Ignorance, Stupidity, and Prejudice on the Christianist Right
by KTKNovember 28th, 2006
It’s like there’s some kind of permanent, rotating stupidity championship under dispute at Townhall, and everyone there is constantly striving to win it.
Dennis Prager goes bull-goose loony over somebody else’s religion, natch, in today’s column - a hate-filled orgasm of ignorance and prejudice that is simply staggering to behold.
What’s got his panties in a twist? The fact that (as near as can be determined) every member of the incoming Congressional class this January plans to take the oath of office with their hand on their book of religious scripture.
Every one, that is, including Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, who uses a Koran when he swears religious oaths. Prager simply can’t stand the thought that a public servant, taking a (needlessly) religious oath of office, would make their oath in light of their own religion - when that religion isn’t his. Yes - Prager believes there is some sort of established necessity to swearing oaths only by his god - and that people who don’t share his religion should use its ceremonies when taking office. And civilization hangs in the balance. Really.
[Ellison] should not be allowed to [swear on the Koran] – not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.
Here we see ignorance and stupidity beginning their deadly tango in Prager’s juddering, spastic neo-cortex:
First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism — my culture trumps America’s culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.
I would have presumed what he was “saying” is that he doesn’t regard religious oaths as binding unless they arise from a religion he actually believes in . . . the same thing Christians are implicitly saying when they swear on the Bible. And I hardly think that simply . . . having your own religious beliefs. . . implies any “trumping” of “America’s culture” (whatever that even means). Nor am I aware that America has a “holiest book”. Aren’t people - even non-Christians - supposed to hold and act on their own sincerely held religious beliefs? There’s certainly more than enough Christian triumphalism to go around, but until now I had never heard anyone suggest that non-Christians were actually supposed to engage in Christian ceremonies - still less that having their own ceremonies threatened civilization. But Prager’s just getting warmed up.
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. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress. . . . Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.
Prager’s too ignorant to know it, of course, but America does no such thing. There is, in fact, no requirement whatsoever in the Constitution or federal law specifying that any book must be used as a prop while taking the oath of office, still less that everyone must use the same one, or that anyone must use one they don’t believe in. In fact, the Constitution states:
Article VI
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
In every place in the Constitution in which an “oath” is specified, it is followed immediately by the words “or affirmation”. An “affirmation” is a statement of conscience not predicated on a religious source. The right of affirmation was included explicitly in the Constitution out of respect both for those who hold no religion and for those whose religious beliefs prohibit swearing religious oaths (some Christians regard it as a form of “taking the lord’s name in vain”). And needless to say, nothing at all requires you to stick your hand on a particular book, or any book, or anything else. (The same is true for private citizens. If you are called as a witness in a court case, you have the right to affirm the oath and not use a Bible - but you’d better hope your jurors are smarter than Prager.) Prager might like to notice that specific religious commitments are not only not required of Congressmembers, they are explicitly prohibited by the Constitution.
He goes on:
[F]or all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either. . . . Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon.
I don’t know how he knows this, but I doubt it’s true. I would bet money that more than a few members of Congress, at one time or another, have either used their own religious books in swearing ceremonies or have affirmed their oaths. (For another thing, the Judeo/Christian Bible is a holy book for Mormons; the situation is not comparable, but since Prager doesn’t have a clue what the situation actually is, this hardly matters.) At any rate, it’s irrelevant.
Prager goes on to rant about “multiculturalism” some more (the dreaded fact that some people have beliefs he doesn’t share). Somehow he manages to equate swearing a religious oath on the Koran to worshipping the New York Times editorial page, the works of Voltaire, and, inevitably, Mein Kampf. In fact, it would be perfectly legal to use any of those as a prop during the office-taking ceremony, should anyone choose to do so. The tradition of holding a Bible is just that - merely traditional. No one is required to do so, and no one is prohibited from holding anything else. But facts aren’t part of a Prager editorial.
Hysterical lunacy is:
When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book [they won't], they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization [they don't, and it doesn't]. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will 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.
That’s right: if we fail to impose mandatory Christianity on members of Congress, then the terrorists will have won. Ellison, by not merely being a Muslim, but actually acting like one, is himself a terrorist. And he undermines American civilization . . . such as it is.
