Dennis Prager has been taking heat from both sides of the aisle ever since his column, "America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on", came out. Yesterday, it went international. Some fellow conservatives have disagreed with him; and liberal detractors have just been vile and nasty, making me question whether or not they’ve actually read the column, or listened to him speak. To call Prager "racist" and "ignorant" and a hater of Islam is to be blinded by one’s own agenda and to not listen to the actual substance of what his argument and position is. As Prager would say, he "prefers clarity to agreement". And the liberal critics have neither.
If they actually took the time to understand and listen, then they might achieve clarity. Then they would be able to intelligently argue against why Prager is wrong; rather than creating strawman arguments for a strawman liberal punching bag. I’ve been perusing the liberal blogs, and I swear to Allah- I mean God- (peace be with Him), liberals almost carry a monopoly on hate speech and knee-jerk invectives. Rather unprofessional and juvenile, though, when it comes from a major newspaper.
Dennis Prager’s airtime has been preoccupied mostly with defending his position and clarifying it, ever since his article came out. This included repeating the first hour in his second hour on Monday. He’s also made appearances on Hannity and Colmes, Your World with Neil Cavuto, and Tucker with Tucker Carlson. Prager is firmly entrenched in his position, and nobly so. He offers a new, updated column today. Also yesterday, after his program aired on KRLA870, Michael Medved, who is one of his conservative friends who fundamentally disagreed with him, had him on the first hour of his program.
Initially, when I heard about this column from Prager himself, I gently disagreed with him; when I heard Michael Medved come on right afterward on his radio show and vehemently disagree with Prager, that reinforced with substance, why I only vaguely didn’t agree with Prager (at the time, I wasn’t giving this issue much thought). But the next day, as more and more waves were being generated negatively (and positively) from his column, I caught some of Prager’s program, and found myself understanding his line of reasoning, and leaning over onto his side of the fence. The reasoning is quite similar to why I agreed to stand and protest with Prager back when a tiny cross on the LA County Seal was to be removed.
This isn’t an issue of "freedom of religion" to me. It is, as Dennis says, one of tradition and of honoring the values that this country was founded upon; or more specifically, honoring where our nation’s values stemmed from. Symbols mean something. It’s why we place our right hand over our hearts; it’s why a piece of rag is transformed into "The Flag", and we give it reverence and meaning it otherwise would not have. Symbols and rituals mean something to humans; they define our civilization.
This issue has grown too big for me to blockquote, and dissect, and talk about in depth. I don’t have the time to go through some of the anti-Prager position arguments (even when they aren’t understanding Prager’s position). Just check my links. Maybe I’ll come back later and link some good and not-so-good lefty links.
I can see good arguments on both sides. But I have stepped over the line in the sand on this, and stand with Dennis Prager. Prager is a Jew who has no problems being sworn in on a New Testament Bible; I, as a non-religious person, would do the same, just as suredly as I celebrate the national holiday of Christmas, in my own non-religious way. It is about American tradition; not establishment of a specific church. I am grateful and proud to live in a nation founded upon Judeo-Christian values and principles, giving us the freedom to have such debates and disagreements without slaughtering one another over it. Here is Prager’s radio response on 11/28/06:
More of my thoughts on this can be found in the comment section on my blog.
Also blogging:
Woman Honor Thyself
Mary Katharine Ham
Mike Gallagher
Michael Medved’s Three Questions for Dennis Prager on Congressional Oaths and the Koran
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
I’m lining up with Captain Ed on this one, although with nothing near the passion that he exhibits on the subject.
Prager, who usually gets it right, got this issue spectacularly wrong. He wrote that any Congressman not willing to swear an oath on the Bible should not serve in Congress, and that the American fabric would suffer its worst damage since 9/11 if Ellison used the Qur’an instead of the Bible. This is utter nonsense. In the first place, the entire issue is somewhat moot since members have one ceremony where they all take the oath of office as a group on the floor of the House. The rules of the House, furthermore, allows for the use of an “affirmation” for those choosing not to swear their oaths as a religious preference — which demonstrates that America does have a tradition of tolerance for the needs of other religions in its processes. Quakers in particular take advantage of that option, although Richard Nixon swore his oath when elected as President.
I disagree with Prager, but think that he has standing for his opinion on the matter. I just believe that he could have picked a better opportunity to argue his case. This one is too easily confused with anti-muslim sentiment and unfortunately gives a glaring national spotlight to a relatively unimportant cog in the House machine. Conservatives don’t need to make a rock star out of Keith Ellison.
I don’t see eye-to-eye with the Captain Ed quote, in that I think he is missing the boat on Prager’s argument. Prager doesn’t dispute that legally, Ellison has the right to have the Koran present; he just feels Ellison should be persuaded by the reasons why he should not.
And everyone understands that the Reps are sworn in together as a group. That sidesteps addressing Prager’s reasoning and sets up a strawman argument, as if he doesn’t already understand that.
