Prager contends this action would "undermine American civilization" and that he should not be allowed to do it.
He says in part
Questions for debate:Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison's right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?
Should the Congress take any action to prevent Ellison from swearing in on the Koran? Why or why not?
Does Prager have a point that this would be opening up the swearing in ceremonies to a slippery slope?
More generally, what is the point of using a Bible or any other book to 'swear on' when taking such oaths? Should we use the constitution itself instead? SHould we dispense with a book?
A commentator on CNN this evening noted a couple of examples where a book was not used, or where an 'affirmation' was given instead of an 'oath' (I am not sure what the difference was supposed to be).
