On Election Day, Minnesota resident and Democrat Keith Ellison won the race for a vacant seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. By doing so, he became the first Muslim to be elected to U.S. Congress, as well as the first African-American to be elected to Congress from Minnesota.

Ellison has announced that when he takes the Oath of Office on January 4th, he will perform the swearing in ceremony with the Holy Qur'an instead of the Holy Bible, in accordance with his faith. This decision has ignited a firestorm of criticism from many people who have seriously lost their minds.

Conservative radio host and author Dennis Prager has especially flipped his lid. Claiming the act "undermines American civilization," the incurably batty Prager explains:

"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."

Prager, still off his rocker, questions the validity of placing one's oath on one's "favorite book." He points out in his column that Jewish and secular officials have taken their oaths of office on the Holy Bible (New Testament included), and that no Mormon official has asked to place his or her oath on the Book of Mormon.

"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."

But what book (the United States of) America decides is not so cut and dry. UCLA professor of law Eugene Volokh points out the Constitution allows people to not swear oaths at all, thus protecting atheists and agnostics. In the National Review, he noted that two former Presidents, Franklin Pierce and Herbert Hoover, didn't swear oaths at all. According to Wikipedia, Pierce chose to "affirm" his office on a law book instead of on a bible.

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes a very clear ruling on the issue of using religious texts to take oaths of office:

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.

However, Prager, who has completely lost his gourd, relied on the slippery slope argument, asking "Would they allow him to choose Hitler's 'Mein Kampf,' the Nazis' bible, for his oath?", and quipping "It is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard."

Though Ellison couldn't be reached for comment on Thursday, he was recently quoted in an interview with Abdi Aynte, a Minnesota Monitor reporter, as saying "The Constitution guarantees for everyone to take the oath of office on whichever book they prefer, and that’s what the freedom of religion is all about."

In continuing to lose touch with reality, Prager claims the reason Ellison's decision is being tolerated is because of a hyper-sensitivity to Muslims on the part of "naive people" in America who, as he claims, "believe that one of the greatest goals of America is to be loved by the world, and especially by Muslims because then fewer Muslims will hate us (and therefore fewer will bomb us)."

Prager, nuttier than Carter's gardens, continues to say:

"Ellison's [taking the oath on the Qur'an] 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."

Still, many see no reason to deny a publicly elected official the choice to be sworn in on the Qur'an if they so choose. On National Review Online, Volokh asked, "Why would Muslims and others not be equally protected?" He went on to say:

"Letting Christians swear the oath of office, while allowing members of other denominations only to swear what ends up being a mockery of an oath – a religious ceremony appealing to a religious belief system that they do not share – would be discriminatory."

Some conservatives have spoken up in disagreement with Prager's whackjob opinion. Republican Representative Tom Tancredo, who has promoted the fence along the U.S. / Mexico border, supports Ellison's decision. "He wants to take his oath on the Quran, that’s fine." Tancredo continued to say, "I think whatever you believe is necessary for you to uphold your obligations to the Constitution, that is fine with me."

In perhaps his most extreme expression of unbridled delirium, Prager claimed Ellison's decision to choose a book other than the Holy Bible to make his oath "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."

The "controversy" will be resolved January 4th of next year, when Ellison will likely take the oath of office on the Qur'an as planned.