« Wanna buy a vowel? | Main | 2006 Weblog Awards »

December 04, 2006

CAIR working hard to dhimmitize American infidels

Fresh from the Flying Imams stunt, CAIR continues its aggressive agenda of intimidation of any infidel critic.

Now, they're going after Dennis Prager, who had the audacity to react to the announcement by Congressperson-elect Ellison to ceremonially use the Koran, instead of The Bible, for taking the oath of office.

An Islamic civil rights group said Monday that a columnist who criticized Rep.-elect Keith Ellison's decision to use the Quran during his ceremonial swearing-in should be removed from the United States Holocaust Memorial Council.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations said the comments by Dennis Prager, a columnist and conservative talk radio host, displayed an intolerance toward Islam that make him an inappropriate person to serve on the council.

Did Prager criticise Islam in his column?. No. Did he make the argument that Islam is a lesser religion in his column than Christianity or Judaism? No. Prager makes his argument, agree with it or not, that it is about the central, foundational place in American history, culture and values that the Bible has figured.
When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization.
Prager's critics can't even tell the truth about Prager's argument. What does that say about the substance of their "thinking"?

People who disagree in good faith with Prager should be appalled by CAIR's continued intimidation of critics, especially against a person whose whole body of work -- of books, radio and television -- bespeak a person of great personal integrity and is so far from "intolerant", if CAIR is to succeed then it is to make a mockery of the word "tolerant." It then becomes "tolerance" as defined by the most offended. It becomes "tolerance" as defined as placation of the most easily moved to violence.

... whoever decides these matters, not to mention virtually every editorial page in America, is not going to offend a Muslim. ... This argument appeals to all those who 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).
Disagree with Prager. Argue the advantages/disadvantages of allowing any text to be honored while the Bible is rejected in this ceremony. Consider that such an argument about unity of cultural underpinnings also is the legitimate argument of English as the official American language.

But to dismiss the argument, and the person positing the opinion, because even making statements about the foundational value of the Bible is, ipso facto, racist is to deal in bumpersticker dogma, not good faith argument.

Indeed, it doesn't even constitute thinking.

UPDATE -- This isn't about "religious tests". To understand the point Prager is making, consider this analogy: What message would be sent if an elected official announced that his/her swearing in would be conducted in a language other than English, exclusively?

Technorati: , , ,

Posted by Darleen at December 4, 2006 11:02 AM

Comments

Saying that someone shouldn't serve on a panel hardly qualifies as "intimidation." Use of the dhimmi cliche is pretty ironic considering that Prager is the one arguing that Ellison should submit to "Judeo-Christianity."

Prager's entire argument is flawed, because he apparently think that the Bible holds some sanctified place in American public life, when in fact it is widely used only because the vast majority of public officials have been Christian. Holy books are used for swearing people in because it is thought that one is less likely to lie if one is invoking God's word to vouch for one's truthfulness. It isn't used, as Prager would have it, because oaths are to be taken with one's hand on a symbol of American values. If that were the case public officials would swear oaths on the Constitution, not the Bible.

Prager seems to suffer from the misimpression that "America" somehow "chose" the Bible as its official book for public swearings-in, but in fact use of the Bible is simply a tradition that arose because the vast majority of American public officials happen to be Christian.

Posted by: Josh at December 4, 2006 04:37 PM

the vast majority of American public officials happen to be Christian.
"Just happened"? As in just a quirk of fate? That America would have the same Constitution and the same laws if all the Founders were followers of Vishnu?

Again, if you want to argue that the Bible isn't important in a ceremonial setting...fine.

But puhleeze, can't we stop the Bowlderizing of American history of the profound influence Christianity had on shaping all aspects of American culture?

And if swearing on a Bible is only to help ensure the sincerity of the oath-taker, then why have such ceremonies public?

You need to consider the real reasons why we have public oaths in the first place...and that it is the public part of it...making a promise infront of the community, that holds weight.

Posted by: Darleen at December 4, 2006 05:03 PM

Darleen's Place
Politics, parenting and other prattlings.
Previewing your Comment

Josh
You said....

