Much Ado about the Koran (AKA: When Pseudo-Religious Conservatives Attack!)

So, the first Muslim elected to Congress (Keith Ellison) has announced that he will use the Koran when he takes his oath of office, according to this Post article. This, in turn, has apparently outraged some pseudo-religious conservatives (the qualifiers are necessary because I have to believe that more intelligent conservatives do not fall into this line of thinking), who claim that it is a slap in the face of the Judeo-Christian tradition of our country. According to Dennis Prager, a conservative talk show host,

This has nothing to do with the Koran. It has to do with the first break of the tradition of having a Bible present at a ceremony of installation of a public official since George Washington inaugurated the tradition.

Prager has explained his stance here, where he also says:

But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

Unfortunately for Prager, the truth appears to be quite different. Ellison was incorrect to say that he would use the Koran in the first place simply because, as it turns out, Congressmen do not use any book, holy or otherwise, at their swearing-in. They merely stand on the House floor and are sworn in together. So, what was Ellison referring to? Well, after the official swearing in, House members have their own personal unofficial swearing-in that is actually just a photo op and typically includes a Bible (though that is up to them), and Ellison apparently would prefer the Koran. Note, however, that, when the Bible is present, no actual installation of a public official is going on.

Other public officials have used books other than a Bible at official oaths of office, including the current governor of Hawaii (Linda Lingle-R), John Quincy Adams, and Teddy Roosevelt. Moreover, it should be noted that not all public officials are actually sworn in -- some affirm their oaths. The Founding Fathers apparently gave this as an out due to the religiously pluralistic nature of the country (did they know something that people can't figure out today?). So, it appears that Prager is wrong on many fronts.

After his original column, he wrote a follow-up, where it appears that he has now been informed of the unofficial nature of the use of the Bible in Congressional oaths of office. Rather than offering a mea culpa, he continues to defend his original position by adding some nuances to his argument that aren't particularly germane to my post. However, it does not appear, unless I missed it, that anyone has informed him that previous presidents, no less, have NOT used the Bible in their swearing-in.

Frankly, I'll chalk this one up to the same elements behind the so-called "War on Christmas" that was so big last year (or was it the year before?). Essentially, these kinds of people create oppositions that they can bash over the head for being un-Christian, un-patriotic, and/or ultimately un-American. They create a straw man or raise the specter of the boogeyman to create the sense of a cultural and/or religious clash that is not actually occurring. They assume a certain homogeneity of cultural and religious beliefs in this country that they insist has always existed and then insist is under attack. And they cite the Founding Fathers, incorrectly, as supportive of this Christian culture that, according to these elements, has always been intended to, and is always supposed to, pervade our government.

What I find most irritating is that the Post waits until the TENTH paragraph before informing the reader that Prager has his facts about Congressional oaths WRONG. Would it kill the media to actually point out to the reader clearly and explicitly when someone has their facts wrong ASAP?