Prager Continued to Baselessly Attack Muslim Rep

Here's a follow up to the article I posted yesterday about Dennis Prager.

American Muslim News Briefs | Wednesday, December 06, 2006

ON MSNBC, PRAGER CONTINUED TO BASELESSLY ATTACK MUSLIM REP.-ELECT

On the December 4 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, conservative radio host and Townhall.com columnist Dennis Prager continued to accuse incoming Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) of "imperil[ing]" America because of Ellison's reported intention to use a copy of the Quran during the ceremonial photo op on the day he is sworn in. Prager acknowledged, as the weblog Think Progress reported, that Ellison would use the Quran for "a photo op" and not the actual swearing-in, which is conducted in a large group. Ellison is the first Muslim ever elected to Congress.
****

And here's Dennis Prager's column, from Townhall.com:

America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on

Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

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.

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. 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. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison's right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?

Of course, Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. But 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, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either. Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible. Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of "Dianetics" by L. Ron Hubbard.

So why are we allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done -- choose his own most revered book for his oath?

The answer is obvious -- Ellison is a Muslim. And whoever decides these matters, not to mention virtually every editorial page in America, is not going to offend a Muslim. In fact, many of these people argue it will be a good thing because Muslims around the world will see what an open society America is and how much Americans honor Muslims and the Koran.

This argument appeals to all those who believe that one of the greatest goals of America is to be loved by the world, and especially by Muslims because then fewer Muslims will hate us (and therefore fewer will bomb us).

But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible. In fact, the opposite is more likely: Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America.

When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. 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. It is hard to believe that this is the legacy most Muslim Americans want to bequeath to America. But if it is, it is not only Europe that is in trouble.
****

Let's hear it, FreakSpeakers! I want to hear from you!

Kiss and Make Up

Democratic Sen. John Kerry listens to testimony during a committee hearing on Capitol Hill in July 2006. Kerry said he is pulling back from campaigning ahead of next week's midterm elections to avoid the continued distraction created by his remarks that Americans who neglect their education would "get stuck in Iraq."(AFP/Getty Images/File/Chip Somodevilla)

BREAKING NEWS
MSNBC News Services

Updated: 16 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Thrust into the midst of the midterm election campaign, Sen. John Kerry apologized Wednesday to “any service member, family member or American who was offended” by remarks deemed by Republicans and Democrats alike to be insulting to U.S. forces in Iraq.

Six days before the election, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee said he sincerely regretted his words were “misinterpreted to imply anything negative about those in uniform.”

In a brief statement, Kerry attacked President Bush for a “failed security policy.” Yet his apology, issued after prominent Democrats had urged him to cancel public appearances, was designed to quell a controversy that party leaders feared would stall their drive for big gains on Nov. 7.

White House Secretary Tony Snow, in response to Kerry’s apology, said, “He did the right thing, and the important thing is that servicemen and women understand that America is behind them and want them to complete their mission successfully.”

Kerry beat a gradual retreat in his return to the national campaign spotlight. Earlier in the day, appearing on MSNBC TV's “Imus in the Morning,” the Massachusetts senator said he was “sorry about a botched joke” about President Bush. He heaped praise on the troops, adamantly accused Republicans of twisting his words and said it was the commander in chief and his aides who “owe America an apology for this disaster in Iraq.”

Read the rest of the article here

Saying you're sorry isn't all that difficult, is it?

I'd like to call on all bloggers to stop the nonsense. Let's put the past behind us and move on. Apologies all around and go back to blogging about our favorite things, whether that be politics, news, or Anderson. But the quarreling amongst ourselves should end. We don't have to be friends or even like each other, but let's at least try to cooperate.

Please?

You know, fandom is beyond my comprehension at times. I even wonder if it should be labeled as a "fandom" when you're talking about another human being--but that's a whole other can of worms for another post. (Hey...)

I've been a fan of U2 for years, and have met many different U2 fans from all over the world. Some of them are the nicest people I've ever had the pleasure to meet and some are the biggest jerks I've ever known. Some of them have a healthy attitude towards the band, and some of them feel like the band owes them something.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I get a similar vibe from people who claim to be fans of Anderson Cooper. Some have a healthy appreciation for him and others are combative, competitive, and driven by something other than respect and admiration. I'm not trying to point fingers or call names; I'm just making a statement. I find the topic of fandom and fan relationships so interesting, I'd love to run a discussion just on those topics alone. I know, I'm kinda nerdy...

What I'm trying to say (rather poorly, I'll admit) is that we are a diverse group with many outlooks and ideas. I wish we could work together and grow a community instead of working against each other. That's all.