UPDATE: Mahablog has the goods on past practices, from Robin Marty of The Minnesota Monitor:
In our country’s history, four presidents have been inaugurated without swearing an oath on the Bible. Franklin Pierce was affirmed, and swore no oath, Rutherford Hayes initially had a private ceremony with no Bible before his public ceremony, Theodore Roosevelt had no Bible at his ceremony, and Lyndon Johnson used a missal during his first term.
Despite Prager’s insistence that “for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament,” it is clear that he is wrong. Linda Lingle, Governor of Hawaii, took the oath of office on a Torah in 2001. Madeleine Kunin, a Jewish Immigrant and Governor of Vermont “rested her left hand on a stack of old prayer books that had belonged to her mother, grandparents, and great grandfather” as “a physical expression of the weight of Jewish history.”
And in North Carolina, the Notary Public has a written code for swearing in:
“A person taking an oath should place one hand on the Holy Scriptures. This book will vary depending on the person’s religious beliefs: Christians should use the New Testament or the Bible; Jews, the Torah or the Old Testament; Moslems, the Koran; Hindus, the Bhagavad-Gita; etc.”
. . . U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) made headlines earlier this month when she could not find a Hebrew Bible for her swearing in; she refused the Christian Bible proffered by House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and eventually borrowed one from Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.).
Where does Prager even get his nonsense? Makes it up, obviously.
RE-UPDATE: Oops. Apparently, Prager is Jewish, but, apparently, not very observant. So I was wrong in claiming he wants to impose his religion on everyone. He apparently wants to impose the dominant religion of his conservative in-group on everyone. (Presumably also himself - he really seems to have no inkling of what it would mean to adopt a rule forcing people to take religious oaths they don’t believe in. Forced conversions and participation in Catholic ceremonies were prominent among the historical complaints of Jews against mistreatment; Prager not only wants to impose them on Muslims, he seems willing to sign on himself. Medievalism really is a dominant value for conservatives.) You can substitue “the Christian religion” for “his religion” at the top; the rest stands. It doesn’t make him any more clueful, but it does make him even weirder.
Categories: Church & State, Culture, General, Politics, Religion, Terrorism |
Of course, one man speaks for all Christians? Your broadbrush is as full of bigotry as anyone you condemn. Physician, heal thyself.
When The Religious Far Right Attacks…
The always idiotic Dennis Prager gets his panties in a twist because an elected official who is a Muslim won’t bow down to the haters….
Yeah, I remember the bit where KTK claimed that Prager = everyone who is a Christian. It’s right there next to the bit where he praises Zoroaster and Ahura Mazda, idiot.
Of course, one man speaks for all Christians? Your broadbrush is as full of bigotry as anyone you condemn. Physician, heal thyself. - Fred
Whoa Fred! I go to Church, but I know he’s just talking about the wackos not all of us. You’re not one of them are ya?
Ignorance, Stupidity, and Prejudice on the Christianist Right
The only problem I see in the title of this post is that Dennis Prager is not ignorant or stupid or prejudiced or even Christian. He IS on the Right, however, so at least you didn’t get everything wrong.
Then in the body of the post you get so many other things wrong, things that emanate from inside YOU and show YOUR ignorance and prejudice.
If you want me to list all of the things you got wrong–point by point–I will. Just let me know. But you will have to ask me nicely or I won’t do it.
To Jose Chung:
You wrote:
“If you want me to list all of the things you got wrong–point by point–I will. Just let me know. But you will have to ask me nicely or I won’t do it.”
Dear Wetback Chink Jesus-Hugging Dickhead, do Bless us with your point-by-point brilliance.
Mr. 5
KTK, of course, got it exactly correct. Fred and Jose, on the other hand, apparently have some reading comprehension issues. KTK’s entire post was about Prager’s latest idiocy. Never once did the post imply that Prager “speaks for all Christians.”
Fred, can you even read?
As for Jose’s response: Go ahead, Jose. Astound us with your wit and incisive reasoning. We’re waiting.
This ought to be good.
All right, enough.
Seems like I’m not the only one who forgot to take their meds today.
My Fred policy is not to have one. (A Fred, that is, not a policy.) I’ve given up on responding even to the 5% of his posts that actually make reasonable points; I don’t know why others persist.
