This "controversy" has already been covered in more than exhaustive detail, but I wanted to throw in my 2 cents regarding a couple of points of Prager illogic that I think have been overlooked. (Leave aside the facts that Prager's demand that the "Christian Bible" be used or be present at swearing in ceremonies is both unconstitutional, and factually and historically inaccurate.)
First, isn't what Prager is demanding a sure fire way to ensure that whatever oath is being sworn is absolutely meaningless. Even if a Jew, let's say an observant Jew like Joe Lieberman for example, were hypothetically willing to swear an oath on the "Christian Bible," such an oath would be a nuliity because Lieberman does not believe in the divinity of that book. For Lieberman, or any observant Jew for that matter, it would be no different than if he had sworn an oath on a copy of My Pet Goat. The only way to ensure the solemnity of the oath would be to require that the oath be taken using a book the individual considers holy text--in the case of a Jew, the Torah, and in the case of a Muslim, the Koran. Otherwise, the oath is a mockery.
Second, Prager is a big propoent of the Ten Commandments.Ten Commandments However, requiring someone to take an oath on a book they do not consider to be divine would violate the Ten Commandments' prohibition from taking God's name in vain--both from the standpoint of the person swearing the oath (assuming they accept the divinity of the Ten Commandments, which both Jews and Muslims do), and from the standpoint of the one requiring that the oath be administered using their holy book. Why would any Christian want a non-Christian to desecrate their holy religous texts in such a way?
Of course, I am not expecting Prage to square any of these circles.