Star Tribune: Add Two Jews and one Muslim to Keep the Minnesota Political Pot Boiling

The overwhelmingly Christian state of Minnesota has 10,000 lakes and over 5 million residents broken down thusly: 32.0% of Minnesotans affiliated with Mainline Protestant traditions, 21.0% with Evangelical Protestant traditions, 28.0% with Roman Catholic traditions, 1.0% each with Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, and Black Protestant traditions, smaller amounts for other faiths, and 13.0% unaffiliated.

That little minority community of Jews and Muslims sure keeps the Minnstota political pot boiling. Here are two stories, one about a controversy over Rep. Ellison's Hajj to Mecca and the other about the still unresolved Franken v. Coleman election for the senate.

Ellison's privately paid trip to Mecca prompts debate
The ethics panel that signed off on his free pilgrimage will review whether he needs to report the cost.

The wait is agonizing for Coleman, Franken
The candidates and their staffs are keeping their phones close by because they know the ruling could come any day now, ending a seven-month odyssey.

Conan O'Brien's Torah Joke

"The first Muslim member of Congress is planning to be sworn in on a copy of the Koran that was once owned by Thomas Jefferson. The congressman says he found Thomas Jefferson's Koran on the shelf next to George Washington's Torah." --Conan O'Brien

Slap: Prager Censured by Holocaust Board and Backs Off

Only the president can remove a member of the Holocaust Museum panel, according to the Times. The insinuation is that the board would have fired the man for his incendiary comments about Rep. Ellinson's intent to swear in to congress on a Koran.

Prager finally backpedals a bit, according to the Times, saying he was just trying to make a point about the bible, implying that he did not really mean what he was saying, raising the question, does he ever really mean what he is saying or does he just spout off constantly to keep himself employed as a wingnut commentator?

I've expressed my views here several times on why Prager is wrong. He ought to own up to his mistaken views, retract them and apologize. If not, he ought to resign from the board of the museum.

Holocaust Museum Rebukes Member for Koran Comment
By RACHEL L. SWARNS

WASHINGTON, Dec. 21 — The board that oversees the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum here publicly distanced itself on Thursday from a member who recently condemned the first Muslim elected to Congress for planning to use a Koran during the private part of his swearing-in ceremony.

In November, the board member, Dennis Prager, a conservative commentator and radio show host, said that Keith Ellison, the newly elected Muslim member of Congress, should give up his post if he could not take his oath on a Bible, which Mr. Prager said was the traditional religious text of the United States.

In its resolution, the council’s executive committee criticized Mr. Prager’s remarks as “antithetical to the mission of the museum as an institution promoting tolerance and respect for all peoples regardless of their race, religion or ethnicity.”

Mr. Prager, one of 68 members of the board, known as the Holocaust Memorial Council, was appointed to the unpaid post by President Bush, and is serving a five-year term, which expires in 2011, said Andrew Hollinger, a spokesman for the council.

Mr. Hollinger said Mr. Bush had the sole power to remove Mr. Prager.

On Wednesday, Representative Virgil H. Goode Jr., Republican of Virginia, was sharply criticized by Congressional Democrats and Muslim Americans for warning that Mr. Ellison’s election to the House posed a serious threat to the traditional values.

Critics of Mr. Goode and Mr. Prager noted that the Constitution specifically bars any religious screening of members of Congress and that the actual swearing in of those lawmakers occurs without any religious texts. The use of such texts occurs only in private ceremonies that take place after lawmakers have officially sworn to uphold the Constitution.

Mr. Goode stood by his comments on Thursday and told Fox News that he wanted to restrict legal immigration to the United States “so that we don’t have a majority of Muslims elected to the United States House of Representatives.” (Mr. Ellison, a lawyer who converted to Islam as a college student, is an African-American, not an immigrant.)

Mr. Prager said Muslim American groups and others had pressured the museum board. “Everybody knows there’s no bigotry in what I said, but they felt they had to do it,” he said in an interview.