JoseChung: I assume you mean I’m wrong about Prager being ignorant, stupid, and prejudiced (not about what he said or that much of it is factually false). It seems obvious to me that when he crams that much factual error into an article that demands what the Constitution explicitly prohibits, it’s hard not to think he lacks even a basic understanding of his subject. And when he makes gaspingly absurd statements such as that one Congressmember simply using their own scripture for the ceremony in which most of the other members use their scriptures will literally “undermine American civilization”, or that the prevalence of Christianity in America somehow creates a legal necessity for everyone else to perform Christian ceremonies as part of their duties as officers of a government that specifically prohibits state religions, it’s hard not to think he’s pretty stupid. As for prejudice . . . is it possible to imagine that one does not speak for itself? But if you want to belabor the issue, feel free.
Tiger Five: I’m not sure I understand what’s going on in your comment, but it reads like you’re having a “Michael Richardson moment”. I’m hoping that was a joke that JoseChung also appreciates, but if not, please let’s not go there, here. JCiaI: similar comments apply, I think.
I hate to net.cop people’s comments, but let’s not let things deteriorate too far, please. If I have encouraged that by speaking truth to Prager too freely, I’m sorry. It should be easy to better my example.
To paraphrase Lewis Black:
This can’t be right, I AGREE WITH KTK. Just for THAT Prager ought to be impeached!
Sorry, I’m not going to waste any more time with you guys. Obviously I’ve stumbled on to a mediocre blog. I don’t see any evidence that you guys even understand Prager’s piece, let alone have the capacity to comment intelligently about it.
What ran through my mind as I read this thread was not so much the “debate” about what Ellison should be allowed to do, but rather the strange custom of placing your hand on anything when you profess publicly whatever words you are obliged to profess.
I’m agnostic, so lots of things puzzle me about organized religion and its traditions. Is the placing of the hand on something “sacred” supposed to signify that one is somehow
including God in the contract that you are swearing to abide by? Or that you REALLY REALLY mean to abide by and comply with this or that? Whereas if the hand isn’t on something religiously significant that you only KINDA SORTA expect to abide by and comply with this and that.
I’d be hard pressed to think of what I’d put my hand on, for I consider my public profession to be all-controlling, and completely binding as well as sufficient, no hedging nor any underlining for effect.
Maybe I’d choose to put my hand on the US Constitution. At least that would imply that I knew it actually existed and that I’d be keeping it “front of mind” as I served my time in office. I wonder if Dennis the Menace would be OK with that little bit of secular humanism.
Quakers do not swear oaths at all.
Jose Chung obviously missed the point…the belief that Christianity should dominate the government and be the basis for limiting everyone’s actions no matter what faith they may profess makes Prager Christianist he does not have to believe in salvation through Jesus Christ to qualify.
Spot on post.
“Fred and Jose, on the other hand, apparently have some reading comprehension issues. KTK’s entire post was about Prager’s latest idiocy. Never once did the post imply that Prager “speaks for all Christians.”
Fred, can you even read?”
Jose, can you even read headlines?
Terry:
The practice of involving a Bible in swearing an oath was to indicate that you swore “before God” - that you called upon God to witness your vow, and the promise to keep the vow was a promise to God, not to whoever you were talking to during the ceremony. So, breaking that promise was not just breaking a promise to another person, it was breaking a promise to God. And presumably no good Christian would dare do that, so using the Bible sealed the vow and made it more reliable.
Now it’s mostly just part of the ever-present religious political theater that everyone seems to think they have to go through.
KTK,
Good piece. A bit too inflammatory for my taste, but I guess that just comes with the territory when reading your work.
Fred, “Christianist Right” does not equal “all Christians”. Also, claiming something exists on the Christianist Right does not imply it is universal, or even pervasive on the Christian Right (much less elsewhere). Hope that helps with your understanding.
“Fred, “Christianist Right” does not equal “all Christians”. Also, claiming something exists on the Christianist Right does not imply it is universal, or even pervasive on the Christian Right (much less elsewhere). Hope that helps with your understanding.”
No, it does not help with my understanding. He uses one person to tar a whole group, unless Prager is the entire Christianist Right(which is a new term to me). Liberals used to call that attitude bigotry.
BTW, Ted, I thought you weren’t going to respond to anything I say.
Fred,
You did write “Of course, one man speaks for all Christians?”.
If I wrote an article about Mike Vick’s recent ill-advised actions and titled it “Poor behavior in the NFL”, would you consider that “taring a whole group”? It is ironic that the person who most frequently derides large groups of people (Democrats, liberals, gays, everyone who posts at LL, etc) on this site is so sensitive. Perhaps you will take your own criticism to heart…
As for Christianist, it refers to Christians operating in the political sphere (as opposed to the religious sphere).
