ADL: Ellison is OK; Koran is OK; Prager is ridiculous, intolerant and ugly

I gotta go with the ADL on this one. Prager should be asked politely to resign from the United States Holocaust Memorial Council and to read a book, any book, to get some deoderant and to lose a few pounds.

New York, NY, December 1, 2006 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) issued the following statement in response to Dennis Prager’s November 28 online column, “America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on,” where he said that the first Muslim elected to Congress should not be permitted to take his oath of office on a Koran:

Dennis Prager’s argument that Representative-Elect Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, should not be permitted to take his oath of office on a Koran is, intolerant, misinformed and downright un-American.

Prager is flat-out wrong when he asserts that Representative Ellison’s use of a Koran would be “damaging to the fabric of American civilization.” To the contrary, the U.S. Constitution guarantees that, “no religious test shall ever be required” to hold public office in America. Members of Congress, like all Americans, should be free to observe their own religious practices without government interference or coercion.

Prager’s patriotic prattling is misinformed on the facts, too. No Member of Congress is officially sworn in with a Bible. Under House rules, the official swearing-in ceremony is done in the House chambers, with the Speaker of the House administering the oath of office en masse. No Bibles or other holy books are used at all. Members may, if they choose, also have a private ceremony with family and friends. At these unofficial ceremonies, Members frequently solemnize the event by taking an oath while holding a personal family Bible.

Prager ridiculously asserts that permitting Rep. Ellison to take the oath of office 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.” What he fails to understand is that what truly unifies all Americans is a value system built on religious freedom and pluralism, not dogmatism and coercion.

Prager presents intolerant, ugly views. His comparison of Ellison’s desire to “choose his favorite book” to that of the right of a racist elected to public office to use Hitler’s Mein Kampf is outrageous. If Prager were merely a blogger and radio talk-show host trying to be relevant and provocative, these views might not merit a response. But as a newly-appointed member of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, Prager and his views must be held to a higher standard.
That Prager -- he is worse than ....

But wait: "If Prager were merely a blogger... " What do you mean by that?


Anonymous said...

While I agree with what the ADL says, you're misquoting them. The ADL says Prager's "argument" and "views" are ridiculous, intolerant and ugly -- not Prager himself.

Tzvee Zahavy said...

You are right. Thank you for clarifying. I stand corrected.

It is indeed my view that Prager himself is ridiculous, intolerant and ugly. In addition I have read his columns for years and I find him to be ignorant in the areas of politics and religion. His writings show an abundance of opinion based on very little learning and expertise.

As a person who has studied religion for forty years, I do have some claim to expertise in this area and some cause for judgement of others who spout off inanities about the subject.

At some point separating the viewpoint from the person becomes just a semantic distinction.