My first exposure to Prager was the video at Hot Air regarding swearing on the Koran. It began with a truncated version of this quote from Prager's original piece:

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.

This did not strike me as a calm, sober analysis of the situation. It also seemed to be a clear violation of multiple parts of the Constitution. He described the Bible as "the work we wish to affirm as our central text". Well, "I" don't wish to affirm the Bible as my central text, and I resent Prager trying to establish it as our central text. We've got violations of the establishment of religion clause (Bible as central text), the free exercise clause (don't swear on your own holy book), and the prohibition on a religious test ("...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.") I believe it is clear Prager is not asking for a law to enforce this, merely making his argument a violation of the spirit of the Constitution if not the letter.

A blatant disregard for the Constitution is only part of the reason I think his arguments are based on prejudice, though I'd say it's probably the most significant. If he isn't basing his arguments on the Constitution, and they just happen to be opposed to a Muslim freely exercising his religious beliefs according to his own conscience, it makes me extremely suspicious.

Now I wouldn't want to be accused of labeling someone a bigot just because they disagree with me on a subject. But I'm not convinced that even Dennis Prager believes Dennis Prager's arguments, because they feature numerous inconsistencies.

Let me put it a different way. Let's look at the two most likely motivations for Prager's arguments. (There may be other explanations, but I believe these two have it pretty well covered.)

1. Prager's opinion is made out of principle and based on logic. He sincerely believes that all elected officials should take their oaths of office on the same book, and if they don't it will do more damage to the value system that has formed this country than 9/11. He'd feel the same way if a Hindu wanted to swear on a Bhagavad Gita, a Scientologist on Dianetics, etc.

2. Prager just doesn't like the idea of an American official swearing his oath on the Koran, and he'll attempt whatever arguments he can against it, making them up as he goes along. The idea of the Bible as a "central text" that should sworn upon in the interests of supporting American civilization is just an excuse he's using to prevent a Muslim from swearing on his own holy text. (This does not have to be a conscious effort. For example, Andrew Sullivan may truly believe Bush's position on the FMA didn't affect his arguments.)

The first inconsistency is in the video. The video starts with a discussion of Prager's quote: "...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." Volokh points out that according to the Constitution, you do not have to take an oath on that book, and that in fact Herbert Hoover did not swear on the Bible. I thought Prager's response was less than impressive:

VOLOKH: Well, for starters the Constitution specifically says you may refuse to use any book for that...
PRAGER: That's right.
VOLOKH: You may refuse to give an oath. You may affirm. That's what Herbert Hoover did. Justice Goldberg, a Jewish...
PRAGER: Herbert Hoover had a Bible. Herbert Hoover had a Bible.
VOLOKH: He affirmed.
PRAGER: He just didn't swear by it, because I believe he was a Quaker. That's a very different story.

Now why exactly is that a different story? In his original piece, the video, and a follow-up response, Prager repeatedly stressed how important these ceremonies are; how important it is to honor the "central text", how it sends a message to the American people, and that an elected official is a part of "a society molded by the Bible and the people who believed in it, a fact he should be willing to honor as he is sworn in."* But an affirmation should run into the same problems. If you affirm, you are not honoring the "central text", and you are not honoring how the Bible and people who believed in it molded American society. How do affirmations avoid violating Prager's own main arguments? I couldn't help but come up with an uncharitable interpretation of his reply: Herbert Hoover had a Bible. At home. That he believed in. He doesn't have to do any honoring or ceremony because we all know he was a good Judeo-Christian and not the member of some heathen religion.

Here's another problem with his argument. In his follow-up piece he states:

It is not I, but Keith Ellison, who has engaged in disuniting the country. He can still help reunite it by simply bringing both books to his ceremonial swearing-in. Had he originally announced that he would do that, I would have written a different column -- filled with praise of him. And there would be a lot less cursing and anger in America.

Now that's odd. Just three paragraphs above that statement, he says:

I simply offered a slippery slope argument that if we let everyone choose their own text at swearings-in, what will happen one day should a racist decide to use "Mein Kampf"?

Wouldn't that slippery slope argument still hold? If Ellison is allowed to bring both a Bible and another text, what would stop a racist from bringing both the Bible and Mein Kampf? How is that less horrible than bringing the Mein Kampf alone? Prager asked "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?" But on what grounds will those defending Ellison's right to choose his favorite book in addition to the Bible deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office? (Incidentally, I'd say bringing up "Mein Kampf" is a bit out of place in a discussion of ceremonial protocol.)