"Prager's entire argument is flawed, because he apparently think that the Bible holds some sanctified place in American public life, when in fact it is widely used only because the vast majority of public officials have been Christian."

Why is the argument flawed when your comment so well supports it? It is sanctified for the very reasons you state.

Posted

Posted by: Hugh at December 4, 2006 05:53 PM

You did a nice job with this topic, Darleen. I didn't think I would agree with you, but you made me think about this in a different way. I had only read the news story - very well written post.

Posted by: Cassandra at December 4, 2006 05:54 PM

FWIW, I'm not sure I agree with Dennis Prager either, but several of his points are not entirely unreasonable and are certainly not racist or bigoted.

Posted by: Cassandra at December 4, 2006 05:56 PM

That America would have the same Constitution and the same laws if all the Founders were followers of Vishnu?

Probably wouldn't have blue laws and a few other silly ordinances, but if you could, please point me to the section of the Constitution that refers to God or Christ.

But puhleeze, can't we stop the Bowlderizing of American history of the profound influence Christianity had on shaping all aspects of American culture?

So what? It doesn't follow from the fact that Christianity is the historically dominant religion that all public officials should swear oaths on the Christian Bible.

Why is the argument flawed when your comment so well supports it? It is sanctified for the very reasons you state.

Because it's popular?

Posted by: Josh at December 5, 2006 08:12 AM

What Dennis Prager is saying, is that Ellison is somehow less an American because he swears on a Koran, than someone else entereing Congress who swears on a Bible. It's bigoted nonsense, of course, but that's to be expected from Prager. Never mind that many elements in the Koran are in agreement with many elements in the Jewish and Christian Bible, no, Ellison is, somehow or another, not a 'true' American.

Posted by: Carl W. Goss at December 5, 2006 08:45 AM

- This entire kerfluffle is a non-starter. Senators are sworn in "en-masse" by simply raising their right hands in a group setting, and swearing to the oath. In addition, the individual Senators can hold a "private" oath ceremony in their offices with family and friends in attendence, if they so choose. In that case they can use the city telephone book, or a copy of Playboy if they want to. Might help if Prager took the time to study the way things work, but then there'd be no "issue" to blog about. Since 62% of the public polled recently, think Nancy Pelosi is a New york dress designer, I'm not surprised by anything anymore.

Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at December 5, 2006 09:21 AM

Dennis Prager is an outspoken Jewish commentator, who has been a champion of Israel, has criticized Islamofacism, and supported the war in Iraq. Naturally, CAIR is anxious to shut him up, and this is as good an excuse as any.

It's not about being fair to Moslems; it's about Islam pushing its own agenda, and silencing anybody who dares criticize it.

I'm glad you brought this up, Darleen, I was kind've hoping you would.

Posted by: TalkinKamel at December 5, 2006 01:06 PM

- Well yes Kamel. Prager is one of the good guys, and the real point is the Muslims refusal to deal with accurate criticisms. A very real lack of courage of their beliefs most would say, coupled with the need to convert others to attain legitinacy it would seem. Pretty shallow agenda.

Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at December 6, 2006 01:24 PM

Looks like Prager didn't do his research. The U.S. Ambassador to the Fiji Islands was sworn on a Koran back in 1999. And guess what: Western civilization did not come crashing down soon after.

Posted by: Brad at December 6, 2006 02:27 PM

On the other hand, the Twin Towers did come crashing down, on 9/11, and they were brought down by Islamic terrorists.

I think it's naive and foolish to pretend that such terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, or that there are no problems within Islam, or that Islam's view of Shari'a law, and the relationship of the government to the faith (in Islam there is no separation of church and state) don't present problems which really ought to be addressed. As you point out, Big Bang Hunter, it's a pretty shallow agenda they're pushing---but they are pushing it, and they appear to be getting away with it at the moment.

Really, I suspect the real reason is they just want to shut Prager up, and are using the all powerful "Racism!" meme here, to achieve that end. It's not only a shallow agenda---it's pretty obvoius what they're up to.

