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 from blind adherence to ideology, an idiotarian. In a column smugly titled “America, Not Keith Ellison, Decides What Book a Congressman Takes His Oath On” Prager writes:

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.

[...]

If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress.

[...]

When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. 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.

So for Prager, deviating from an informal tradition, like FDR running for a third and fourth term as President, is worse than flying four hijacked airplanes into three major buildings? Really? By harping on whether Ellison should be allowed to deviate from this tradition, and not merely arguing that he should adhere to it voluntarily as a matter of decorum, Prager seems to think the U.S. needs a religious test of office, and one that would exclude not only Muslims, but also any Christians who take Biblical proscriptions on oaths seriously. Somehow, the real terrorists managed to do their damage long before the invention of the airplane or the creation of the modern Israeli state. Ever since we scrapped the Articles of Confederation in 1789 in favor of our current Constitution,
Article VI has provided that:

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.

Prager doesn’t mention the Constitution in his article, so it’s not clear whether he wants us simply to ignore it, as he himself appears to have done, or whether he is obliquely calling for a radical amendment in the name of preserving a “traditional” America that has never existed in the real world, but which apparently has long existed in Prager’s mind. Either way, I question the wisdom of asking anyone to swear an oath on a document in doesn’t believe to be true. If I promised you anything with my right hand on a stack of National Enquirers – or, better still, in a great big pile of horse crap – would you trust me to make good on that oath? If not, then what’s to be gained by demanding an oath on a Bible from someone who thinks the same of the Bible?

UPDATE: Sister Toldjah misses an excellent opportunity for a Sister Toldjah moment.