Posted on 01/29/2007 7:17:37 AM PST by SJackson
Victims of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) take heart. No longer is it necessary to offer apologies or disclaimers -- a la Kiefer Sutherland of “24”-- when the supposed civil rights group accuses you of Islamophobia. According to talk-show host and columnist Dennis Prager, who recently told the Los Angeles Times that he is proud to be attacked by the “radical Islamist organization,” it is much better to wear CAIR’s contempt as a badge of honor.
Publicity is another benefit of being publicly smeared by CAIR, as was evident on the evening of January 24 when a packed house came to hear Prager speak on “Islam, Iran, the West and Israel” at the North County Chabad Center in Yorba Linda, California. Earlier in the day most of those in attendance had learned from a Los Angeles Times article (“Controversy follows Dennis Prager to Yorba Linda”) that CAIR was still fuming over a column Prager wrote in November in which he criticized Congressman Keith Ellison’s decision to take his oath of office on the Koran. Proving that a primary concern of her organization is not mature debate, CAIR spokeswoman Munira Syeda was quoted as saying Prager’s column had “undermined all the values of pluralism, diversity and respect for different minorities’ religious freedom” and that Prager “is using the anti-Muslim sentiment that is prevalent in the country right now to spread hate against Muslims.” In a press release about the Yorba Linda speech, CAIR accused the Chabad Center of “hosting an Islamophobic speaker.”
Rabbi David Eliezrie of the Chabad Center, who actually disagreed with Prager’s controversial column, immediately came to his defense telling the Times that CAIR’s personal attack was “akin to a blood libel.” Eliezrie also made clear that he would not respond to the bullying tactics used by CAIR to silence those who disagreed with its positions, adding that if CAIR “were interested in dialogue with the Jewish community, they would have sent me a gentle letter.”
Prager began his talk with an open invitation to publicly debate any member of CAIR. Interfaith dialogue is not new to Prager; between 1982 and 1992 he was the host of “Religion on the Line” on ABC radio in Los Angeles. As Prager made clear in his speech, he was chosen to be the moderator of the program because of his fairness to every religion. Indeed, he so was beloved in the Muslim community for having opened up mainstream American media to Muslims that he was repeatedly invited to speak in mosques and Islamic institutions. (He was a regular speaker at the famous Islamic Center of Southern California.)
It was with this history in mind that Prager said CAIR’s charge of Islamophobia would “make McCarthy cringe.” More than anything else, “Religion on the Line” showed Prager the truth of Nazi Holocaust survivor Victor Frankl’s statement: “There are only two races in the world -- the decent and the indecent.” It is Prager’s belief that America’s Judeo-Christian value system is what makes it the most decent country in the world. To drive this point home Prager asked the largely Jewish audience if they’d rather live in America or secular Europe, where anti-Semitism is prevalent. His opinion that America’s founders viewed America as a second Israel and the Jews as God’s chosen people was bolstered by little-known historic facts incorporated into his speech. The most powerful example given was the fact that Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson both wanted the design of the seal of the United States to depict the Jews’ exodus from Egypt.
As for his negative opinion of Ellison’s decision, Prager made clear that it had nothing to do with Islam or the Koran and he offered a mea culpa for letting his passion defeat his reason when he wrote that Ellison “should not be allowed” to swear on the Koran. His primary concern has always been over the place of the Bible in American life. Contrary to what many of his readers think, America does not get its values from the Constitution. After all, Prager noted, the Soviet Union’s Constitution banned anti-Semitism even though the communist nation was one of the most anti-Semitic nations in history.
Ellison, Prager argued, could have honored the fact that America’s values are religiously based if he had brought a Bible along with his Koran to his swearing-in ceremony. This is what Osman Siddique -- the first Muslim to serve as a U.S. ambassador abroad -- did in 1999. Prager, a practicing Jew, stated that he would have no problem bringing a Koran to his own swearing-in ceremony if he lived in a Muslim country that was as free and tolerant as America.
Unfortunately, such freedom and tolerance is not prevalent in the Muslim world today. Prager admitted that he was worried about a significant percentage of the Muslim population that wants to murder others for believing differently. Just as troubling as this evil committed in God’s name is the reticence of the rest of the Muslim world to do anything about it. Looking at Rabbi Eliezrie, Prager stated the obvious: Jews would be so overwhelmed with anger if rabbis began slaughtering human beings as if they were sheep that they would protest such blasphemy in large numbers. But shouting “Allahu Akbar!” while beheading infidels brings nary a complaint from the Muslim world.
