“First, surely Prager does not think that Ellison using the Koran is more damaging than the 9-11 attacks.”

Wrong, Mr. Prager said that…

“… If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the UNITY (emphasis mine) of America and to the VALUE SYSTEM that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11.”

On his radio program today, Mr. Prager mentioned that 911 did no damage to the unity of America and/or its value system.

Mr. Taylor than said…

“Second, it is odd that Prager should be having such a negative reaction to the idea of a Muslim member of Congress.”

This is a deliberate misrepresentation of Mr. Prager’s article. Mr. Prager’s reaction is not to the idea of a Muslim member of congress… only to his insistence that America change a long-standing an important tradition in American government.

Then Mr. Taylor said…

“Third, the notion that there is some requirement that all persons serving in the US government all take their oath of office on the Christian Bible is simply incorrect.”

Another deliberate misrepresentation. Mr. Prager never said or wrote that taking the oat on a bible is a “requirement”.

Strawmen do not make good debate companions. There are good arguments against Mr. Prager’s position without employing one.