Prager states:

Ceremonies matter a lot. As I told the Associated Press, ceremonies are essential to the continuity of a civilization. Therefore, the first time in American history that a congressman has decided to jettison the Bible for another text should not go unnoticed -- or elicit yawns, as it has from conservative and libertarian critics.

and noted:

Very many critics note the fact that members of Congress are not sworn in individually with Bibles but all together in the House chamber and without the Bible. The use of the Bible is a ceremonial act that takes place in private before family, friends and the press. My critics cite this fact as if somehow it invalidates my larger point.

Yet in his first piece he stated:

Keith Ellison... has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.
...
If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress.
...
...he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in.
...
Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon.
...
When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book...

Dennis Prager believes that ceremonies "are essential to the continuity of a civilization", but not so essential that he needed to know how they were performed. But maybe he already knew about the symbolic swearing-in in his first piece, and just didn't want to get bogged down in details. Yet if he already knew it was just a symbolic swearing-in, why didn't he make this argument (from his follow-up) in his first piece?

Second, the very fact that it is a ceremony makes my point far more forcefully. Obviously, Mr. Ellison will have already been officially sworn in. Therefore, the use of the Koran has absolutely nothing to do with taking an oath on the book he holds sacred. It is used entirely to send a message to the American people. So all the arguments that he must be able to swear on the book he holds sacred are moot. He will have already been sworn in.

Prager stated:

But neither I nor tens of millions of other Americans will watch in silence as the Bible is replaced with another religious text for the first time since George Washington brought a Bible to his swearing-in.

If Mr. Prager believes it's relevant to discuss the presence of the Bible during Presidential oaths of office, perhaps he could explain how America survived after John Quincy Adams took his oath on "a book of laws, the Constitution and American laws". Or how American civilization managed to continue after Theodore Roosevelt's swearing-in.

Odd, too, that Mr. Prager would state:

First, it was Keith Ellison who raised the entire issue of taking an oath on a Koran rather than a Bible. He did not make his announcement in the hopes that it would be ignored but to make a statement. I was responding to that statement. Critics who are unhappy with it becoming an issue should direct their ire at Mr. Ellison.

Really? We should direct our ire at Mr. Ellison because he raised the issue? Well, I am very disappointed in Dennis Prager. Where were you? Imagine if Ellison hadn't announced his intentions, if he had kept quiet on his intention to use a Koran. It could have done "more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11." You said you were "so aware of the fragility of all civilizations, including ours," yet you almost let this happen! To think, if not for Ellison's public statement, the Republic may have been lost!

Prager says:

Bigoted against whom? Against non-Christians? I am a non-Christian. Am I bigoted against myself as a Jew? I happen to be one of the most active individuals in American Jewish life and co-author of probably the most widely used English-language introduction to Judaism of the last 30 years.

Bigoted against whom? I think the answer is obvious. Made even more obvious by the little dance he does around it. The answer is Muslims. He conveniently defines it in terms of non-Christians so he can put Jews and Muslims in the same category, thus claiming he can't be bigoted against himself. Yet his arguments differentiate between the Jews using the their holy text ("part of the American Bible" and ok) and Muslims using their holy text (destroys America).

Do any of you think he didn't think about Muslims when he was forming that particular argument against his own bigotry? He was certainly thinking about Muslims earlier:

So why are we allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done -- choose his own most revered book for his oath?

The answer is obvious -- Ellison is a Muslim. And whoever decides these matters, not to mention virtually every editorial page in America, is not going to offend a Muslim.

Now did that sound like an argument from principle? Or does it sound like "I don't like the Koran"? If it's an argument from principle, why would you let yourself be sidetracked by dealing with arguments that are specific to Muslims? For example:

Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America.

I have trouble imagining Mr. Prager making a similar argument about "the Hinduization of America."

Dennis Prager claims to be free of bigotry, much in the same way Andrew Sullivan claims to be a conservative. That doesn't mean I think he'll run out and attack a Muslim, any more than I thought Trent Lott was going to go out burn a cross on somebody's lawn. That's a matter for his own conscience. If I have successfully shown the weakness of his arguments, I'm content.