The Greeks Called It "Hubris"

This, by Kenneth Prager, is the most unbelievable piece of crap I've ever seen in print (give or take anything Ann Coulter ever plagiarized.)

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.

As one of Andrew Sullivan's readers points out:

The very first law passed under the Constitution was enacted on June 1, 1789 (Statute I, Chapter 1 (1 Stat. 23)): "An Act to regulate the Time and Manner of administering certain Oaths." That law says nothing about what someone taking the oath of office is supposed to do with his hands; nor does it say anything about Bibles or any other books being involved in the process. That original law currently is disbursed in 2 U.S.C. Sections 21, et seq. and 5 U.S.C. Section 3331 and in none of these sections (nor in the Rules of the House of Representatives) is there any requirement about what one does with his hands.

James Joyner points out Article VI of the Constitution:

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.

Not to mention the First Amendment -- remember the Establishment Clause?

Stephen Bainbridge also dissects Prager's column, much more nicely that I would do it. The comments on Bainbridge's post are instructive, particularly this observation:

As I understand it, Ellison doesn't have to take any oath at all. The Constitution says (Article VI), "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned... shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution". Everywhere else that an Oath is required, the Constitution likewise says "or Affirmation". Some religions forbade the taking of oaths (I believe the Quakers did); the Constitution specifically allowed those people the option of "affirming" their intent to uphold the Constitution, instead of swearing an oath.

Of course, I'm reminded of Jamie Raskin's comment in his campaign in Maryland (?), which I paraphrase: "When you took your oath of office, you put your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution; you did not put your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

Thanks for the two links above to Glenn Greenwald, who as usual makes the most telling point:

As always, it is the most basic constitutional principles -- which were previously beyond challenge -- that are placed in doubt by the most rabid Bush followers. And these attacks on our constitutional values are, with no sense of irony, waged in the name of defending "America."

The first question, as always, is "Is Prager that stupid, or does he think we are?" I think it's just an attention-getting device. Of course, if he'd done just a little bit of research -- a stretch, obviously -- then he would have actually had to come up with an idea for a column.

Aside from the Prager's arrogance in presuming to speak for "America" -- whatever warped version of that concept he may have in his head, and he sure as hell doesn't speak for me -- he's just flat wrong on every count. I don't mean an "I don't agree with this" wrong, or a "not a very nice thing to say" wrong, just a flat-out, no contact with reality, never read a history book, wouldn't know a fact if it bit him kind of wrong. That much is obvious from the comments of people who do know what they're talking about.

If anyone taking an oath of office should be required to place a hand on a book, it should be a bound copy of the Constitution. Just goes to show -- Althouse and Reynolds notwithstanding, Sullivan is absolutely right about the Christianists.

And these people think they should be running things? (Of course they do -- God told them so.)