“I completely respect Congressman-Elect Ellison’s right to take an oath on the Koran, and regret any language that suggested otherwise,” Mr. Prager added in a statement, emphasizing that he began reaching out to the Muslims 20 years ago. “My entire effort in the Keith Ellison matter has been to draw attention to the need to acknowledge the Bible as the basis of America’s moral values. Judeo-Christian values are the greatest single protection against another Holocaust.”

In response to questions about Mr. Bush’s reaction to Mr. Prager’s remarks, Nicole M. Guillemard, a spokeswoman for the White House, said by e-mail that President Bush “respects religious freedom and the right to free speech.”

Ms. Guillemard did not respond to questions about whether Mr. Bush believed that Mr. Prager should resign or be removed.

Really Biblical: Take your oath while holding your male member

There has been an outcry about what's the proper way to swear in a America, a country that some say must be united by the bible. We've written about it several times in this blog.

Of course if you really want to perform a biblical oath you might want to consider this manner, as summarized by R. David Freedman.

"Put Your Hand Under My Thigh" - The Patriarchal Oath

By R. David Freedman
In Genesis 24:2-9 Abraham has his servant Eliezer put his hand under the Patriarch's thigh to swear "by the Lord, the God of heaven and earth" that the servant will not arrange a marriage for Abraham's son Isaac with a Canaanite woman. Similarly, in Genesis 47:29-31 the dying Patriarch Jacob has his son Joseph swear to him that he will bury Jacob not in Egypt, but alongside Jacob's own parents in the Cave of Machpelah; and the oath-taking ritual again calls for putting a hand under the Patriarch's thigh.
Talmudic tradition¹ takes these verses to indicate that the oath was sworn while the circumcised membrum of the Patriarch was held in hand, and derives from this interpretation the rule that all Jewish oaths must be sworn while some ritual object is held in hand. Ordinary people must hold a Torah scroll; scholars may hold any ritual object.

In the Times Herald Record today (New York's Hudson Valley and the Catskills) there is an opinion by Kathleen Parker, a syndicated columnist that she calls, "The wolf who cried racist."

It is a balanced column that rightly notes with criticism the showboating aspect of Dennis Prager's crusade against Keith Ellison for his desire to swear on the Koran. She also notes with praise the desire by Prager, a Jew, to live in a bible based culture rather than a Koran governed society.

In multi-culti America, there's no worse offense than being a "racist," and no word has suffered more abuse.

We've had a taste of that recently as Muslim and Jew have slugged it out over whether a Koran can be used at a private swearing-in ceremony for Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress.

Dennis Prager, a popular talk show host and columnist, who happens to be Jewish - as well as a thoroughly decent fellow - wrote a column recently protesting Ellison's insistence on injecting his religious preference into an American tradition:

"Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. ... If you are incapable of taking oath on that book (the Bible), don't serve in Congress."

Prager has been pilloried from all sides. In the blogosphere, he's been called everything from racist to Islamophobic. Former New York Mayor Ed Koch called Prager a "bigot" and a "schmuck," and is demanding his resignation or removal from the board of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, on which both men serve.

Most entertaining has been a similar demand from CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), lest Muslims worldwide get a negative impression about "America's commitment to religious tolerance."

Irony must be basking.

CAIR routinely demonstrates intolerance for any opinion deemed insensitive to its views and targets individuals and institutions for cyber-posses and technomobs. Ask any cartoonist who has drawn an image of you-know-who.

Back through the looking glass, Prager says his objections have nothing to do with race or religious intolerance but with a concern for American solidarity. His premise is that the country is in danger of unraveling if we continue to erode traditions that are the common threads of the republic.

Prager asserts that the Bible has been used for swearing-in ceremonies since George Washington. Which is true, except when it isn't.

