I believe (but could be wrong) that you know that a "slippery slope" argument is not an argument of equivalence, but rather an argument of what could be. He was simply stating that on what grounds would we tell an atheist/scientologist/hindu/racist that they could not swear (and not speaking about their legal ability. "Could not" in the sense that they would be pressured politically into not doing so) on the works of voltaire (atheist), Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard (scientologist), the Bhagavad Gita (Hindu) or, God forbid a racist ever become elected, Mein Kampf. He has stated several times that he does not think that there is a moral equivalence between the Quran and Mein Kampf. I believe thinking such things are a result of either ignorance or intelectual dishonesty. Like I said, Prager may be wrong, of course. But to take his arguments and draw conclusions that he himself does not draw is simply demagogic aurgumentation (and I don't mean that to sound spiteful).

", exaggeration ("If Keith Ellison is allowed to [take his oath on the Koran], 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.")"

I believe Prager spoke very carefully here. Again, he may be wrong, but his argument is reasonable (let us be reminded that arguments need not be correct in order to mantain a component of reasonability). 9/11 had no (adverse) effect on the unity of America. Rather, it did the opposite and united americans more than they had been in quite some time. Now, Prager believes that Ellison will be seperating himself from this tradition (of having the Bible present - set by Washington, himself, who was also not, to my knowlege, a Christian but a Deist) and that there is the possibility of a significant amount of Christians feeling offended by not having the Bible present (whether those christians should or should not be offended is irrelevant at the moment). It would then make sense that (using this logic) this would have a more adverse effect on the unity of americans than the acts of 9/11 had. I admit, I think Prager made a mistake in his language. It was an easy statement to pick apart and misconstrue, in my opinion, and he should have spoke more clearly (or spoke farther away from controversial/nerve pinching statements). Although I think he should have spoke better here, I see what he meant and think it is reasonable. Maybe wrong, sure, but reasonable.

"and omission (Ellison is not only the first Muslim, he's the first non-Jew/non-Christian; a Hindu or Buddhist Congressman might have similar objections), that it doesn't merit a really thoughtful rebuttal."

Unfortunately, I don't follow here. Probably my fault :)

This whole issue really isn't that complex, and, in that, for the reasons given above and below, no one should be vilified or demonized (in this case, Prager). Simply put, Prager is asking a different core question than his opponents (Ellison included) are asking. This really is an argument over what question should be asked (and, therefore, has NOTHING to do with anyone's religion). Prager believes the question to be asked is "what historical text did the founding fathers believe they got their values from?" Ellison and those in favor of his actions believe that the question is "what book do you personally hold to be your holy or influential (for the non-religious) text?" Prager is arguing as to why the former question should be the question standing and not the latter. Now, for the last time, he absolutely could be wrong. But this argument has nothing to do with Islam. It has nothing to do with the Quran (being that he is not asking that the Quran not be present but that the Bible not be left out. The Quran can be sworn upon. Prager simply wants the Bible - which, interestingly, is not HIS Bible - to be present.....could be wrong, but seems fair to me). It has absolutely nothing to do with bigotry. It is that simple.