Muslim officials spend their time condemning people like Prager for being Islamophobic, not fighting the terrorism that is truly giving Islam a bad name. In her interview with the Times, for example, CAIR spokeswoman Syeda refused to condemn Hamas or Hezoballah as terrorist organizations. “I don’t understand what the relevance is,” she said. Rabbi Eliezrie spoke for many when he said, “I haven’t seen them condemn specific groups who are involved in terror in the Middle East, and that to me is very scary.”
Prager concluded his speech with some suggestions. To the West, he cautioned against bending over in cowardice because of charges of Islamophobia. Westerners need to be kind but firm if they ever want to help bring about the much needed self-criticism lacking in the Muslim world.
Muslims, meanwhile, need to stop thinking of themselves as victims. They dishonor Islam by getting angry at the slightest offense. Prager pointed out that dividing the world between Muslims and Infidels is an evil doctrine; Muslims should start measuring people by their actions, not their beliefs.
Prager offered this advice as a friend to Muslims throughout the world. The tragic irony is that CAIR views him as an enemy of Islam.
High volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel, WOT
..................
"Islamaphobia" implies fear. Prager is obviously not fearful.
CAIR is a cousin of the ACLU and an enabler of terrorism.
It mixes Islamofascism with left-wing radicalism.
Attacking talk-show hosts who happen to be conservative make me think more and more that CAIR is merely a left-wing hit group using Islam as a cover.
Actually a phobia is an irrational fear. It is not irrational to fear islamofascism--the threat from it is very real.
I disagree. They honor the teachings & in doing so betray islam's unspoken (except inside mosques) requirement for genocide. CAIR exists only to muddy the waters while islam's strength grows.
Warning! This is a high-volume ping list.
He couldn't do that. Muslims believe the Bible is a crass forgery.
Exactly, Islam brings together in shria the ultimate elements for undermining the West. First, the moderate arm "they are just like us" used to lull the West into acceptance, second, the military arm, which it uses terror to undermine stability of the victim state and prevent the emergence (through assasination) of real moderation in Islam, and third the installation of the shria law which permanently subjugates the non-muslim population.
Muslims believe the Bible is a crass forgery.
They do? News to me.
Some war.
From one of the links in the article -
"The truth is that everyone with a conscience has questions about Muslims and Islam. But the most powerful religion in America, the religion of tolerance, has rendered it almost impossible to ask any such questions. Most people are so afraid of being branded intolerant that the most natural and goodhearted questions are only posed by the handful who have the courage to do so (usually conservative Christians).
"But good Muslims should welcome fair questions and not dismiss them as manifestations of bigotry. Most Americans have no a priori view of Islam. As far as they are concerned, it is one more religion that its practitioners ought to be able to practice in peace just as the members of every other faith in America do."
This was what Prager said. It is true that most Americans had no a priori view of Islam. But as they have taken CAIR's suggestion up and learned, they are coming to the realization that Islam is not a religion compatible with America. The only "peace" taught in the Qur'an is one where everyone lives under Islam's "beneficence."
Forget it.
Strictly speaking, you cannot dishonor that which lacks honor.
"if you say something or take a position that someone disgrees with you can't just be wrong, you must be vilified."
"some on the right start to salivate..ietake a double shot of testosterone, thump their chests and stomping around waving their arms, and in general making fools of themselves."
I guess the right needs to get used to being vilified. ;)
Some Mullah with 75 followers (or even 750,000 followers) says something about killing the infidels and and we get our panties in a bunch. We're like Pavlov's Dogs.
It's just something that occured to me a while ago. (As I recall) some Immam in Saudi Arabia said something about killing the "Zionists & the Crusaders, and the thread got 100's of views and replys..most of which involved chest thumping.
Even Steve Emerson has expressed serious doubts and concerns about CAIR. Look at how many of the people that were, or are, on their board, that had connections with terrorist organizations.
Most posters and readers here on FR are on the right or a bit right of center. We enjoy open debate on just about any topic.
Most of the Christian right have the same take on open discussion. Only by examining beliefs or positions can you hammer out the truth. The Bible is God's truth as heard by those who were chosen holy men at those times, but the Bible has many passages from many different times that say seemingly contradictory things. Only active learning and thought can find the way to truth and only an open mind can discern truth.
"Some Mullah with 75 followers (or even 750,000 followers) says something about killing the infidels and and we get our panties in a bunch."
Ok. Next time we won't pay any attention. Just like before 9/11.
I think we already had the discussion about the "bomb Mecca" and "kill all mooslims" comments. There may be some who fit the "Pavlov's dog" description, but I think the majority have put a lot of time into actually studying the religion. For good reason.
We already have our hands full with the PC leftists using the legal system against us. Do you think it is wise to allow Muslim organizations to do the same?
Even Prager is more PC than I care for. Truth is not politically correct. Unfortunately, too many Americans are still sleeping through what is a very real threat.
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.