Monday, December 4, 2006
Here's the problem with publicly-funded institutions -- everyone thinks they have a say in what they do...and they do...even if it's Saudi-funded CAIR. Whatever one thought of Prager's column (having read it, and heard Prager discuss the issue on his radio show, I still can't say I agree with him), his thesis is certainly not beyond the pale of polite discussion.
There's something kind of disturbing about this CAIR press release:
U.S. HOLOCAUST MUSEUM URGED TO DROP ISLAM-BASHER
Presidential appointee says Quran oath 'undermines American civilization'
(WASHINGTON, D.C., 12/4/06) - A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group today called for the removal of a presidential appointee to the United States Holocaust Memorial Council because of his intolerant views toward Islam in American society.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) urged that talk show host and columnist Dennis Prager be removed from the taxpayer-supported museum's council because of a recent syndicated column in which he wrote that Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, should be prevented from taking his oath of office using the Quran.
(President Bush recently appointed Prager to the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, the governing board of the Holocaust Memorial Museum, for the remainder of a five year term expiring January 15, 2011.)
In his column, headlined "America, Not Keith Ellison, Decides What Book a Congressman Takes His Oath On," Prager wrote that swearing an oath on the Quran "undermines American civilization." "Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible," wrote Prager. "If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress."
Prager also wrote that Ellison's swearing on a Quran would "be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11."
(The U.S. Constitution states that "no religious test shall ever be required" to hold public office. No books of any kind are used in the actual swearing-in ceremony. Representatives may use any book they choose, or no book at all, during later ceremonial events.)...
CAIR's three guiding principles: 1) offense, 2) offense and 3) offense.
And of Ahmadinejad's repeated avowals (he's stated this again, within the last 48 hours) to wipe Israel off the map, deny Hitler's holocaust or repeat that holocaust**, has CAIR advanced a complaint or rebuke contra Ahmadinejad?
(Btw, I believe this complaint by CAIR, contra Prager's appointment to the Memorial Council, is longstanding and they are using the Ellison/Quran brouhaha to advance that longstanding offensive.)
Prager is totally off the wall with this and evidences a fundamental lack of understanding of the U.S. Constitution. The "no religious test" clause is part of the original founding document, predating even the Bill of Rights.
No Jew should willingly swear an oath on a Bible that included a New Testament. Why should a Muslim do so?
The secular republic -- it's for everyone.
worth reading on this subject:
Eugene Volokh at National Review Online
Jeff Weintraub at 'So It Goes'
I've yet to read a single oppositional response to Prager's commentary that does not, bare minimum, misconstrue critical aspects of Prager's intent (as I understand it) and, at the maximum, well let's just say the commentary is colorful - and is so in a single, intensely "focused" direction. It's not about religion, it's not about comparing the Quran to "Mein Kampf" or "Dianetics," it's not about legal coercion (all of which errors Weintraub, linked above, commits) and it's not about other errors still, such as - ahem - using labels to demonize any perceived opposition.
His most recent response to his critics can be found here, where he rebuts three or four of the more common accusations.