Not every elected official has used the Bible, including some Jews (Koch, a U.S. representative from 1969-77, used a Hebrew Bible for his initial swearing-in) and some Quakers, including Herbert Hoover, whose beliefs prohibit the swearing of oaths.

The U.S. Constitution, meanwhile, leaves plenty of wiggle room for those who prefer not to make religious statements. Eugene Volokh, constitutional law professor at UCLA, has written that requiring someone to swear on the Bible would violate the Constitution's provision that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

It appears that Prager is, at least technically, wrong. But his concerns are not those of a hatemonger. Prager is merely the quarterback in the latest scrimmage over ideas in post-9/11 America.

There is a growing sense, both here and in Europe, that Western civilization is under siege by the radical Muslim world, the expressed goal of which is to convert the rest of us. There's not much wiggle room in Sharia law for optional religious practices. Or, we note, accessorizing wardrobes.

On a certain level, one can understand Prager's view that introducing the Koran into American government is a taunt to traditional values.

On another level, those same values allow us to see Ellison's legitimate wish to swear on the holy book of his choosing. What Christian or Jew duly elected in a predominantly Muslim country would want to be forced to swear on a Koran?

The punch line, of course, is that our religious tolerance is shared by few Muslim nations, some of which won't allow a Bible to enter the country. Our better angels may yet be our worst enemies.

Obviously, Ellison could forgo the Koran and affirm as others have. That he insists on the Koran is probable cause to infer that he's trying to make a statement and assert himself as a Muslim in the U.S. Congress.

Before 9/11, that singular act might not have drawn attention. But that was then.

Hoisting the red flag, as Prager has done, isn't an act of bigotry ? or even schmuckery. It is the understandable reflex of a man, who, as Prager himself puts it, knows that a Bible-swearing nation has been, and will be, a better place for Jews to live than one that swears on the Koran.

Genius is not required to grasp that concept, but civility is critical to debating these issues. Name-calling and showboating righteousness - or demanding punitive action against those who voice an unpopular opinion ? is the wrong way up a dead-end street.

Radical Islam loves that sort of dogmatic intransigence.

Kathleen Parker is a syndicated columnist. Her e-mail address is kparker@kparker.-com.

http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061219/OPINION/612190324

Prager Refuses to Apologize for his Nonsensical Rant

Publicity monger and opinion spewer Dennis Prager has no credentials and no apparent knowledge of religion or politics. Yet that does not stop him from proclaiming himself the guardian of all American values - which he says are based on the Bible.

He ranted and raved without an iota of substance about a new congressman who plans to take a ceremonial oath of office on the Koran instead of on the Bible (12/4/2006). Prager claimed that this act would undermine our culture.

His arguments were empty, yet he persisted in his bullying right-wing fashion to attack a democratically elected official (who defeated an Orthodox Jew in Minnesota's fifth district) and predict that the act of swearing on the Koran by this black muslim would destroy America.

Now Dennis is playing the wounded bully in his rejoinder, "Responding To The Many Critics About Which Book For Oath" in the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin (12/11/2006).

It seems that poor Dennis feels that has been unjustly attacked for his innocent column:

...there was widespread coverage on left-wing blogs, which, with no exception I could find, distorted what I said, charging my column and me with, for example, racism... when race plays no role at all in this issue or in my column. For the record, because I deem this a significant statement about most of the Left, I found virtually no left-wing blog that was not filled with obscenity-laced descriptions of me. Aside from the immaturity and loathing of higher civilization that such public use of curse words reveal, the fury and hate render the leftist charge that it is the Right that is hate-filled one of the most obvious expressions of psychological projection I have seen in my lifetime.

... those on the Left who have trained themselves to avoid thought by merely choosing from a list of epithets - "racist," "bigoted," "homophobic," "Islamophobic," "sexist," "xenophobic," "fascist"...

Just for the record, we are on the Left and we used none of the epithets listed above to question Prager's viewpoint. We argued on the basis of substance that he was wrong to declare that Jews should swear on the christian Bible which includes the New Testament. So I said in a previous blog entry, "There is no way on G-d's green earth that I'd swear on a New Testament. Dennis, you have lost your mind!"

