This is, however, one of the few times I've ever disagreed with him. Prager misunderstands the nature of an oath and the history of the use of the Bible in official ceremonies.
The theory of an oath is that if the swearer fails to do what he swears (such as to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth") he will endanger his soul. So, presumably, the odds go up he will do so. It is not a symbolic act of state, as Prager suggests, but it is an act bound up in the swearer's religion, as he denies. If I were to swear an oath on the Koran, it would be meaningless, as I am a Christian. Same thing if Ellison were to swear an oath on a Bible.
I have seen thousands of oaths administered, and very few are taken on a Bible or have a Bible present.
Congress follows the pattern. The swearing-in ceremony is a mass ceremony where the oath is taken with raised hand. No Bible is used. Some Members choose to carry one, but others don't.
George Washington took the Presidential oath of office on a Bible, kissed it, and added "so help me God" to the oath, which tradition subsequent Presidents have mainly followed. This is what Prager is thinking of, but it is highly unusual for other oaths of office and oaths taken in court.
Prager argues a Bible should be "present" when taking the Congressional oath because that symbolizes the Judeo-Christian roots of our Republic and the belief of the Framers that our rights derive from God and not man. But that's just wrong - the locus of that belief is in the Declaration of Independence, which is very clear on the subject. The presence or absence of a Bible at an oath of office is just irrelevant to the subject of the origins of the Founding.
Prager just got this one wrong. I wish he'd follow the First Rule of Holes.
That was the essence of Medved's disagreement with DP, to
which I also hold.