I swear I mean it

Does what book you take the oath of office on matter? To Dennis Prager it does.
There are a lot of points to consider in that: does the book matter? does the oath matter? who is the oath being sworn to? does what the founding fathers intended matter?
At first blush the crack back about it undermining "American civilization" seems like hyperbole. This is further exacerberated by a side-trip in which it is mis-identified as a cultural matter. He also is a bit mis-leading in identifying it as Ellison's "favorite" book...there is in truth a difference between favorite and sacred. This point eludes many of the supporters of Ellison, as well.
To start with, the very point of swearing with your hand on a Bible is a symbol that you are requesting God to witness the oath. He is the Arbiter, Protector and Avenger on those who break the oath. Much of that meaning has been lost by a modern world that claims God does not exist. As such, there actually is no more meaning to putting your hand on the Bible than there is to putting it on the Koran or Katy's Kookbook or, for that matter, on a dvd of Talladega Nights. If the symbol is devoid of all meaning representing a pact between the people and the Creator then what difference does it make what book their hand is on?
Even more to the point...let's consider the integrity of the people who have taken that oath. I could point to easy targets like Bush, who certainly gives every possible appearance of NOT upholding the oath to preserve and defend the Constitution, Clinton who gave every possible appearance of ocmmitting felony perjury while doubly under oath, Reagan with the whole Iran-Contra scandal, Nixon who deliberately committed felonies, Johnson and Kennedy who illegally expanded U.S. involvement in Vietnam....is there really a need to go on?
I guess what I am saying here is...it doesn't really matter what book you put your hand on...or even if you put your hand on a book at all...because the oath is only as good as the character of the person making it, not what they do or do not have their hand on.
To the point of whether what the Founding Fathers intended...I am actually in flux on that one. On the one hand, I definitely feel it does matter. After all, the nature of the nation is predicated on certain ideals and beliefs. Remove the beliefs, ideals, and intention and it can (and has) lead to chaos and confusion, to inequities, to dissension and discord. The nation as it stands today has experienced all of that.
At the same time...there is sometimes a golden veil put over the Founding Fathers as if in that historical moment they experienced a profundity so marvelous, so immense, so beyond the genius of any other person in any other time period that their vision must indeed be held to regardless of changing world conditions, social mores, etc. In fact, they were not only fallible, they actually disagreed with each other over the meaning and intent of certain aspects of the Constitution...ironically, Jefferson is espoused by some power mongrels trying to gain ground in areas he hated...such as expanding Federal power. It is understandable...despite his well known aversion to expanding Federal power he executed the Louisiana Purchase...a maneuver he would have argued (and DID argue) was illegal and outside the scope of Federal authority.
So while ultimately I agree with Prager that it is ridiculous that one person should be allowed to set themselves apart as more important than the tradition...well, the tradition itself is pretty meaningless.