I’m not sure Dennis Prager’s latest screed is extreme enough to make him a (non-Christian) “Christianist” or even a “Judeo-Christianist,” but it is bad enough to make him an idiot, and, given that such idiocy derives…

An oath is not required either, as the Constitution in all instances includes the option of affirming rather than swearing and oath.

Why are so many Americans (especially the right wing pundit types) so ignorant of their own Constitution and traditions?

What happened to the principle of religious liberty? It’s not really liberty if one can be coerced into conforming to a belief one doesn’t share, is it? Prager’s outrage is simple bigotry, nothing more, nothing less. It’s disgusting and un-American.

No, you don’t “seem” patronizing. You ARE patronizing.

I’m currently reading Volokh, I don’t need you to do my research for me. Do your own.

Are Republicans so irony-impaired? Well, I didn’t realize that the smileys above the comment spot were REQUIRED for Republicans to realize when someone was speaking tongue-in-cheek.

“He did no such thing.”

Seems pretty eviscerated to me. You’ve repeated it. So, what do you disagree with?

Do I seem patronizing? I’m sorry, but I’ll repeat that it took Volokh minutes on Google to find that Linda Lingle, governor of Hawaii, swore on a Tanakh. (You told me the article didn’t mention anything about Jewish books.) It only takes a few minutes to find that other people have sworn. Not affirmed, but sworn. I’ve mentioned their names above. Volokh took another five minutes to find that “Justice Arthur Goldberg Swore His Oath of Office on the Hebrew Bible”

Five more minutes shows that Mazie Hirono, (D-Hawaii) will forgo a religious text because she is Buddhist.

And, if Prager knew someone with a subscription to Roll Call, he might have read this article which, I’m told, says that when the Representatives are sworn, there is no Bible in the room; the photos we see are taken post “swearing” and are simply publicity stills.

Maybe we can convert you to reality before the 12th of never, tom.

He did no such thing.

We see this in the Constitution’s repeated recognition of affirmations as alternatives to oaths. We also see this in the free-exercise clause, which excludes no religion even though many denominations of that era saw rival denominations’ views, and especially the views of Catholics, as deeply wrong and even evil — perhaps not quite as evil as Mein Kampf (which isn’t a religious book, and thus not really apposite to the oath debate) but in that general ballpark.

The Supreme Court has long taken the view that the establishment clause and the free-exercise clause generally mandate equal treatment of people without regard to their religions; conservative justices, such as Scalia and Thomas, have agreed. Letting Christians swear the oath of office, while allowing members of other denominations only to swear what ends up being a mockery of an oath — a religious ceremony appealing to a religious belief system that they do not share — would be such discrimination. Nor have I seen any evidence that at the time of the framing, the religion clauses would have been interpreted in a way that differs from this consensus. And the text of the establishment clause suggests that the oath should be an oath not just of a federally “establish[ed] religion” (a religion given favored legal treatment by the government), but rather the oath that binds the particular officeholder “to support this Constitution.”

“Maybe this is how Prager wants to take back the House and Senate for Republicans. Knowing that more of the Jewish members of Congress are Democrats he’ll propose we simply disqualify them.”

Go back to Volokh’s article, and read it from the paragraph starting:

“This leaves one milder form of Prager’s argument: Ellison shouldn’t have to swear on the Bible, but we don’t have to offer him a Koran, since he could affirm instead and affirmations don’t require any holy book.”

He, a conservative, pretty much eviscerates this argument as well as pointing out how Scalia and Thomas would reject it as well.

Maybe we can convert Ellison to Christianity before January!

Really? Didn’t I just read this from the link you just posted?

“I can’t speak to the common practices of Jewish officeholders, but some quick searches reveal that Linda Lingle, the Governor of Hawaii, was sworn in on the Tanakh (more or less the Old Testament); for the reasons I just mentioned, others would have been free to do the same, or to affirm if they preferred.”

I’m sure if you read more closely, you’ll find that Volokh did, in fact, say something about people swearing on Jewish books. Ctrl-F, along with Google is another tool that helps with this thing called RESEARCH.

And Mwalimu, I know that Prager is a Jew. He’s also one who clearly doesn’t know much about Jewish office-holders, like Linda Lingle or Debbie Wasserman Schultz, or Madeleine Kunin, governor of Vermont.

Greg – Dennis Prager is a Jew.

Or, if you don’t believe that link, try this one.

Or, perhaps this one.

Sneaky, those Jews like Prager – Bible-thumping Christianist anti-Semites to the core.

That not true. Volokh’s argument included nothing about people swearing on a Torah. If Ellison wants to merely “affirm” let him do it. But if he is allowed to swear on the Koran, I – and other conservatives – will continue to protest it.

Prager is completely wrong that Ellison is the first person to not swear on the Bible! It only took Eugene Volokh (a strong conservative) a few minutes to find out that Herbert Hoover and Franklin Pierce refused to swear an oath (they simply affirmed). That Linda Leagle, governor of Hawaii, and the Governor of Vermont Madeleine Kunin, and dozens of Jewish Senators (including Lieberman) and Representatives, have all sworn on the Torah.

The Minnesota Monitor researched for a few more minutes and found that Roosevelt didn’t use a bible at his swearing in, Hayes didn’t either and Johnson used a missal (Catholic liturgical book).

And it doesn’t even take a trip to Google to remember that the Constitution says “The Senators and Representatives … [and other state and federal officials] shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall EVER be required ….” [emph. added.]

Maybe this is how Prager wants to take back the House and Senate for Republicans. Knowing that more of the Jewish members of Congress are Democrats he’ll propose we simply disqualify them.