“As for Christianist, it refers to Christians operating in the political sphere (as opposed to the religious sphere)”
Interesting. So the term refers to any Christian who takes part in the political sphere. That means that liberal, leftist Christians are Christianists. That really makes sense. Those Christians should just leave all the political things to non-Christians.
No. My definition was a bit off. It’s about having a Christian agenda in politics, not so much being a Christian. Also note it is not a derogatory term; it is a descriptive term. Like environmentalist. Environmentalists can be left or right. I know this rocks some folks’ worlds becasue they like to categorize everyone along a left/right divide, but there you have it.
Thanks for the explanation. It’s good to know that liberal “Christianists” are part of Prager’s group. I thought KTK was just trying to dump on conservative “Christianists.” Of course, he would never do that. LOL
BTW, what is wrong with a person trying to influence policies to conform to what he believes? Do not all people involved in politics do that? Is it only a problem when a person’s beliefs and actions are guided by his deeply held religious beliefs? Does that mean that only those with no religious beliefs or those who don’t let their moral beliefs affect their actions are to be able to take part in public policy? Too bad for those who believe that way. I still vote for those who will represent my values.
“BTW, what is wrong with a person trying to influence policies to conform to what he believes? Do not all people involved in politics do that?”
I don’t believe anyone has suggested such a thing.
“Is it only a problem when a person’s beliefs and actions are guided by his deeply held religious beliefs? Does that mean that only those with no religious beliefs or those who don’t let their moral beliefs affect their actions are to be able to take part in public policy?”
I’m not sure how you arrived at such a deduction, certainly not from the above post. And certainly not from American politics, where it is quite common for our elected policy makers, of all political stripes, to invoke the Almightly. The above post states that only four presidents have not taken the oath of office on the Bible; presumably the balance, again representing a wide spectrum of political thought, have at least a nominal affiliation with a religious organization which would, again presumably, affect their policy decisions.
We are a multi-ethnic, multi-religious community; that diversity is really one of our strong points. One of our most importance values is setting policy as determined by the majority with, and this is often forgotten, guaranteeing the rights of the minorities. The problem occurs, and I think we’ve covered this on a number of occasions, when a person uses a religious justification to impose his beliefs on others. The above post illustrates this quite well. Prager objected to an oath being taken on a book other than the Bible as he seems to feel this is culturally inappropriate. It is irrelevant; the oath is the significant part of the ceremony, not the religious article. It also shows an insensitivity to those who hold differing religious beliefs. Does Prager insist on using the King James, even if the newly elected is Catholic or Jewish, or is it just the Koran he finds objectionable.
It’s ironic that many fled Europe to the Americas to avoid the same type of chauvinism Prager embodies.
Who cares what Prager thinks? I know I don’t. I had never heard of him until this post. Some people are getting bent out of shape over nothing. If the Muslim wants to recite his oath standing on his head while holding the Sears catalog, I don’t care.
you have all missed the point! If Ellison refuses to pledge on anything except the Koran, it means, he is planning on running himself according to his religion. Now, where is your precious “separation of church and state?” Hypocrites! Cowards! I am also against swearing in on the Bible. But if you swear in on the Koran, and you say, “Oh, that’s fine,” you have given in to religion in government! Why have you turned your eye blind, your ear deaf? Are you so afraid of the “Sword of Islam?” Protest! This man has already before taken office that he is more god-oriented than Bush! Disgusting!
“where is your precious ’separation of church and state?’”
Yep, leave it to the atheists to run the government. Everyone else shut up and be obedient.
You just don’t get it. If you think overt Christians are dangerous, why don’t you think overt Muslims are dangerous? I’m not going to say “even more so” because I have no proof that Ellison is dangerous. I’m simply leaving it as is: Ellison is, IMO, DECLARING his intent to rule by Islamic law, beginning with his swearing in. His refusal to use the Bible is NOT a move against religion in government, but a move to ANOTHER religion in government. As if we didn’t have enought to bicker about.
“If you think overt Christians are dangerous”
What’s an “overt” Christian?
for what it’s worth, the whole issue now seems to be totally made up.
Apparently the house swearing in ceremony doesn’t actually use a sacred text at all unless a member stages his or her own ceremony at some other time and place.
This isn’t a guy bashing muslims, it’s a guy just pulling stuff out of a place a doctor normally uses a flashlight to look at.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/30/koran-bible-prager-ellison/