Can’t exactly disagree with your point about possibly making a mountain out of a molehill, and bringing more attention to an issue that might have been just swept under the radar screen; it’s one that Medved himself has made:
The controversy itself, might make such actions as Ellison’s, more pervasive and not less so.
Requiring any religious text or, indeed, any sworn oath at all, is basically a religious test for public office and would never stand a court test. Aside from that, there are plenty of reasons we conservatives should be embarrassed to even argue for such a requirement.
When being “sworn in” to the military — which I would argue is a higher and far more serious public obligation than being the mayor of East Armpit, Arkansas, or some chairborne voting machine in Washington — there is no Bible present. The only thing required to be present is an American flag, and we have the choice of either swearing (to God or whatever) an oath, or merely affirming that oath. I should know — as an atheist I affirmed that oath of enlistment in the U.S. Army from 1964 until my retirement in 1985, as did innumerable others whose ceremonies I attended. We take an oath (affirmed or sworn) that our country seems to consider rather binding, to say the least, without getting involved in some Jesuitical flummery over whose book takes precedence — L. Ron Hubbard’s peculiar screed, Mary Baker Eddy’s, or any of the uncountable different versions of the Bible.
I am frankly puzzled as to the point of this exercise. I understand the argument about tradition, and even support it for many issues. Regardless of my nonbelief, I’d keep references to God on money since it can’t be construed as proselytizing, is a long-standing tradition, and certainly doesn’t offend me. However, the difference here is that when I handle or spend money I’m not pledging anything on the strength of the phrase “In God We Trust.” When I swore an oath to defend my country and the Constitution, that’s a serious personal commitment where my life is involved, and degrading it by swearing (falsely, in my view) on a book that holds no bond over me is both pointless and, I believe, downright insulting to those who revere that book as holy writ. At a minimum, that’s just plain tacky; at worst, downright blasphemous.
By electing their representative, the voters have already passed judgment, for good or ill, on this man’s character and values (if any), and requiring him to pretend to take someone else’s sacred writing seriously makes no sense. An oath on such a non-book (to him) is meaningless and negates the whole point of such an oath.
In the final analysis, the presence or absence of any sacred writing is irrelevant since the whole strength of anyone’s oath, affirmation or promise rides only on their word. It’s either good or no good, depending on the character and sincerity of the oath-taker. Anything else is just window-dressing.
I agree with Prager’s basic intent. I’d like to see those who espouse a culture so often unassimilable, and one whose basic tenets tend to conflict with our basic Constitution, at least go on record as supporting that Constitution and what we consider essential elements of individual freedom. Not that I’d necessarily believe him, but at least if it’s done on a book that he supposedly holds sacred it might mean something. If it’s someone else’s sacred book, it might as well be Roget’s Thesaurus or last month’s Hustler.
Like Prager, and most others on this thread, I have severe reservations about the intent, or even the ability, if many — perhaps most — of our Muslim immigrants to assimilate and accept the concepts of freedom and democracy we value; there are just too many centuries of mullah-driven, mindless slavery to a medieval religion that permeates their whole culture and society. Pointing out the inherent danger in continuing this cultural suicide is extremely important, but I believe the current quibbling is more of a distraction than a solution.
Forcing, or even encouraging, anyone to swear upon a specific sacred book is not only pointless, but just plain wrong, both legally and morally. If some law actually requires this, it needs to thrown out so we can get on with the real issues that put us, and our Nation, at great risk.
If this country can accept my word of honor that I’ll lay down my life to support and defend the country and the Constitution, it damn sure should accept it for assuming the awesome responsibilities of shoveling pork and schmoozing with lobbyists at Washington cocktail parties.
I only skimmed through, MasterSgt, as I’m embroiled in responding on a dozen different blogs, including my own. But I found it difficult to disagree with anything you said, as they make sense and are ideas that I’ve contemplated myself. There isn’t anything I can see that you’ve said, that I necessarily disagree with strongly on. But I have made a decision to stand by Prager’s reasoning; although I perfectly think that if Ellison wants to have his photo taken with the Koran, that’s deeply American as well, in that it is a testament to the beauty of this nation that we have so much religious freedom.
I suppose that’s the reason why I support Prager on this: for me, there is no difference. As a non-religious person myself, I deplore the eradication of what’s I consider a part of American tradition and heritage, simply because militant secularists wish to eliminate all references and public expression of religion in government.
I can understand and appreciate that point. I know a family who is of such Christian faith, that they don’t celebrate the Christmas holiday, because they see it as a strictly religious observance and reject the commercialism. I, however, love the commercialism along with the religiosity. For me, it is part of America; and it is the commercialization which makes it accessible to the non-Christians.
I fully agree with Dennis on this one. It does not matter one whit what someone believes in. It could be Islam, it could be the book of satan for all I know, but I do know that it is a tradition of our country and one which should be followed. If he wants to swear in with the Koran in addition to the bible I’m ok with that also but I’m 100% Prager here.
We all know that Ellison has a agenda and this is just the beginning. We must not allow our country to become Europe and go so over the top with a PC mentality.
I’m talking to a wall over here.