A followup on the "controversy" over Keith Ellison's plan to be sworn in on a Koran.
Not only are Jewish and Muslim leaders alike demanding that Prager apologize; we have yet more examples of how he's simply wrong historically.
In his Nov. 28 column, Prager claimed that all members of Congress, including Jews, use a Christian Bible for the swearing-in ceremony.
However, members of Congress are sworn in together in a simple ceremony that only requires that the representatives raise their right hand. Individuals may carry a sacred text, but its presence isn't required. Representatives can bring in whatever they want, said Fred Beuttler, House of Representatives deputy historian.
In his column, Prager also claimed that no "Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon." In 1997, Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Oregon), a Mormon, carried a Bible that included the Book of Mormon to his swearing-in ceremony. But Ellison's use of a Quran isn't without precedent. In 1999, Osman Siddique became the first Muslim to serve abroad as a U.S. ambassador, and he took his oath using both a Quran and a Bible.
I hope he continues to refuse to apologize. It's fun beating him black and blue with his own ignorance.
Keith Ellison, Dennis Prager, Islam, religion, politics, midtopia
3 comments:
I confess, yes it is fun to laugh at people like Prager.
Neverending sources of fresh material for comedy and satire.
The problem is that if one is not fortunate enough to live in some sheltered, well-educated, bastion of sanity but instead lives "on the ground" as the saying goes...you get a birds-eye-view of exactly how prevalent beliefs such as those Prager expressed really are.
It's a frightening view.
The more "privileged" classes have so far been able to laugh this off. What do you expect from semi-literate auto mechanics and Wal-Mart employees after all.
Better stop and think about it though. There are MORE of "them" than "you" and they vote. Need I point to our current Commander-in-Chief to illustrate where this is going?
Not trying to pick a fight here. I'm worried. Very, very worried.
While I take your point, I have two of my own:
1. What else can you do but laugh? It's that silly. I *also* dissect the argument, so people can see there is no logic to what he says. But really, folks who think as Prager does aren't using the logic centers of their brains; they're responding emotionally. I generally respect people who have genuine, thoughtful differences. But this isn't one of those cases.
2. Call me a pollyanna, but I don't think the idjits outnumber us. You're surrounded by them, so it can seem like it. But judging from what I've seen both in print and in the blogosphere, the majority of people think Prager is totally off-base. Including a whole bunch of conservatives, and even including a whole bunch of conservative Christians. Heck, even Congressional Republicans are defending him.
Buck up; I think the picture is rosier than you think.
Not going to call you pollyanna. I sincerely hope you are correct, and you're right, I'm surrounded here :).
Post a Comment