"For the record" I think he has lost contact with rhetorical decency. Just one example -- since it really bothers me to enter into argument with these right-wing bullies. When Prager makes the assertion that on the same "slippery slope" one would find the Koran and Mein Kampf -- that is an ugly and disgusting utterance. But sensitive Dennis does not see it that way:

All those who write that I "compared" the Koran to "Mein Kampf" are lying - deliberately lying to defame me rather than respond to my arguments. I simply offered a slippery slope argument that if we let everyone choose their own text at swearings-in, what will happen one day should a racist decide to use "Mein Kampf"? A slippery slope argument is not an equivalence argument.

Prager again proclaims how his opponents have wounded him unjustly. But he is dishonest as he pretends that it is socially and culturally acceptable in America in the 21st century to say that the holy book of Islam is on the same spectrum, the same continuum, the same slope as Hitler's book.

In his "rejoinder" Prager goes on to rebut his critics and to apologize for NOTHING. And then to follow the right-wing script to the letter, Prager ends his essay with a rousing chorus of God Bless America invoking George Washington and the unity of our country.

But neither I nor tens of millions of other Americans will watch in silence as the Bible is replaced with another religious text for the first time since George Washington brought a Bible to his swearing-in. It is not I, but Keith Ellison, who has engaged in disuniting the country. He can still help reunite it by simply bringing both books to his ceremonial swearing-in. Had he originally announced that he would do that, I would have written a different column - filled with praise of him. And there would be a lot less cursing and anger in America.

Indeed Mr. Prager that does have the personal choice of whether or not to provoke and spew cursing and anger. But in the role of right-wing bully -- he has no option but to press ahead with his ugly divisive agenda.

Prager off the deep end - Jews should swear on the New Testament

Aside from the affront that Dennis Prager has inflicted on the Muslim community - saying the Keith Ellison of MN should be sworn into congress on a bible not a koran - he also insulted me - saying that I should be sworn in on a bible containing the New Testament - because it is the bible of America. (Not that there is any chance I'd be elected to congress.)

"Prager also said that he would like to see Jews swear their oaths of office on the Christian Bible — the Jewish Bible does not include the New Testament that is central to Christian beliefs."

There is no way on G-d's green earth that I'd swear on a New Testament.

Dennis, you have lost your mind!

George Bush swearing in Sen. Lieberman in 1989 on a Tanakh? Looks like the Christian Bible is below it on the table.

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?

MN Congressman to Swear on Qur'an

I saw Prager on TV talking about this issue yesterday. He makes no sense at all. He seems to think that swearing on a bible is an affirmation of our values as Americans. NO.

Swearing on a bible is a means of insuring that the swearer is telling the truth, that he is serious about his oath. Forcing someone to swear on a book he does not believe in is a way to start out crooked and dishonest. Wait, perhaps that is entirely appropriate for a new congressman!

Oath on Qur'an: Provocation or act of faith?

The choice by Keith Ellison, the first Muslim in the U.S. House, to take his oath of office on his faith's holy book, has stirred a debate.
Rob Hotakainen, Star Tribune

WASHINGTON - Rep.-elect Keith Ellison's decision to take his oath of office on the Qur'an is stirring a debate among academics and conservatives, with some of them saying it's only appropriate to take an oath on the Bible.
The Minnesota Democrat says that the Constitution gives him the right to use the Muslim holy book, and that is what he intends to do on Jan. 4.

"Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath," radio talk show host and author Dennis Prager wrote in his online column this week. He said that American Jews routinely have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they don't believe in the New Testament, and that if Ellison refuses to do so, "don't serve in Congress."

But Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the Constitution authorizes people not to swear their oath at all, protecting atheists and agnostics.

"Why would Muslims and others not be equally protected?" he wrote for National Review Online.