Posted on 12/06/2006 1:58:45 PM PST by Sub-Driver
President Asked to Rescind Appointment of Dennis Prager
Holocaust Museum Council Member Said Quran Oath 'Undermines American Civilization'
12/6/2006 3:39:00 PM
To: City Desk
Contact: Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, 202-488-8787, or 202-744-7726, or ihooper@cair.com
WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Council on American- Islamic Relations (CAIR) today called on President Bush to rescind the appointment of radio talk show host Dennis Prager to the United States Holocaust Memorial Council because of his intolerant views toward Islam in American society.
Earlier this week, CAIR urged the taxpayer-supported museum's council to remove Prager 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.
In his commentary, 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."
On Tuesday, the Holocaust Museum distanced itself from Prager's views, but indicated that it did not have the power to remove him from the council. The museum's statement said: "Talk show host Dennis Prager speaks solely for himself. His statements do not reflect the position of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, whose board is not self-appointed."
A number of groups and commentators have rejected Prager's views. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) called his comments "intolerant, misinformed and downright un-American."
(Excerpt) Read more at releases.usnewswire.com ...
This is, however, one of the few times I've ever disagreed with him. Prager misunderstands the nature of an oath and the history of the use of the Bible in official ceremonies.
The theory of an oath is that if the swearer fails to do what he swears (such as to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth") he will endanger his soul. So, presumably, the odds go up he will do so. It is not a symbolic act of state, as Prager suggests, but it is an act bound up in the swearer's religion, as he denies. If I were to swear an oath on the Koran, it would be meaningless, as I am a Christian. Same thing if Ellison were to swear an oath on a Bible.
I have seen thousands of oaths administered, and very few are taken on a Bible or have a Bible present.
Congress follows the pattern. The swearing-in ceremony is a mass ceremony where the oath is taken with raised hand. No Bible is used. Some Members choose to carry one, but others don't.
George Washington took the Presidential oath of office on a Bible, kissed it, and added "so help me God" to the oath, which tradition subsequent Presidents have mainly followed. This is what Prager is thinking of, but it is highly unusual for other oaths of office and oaths taken in court.
Prager argues a Bible should be "present" when taking the Congressional oath because that symbolizes the Judeo-Christian roots of our Republic and the belief of the Framers that our rights derive from God and not man. But that's just wrong - the locus of that belief is in the Declaration of Independence, which is very clear on the subject. The presence or absence of a Bible at an oath of office is just irrelevant to the subject of the origins of the Founding.
Prager just got this one wrong. I wish he'd follow the First Rule of Holes.
CAIR can blow it out their shorts! What do they care who sits on the Holocaust Council? Half of the folks involved with CAIR either support Hitler's ideas for his 'Jewish problem', or they don't believe the Holocaust ever happened.
Man, it's just an all out assault on this country this week, isn't it?
Doubling your pleasure, Dave. LOL!
How did I manage to post twice?
- Dork -
Prager's right.
CAIR is a terrorist organization.
"And besides, what does CAIR have to do with the Holocaust Memorial anyway, except to wish Hitler had completed his maniacal task?"
I was going to say that, or something like that, but you said it better than me.
Though I would add a few exclamation points. Here - you can borrow these - !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I find it interesting - no, sergeantdave, it's apparent - that the media would be carrying the jihad flag for these throat-slitting goat herders.
That was the essence of Medved's disagreement with DP, to
which I also hold.
I agree completely. Whatever CAIR objects to is good for me. Same with the Dims.
Dennis wrote a very good article and I completely agree with his comments. Good Luck Dennis. You will need it.
CAIR, Go b#tch in Somalia.
Naturally, Mormons regard both books as holy scripture.
The entire incoming House members take the oath at the same time from their respective assigned seats. They are allowed to carry the Bible version of their choice or no book at all.
Agreed. That's why Prager's point makes no sense. The Bible is not part of this ceremony, unless a Member chooses to carry one. And the Member is free to carry any other sacred text, such as the Book of Mormon, or none at all.
I do believe CAIR should go to he!!.
Amen, brother!
I'm sure CAIR is concerned about who's on the board of the Holocaust Museum. That, in itself, is a big laugh.
What is the connection between Muslims and the Holocaust? What is their point? It is a non sequitor!
Think of Islam as sort of a "bad boys" club for men. Sort of a "Fight Club" without the fight.
How can a people who's parents watched folks being taken away daily and what happened after... ever hate themselves so and rally for CAIR?
Even as they see their homeland in danger of extinction...
They should know better than anyone... 1938 all over again.
This is what changes the minds of some who want only the best for Israel... they say "If they don't value their homeland and lives... why should we"?
Dennis Praeger is a very sincere and thoughtful man, and anyone who listens to his show knows that.
I wonder if this is how the Romans felt as they saw things crumbling around them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.