Posted by: TalkinKamel at December 6, 2006 06:27 PM

Kamel:
Who is "they"??? Sounds like you're just lumping CAIR in with the jihadists.

Which doesn't surprise me.

Also am not surprised that you make a connection between someone taking an oath on a holy book and an assualt on innocent people by followers of a fanatical strain of that book. This is the key difference between the Left and the Right these days: the Right sees this as all or nothing: either ALL muslims are evil, or they are not. It's US against Them. How simplistic.

Posted by: Brad at December 7, 2006 08:23 AM

And sounds like you're just making excuses for dangerous people again.

Which doesn't surprise me. By the way, CAIR has been connected to some very questionable people, and activities in the past. Youd should google some of them. No, I'm not saying all Moslems are evil---you're putting words in my mouth. I am saying some things should be looked into, and freely questioned, especially after 9/11. All Moslems aren't evil. All Moslems aren't necessarily our friends, either, and we should be able to investigate, and question things, without having the overly simplistic Left scream, "Islamophobic" and "racist!"

Posted by: TalkinKamel at December 7, 2006 01:14 PM

All Moslems aren't evil. All Moslems aren't necessarily our friends, either

Allow me to decontruct.

_______ aren't evil. _______ aren't necessarily our friends, either.

You could fill just about any group (racial, ethnic, religious, political) in those blanks and have a powerful, effective sentence.

What do I mean by "powerful" and "effective"?

Well, in 1939, a lot of Germans were saying something along those lines. And the Europeans who came to America and settled out west were saying things along those lines about the savages they encountered on the frontier. The English and the Dutch and the French who colonized Africa in the 18th and 19th centuries often made statements along those lines, too.

It's a recipe for something, isn't it?

Now, one final point: there are 1 billion Muslims on the planet.

Posted by: Brad at December 7, 2006 07:54 PM

Brad, you are deconstructed; you are beyond deconstructed. You are deconstructacated.

You're trying to play the race/anti-semetic card; it won't work here. Stale appeals to the alleged evils of European colonialism won't work here either.

Using the 1939 analogy---the countries that, today, are talking like the Nazis, i.e., threatening to blow Jews off the face of the map, and eliminate Israel, and America, entirely, are Iran and various Islamic terrorist groups, such as Hamas, Fatah, etc. It is Islamic Syria, and Iran, who are threatening Lebanon. And it is these very same entities we are forbidden to criticize, because all Moslems aren't evil, there are, after all, one billion of them, and oh, oh, oh, it's so racist, and just like the Nazis to say bad things about them, or even to question them!

It is 1939, all over again---but not in the way you're thinking. Once again, it's Ignore Hitler, appease him, you can't blame all Germans for the Nazis, and it's mean, after all the bad things we said about Germany in WWI, and so on and so forth.

And, I think deep down, you know this. And are afraid to admit it.

Posted by: TalkinKamel at December 8, 2006 08:41 AM

kamel,

Syria and Iran can't blow anybody off the map. And they'll never have the ability to invade other countries like Germany and Japan did in 1939. Comparing them to the Nazis is like comparing a snake to a lion in terms of the threat they pose to an elephant.

Let me be clear. Iran is a poison snake. The U.S. is the elephant. Nazi Germany was a lion.

Got it?


Remember, those of us on the Left were right about Saddam not being a threat. You ought to listen to us for a change.

Posted by: Brad at December 8, 2006 09:07 AM

- "Remember, those of us on the Left were right about Saddam not being a threat."

- Yes Kamal. you must always listen to your superiors on the left, and their eridite handling of international diplomacy, from the Jimmah Cartah school of appeasement/surrender, made so famouse by the numerous failures of the inventors the French.

- You always negotiate endlessly with your enemies, until thay are strong enough to really take you out and its too late. Because you know, anything is better than war, even abject subserviance. Besides, those poor under-educated brown people could never really hurt mighty America. Didn't you know that Kamal? The 2700 Americans murdered on 9/11, and 10's of thousands of relatives effected, are trivial, compared to asking the "elite" to actually defend the country. It's all an evil NeoCon plan to steal the Lefts "essense".

Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at December 9, 2006 04:07 PM