Mark your calendars...

Today, I vehemently disagree with Dennis Prager.

You all know how much I admire and respect Dennis Prager. His analysis and teachings can probably be credited with my becoming active in politics more than any other individual. But his latest column reeks of the hubris that conservative bloggers, columnists, and radio hosts often seem to carry, which, as I wrote before, is at least partially responsible for the GOP's trouncing in the mid-term elections. You've all read my many rantings on Keith Ellison's election to Congress despite his dubious political dealings and campaign fund sources, but the Prager column, "America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on" crosses the line between reasonable political debate and sour-grapes nit-picking, not to mention being a hypocritical stance on a moral and religious issue (which Mr. Prager is normally astute and sagacious on).

The crux of the article is that Ellison, a Muslim, has decided that when he's sworn in as a US Congressman, he'll take the oath of office with his hand on a Koran rather than on a Bible. Prager takes umbrage with that, writing:

"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."

The problem is not so much in what Prager writes (although it's uncharacteristically accusatory and arrogant), but in what he doesn't bother to analyze at all: the very reason for placing one's hand on a holy book in the first place. As is customary in my oft-incoherent ramblings on this site, let me take a wide circle before coming back to make my point...


Back in college, my circle of buddies had an interesting, though I'm certain not terribly unique, custom of "putting it on something" when someone thought we were BS-ing them. For example, a conversation might have been:
"Brandon, I got 4 phone numbers at Trendz last night!"
"Dude, you're lying."
"No, I swear."
"Put that on something."
"I put that on my mom's grave."
"You hate your mom that much?!?"
"Fine, then I put it on God."
[fading laughter as the other party to the conversation runs down the hallway to avoid the vengeful lightning bolt from their recently-blasphemed God]

OK, it was a short circle - back to my point. In terms of the process of carrying out the ritual, which book is present is not terribly important. The oath is not written in the Bible, and our Constitution and our laws make no proscription for the use of the Bible in the ritual. Politicians place their hand on a holy book in part out of humility and penitence to that being which is purportedly behind said book, and in part as a symbolic gesture as to the nature of our Constitutional holdings, i.e., that we are endowed with inalienable rights by our Creator, not granted rights by a semi-benevolent king. The very mention of a Creator at all in our founding documents is purposely done in order to remind the elected officials that despite holding some of the more powerful positions in our society, they still have to answer to a higher power - one to which even their electorally-earned power pales in comparison. And it's worth noting that our founding documents do not name a particular religion or religion's artifacts that are to be used in government rituals. As context-removed as most peoples' citations of Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state" are, proscribing a Congressman-elect to partake in a ritual that implies belief in one religion's God is almost certainly in violation of his 1st Amendment rights, and undoubtedly compromises that wall of separation.

Personally, I'd rather have Keith Ellison swearing on a Koran than a Bible. One, for a person who has denounced the Judeo-Christian God in favor of Allah, it would be blasphemy and a mockery of the God of Abraham to take the oath on a Bible. Two, here's to hoping that Ellison is devout enough that taking an oath while placing his hand upon the book that he personally believes to be of divine origin will be a powerful conscience-prodder when his CAIR pals come looking to come even on their campaign contributions. Three, and by far most importantly, it's absolute hypocrisy for us to say that despite your personal beliefs in the religion of Islam, we're going to force you to partake in a ritual that invokes the Christian God, just because that's our tradition. Isn't that the bizarro version of how the dhimmi (non-Muslims living in a second-class status in Muslim society) would be treated under sharia?

Another argument Prager makes is the proverbial slippery-slope:

"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?... 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."

There's a difference here, and it's important. First of all, it's the book that he considers to be holy, not his "favorite" book. I'm a Christian, and I believe the Bible to be holy, so I'd take an oath on the Bible, not on Bill Bennett's "America" or Natan Sharansky's "The Case for Democracy" or even "Animal Farm" by George Orwell. An argument like this belittles Muslim belief in the divine origin of the Koran, and is intellectually lacking.

Plus, it's not like secular officials prostrate themselves in front of the collected works of Voltaire, or neo-Nazis pray to the ghost of Hitler. OK, maybe some of the kooks do, but it's not like an organized religion of Hitler-worshippers is out there deifying him as their personal lord and savior and invoking him in public displays of religious ritual. Back to reality for a minute - a secular humanist, being of the belief that a human's conscience is the primary source of moral law, would possibly eschew taking an oath on a Bible and instead place his hand over his own heart. Would anyone object then? Since most of us don't carry around a pocket Bible, many of us place our right hands over our hearts during the Pledge of Allegiance and the playing of the Star-Spangled Banner. Does anyone complain?

There's a bigger point here, and it's one of the nuggets that's been stuck in my craw since the 5th District GOP Caucus that I got involved in this past spring. In preparation for the caucus, one of the assignments for delegates was to evaluate the party's platform and write any suggested changes down, submit them, and be prepared to debate them in preparation for voting them up or down - the up-voted ones would then be advanced to the next level for consideration for adoption into the platform.

One of the planks on the platform that I believe needs to be changed currently reads, "[w]e advocate protecting charities, school (sic), and hosptitals run by religious organizations from being compelled to provide services or information in conflict with their beliefs and teachings." My personal take on this is that the plank should have all reference to "religious organizations" removed, and should be re-written to state "...protecting all organizations from being compelled to provide services, information, membership, or products that conflict with their beliefs". My reasoning is that the protection of civil liberties and property rights is made stronger when Wal-Mart is not forced to stock its shelves with Penthouse or its pharmacies with RU-486. The Boy Scouts express their political and religious speech when they can impose their own qualifications and standards, not those standards which are deemed politically correct by the judiciary, for their members and volunteers.

Despite my pleadings with the delegates, my resolution was voted down when someone asserted, in essence, that "if you do that, then we'll be dealing with a double-edged sword, and when we want to impose our will on someone, we'll be beaten by our own platform." This is what frustrated me about the caucus system: by definition, it's run by people who are passionate enough in their views to sacrifice a few evenings and weekends to attend meetings, and a sizeable handful of hours along the way to study the issues and the platform, and to develop ideas and arguments to be used in the conventions. In other words, by definition, it's largely run by wing-nuts who put political ideology before common sense and principle.

To me, this is what is troubling about Prager's column. It takes what could be a meaningful debate about religious freedoms in our society and turns it into an "us vs. them" battle. And the main problem is, the moral stance he's advocating is exactly what he's morally opposed to in Taliban Afghanistan or Iran under the Ayatollah. I'll agree that there are traditions that must be upheld in our society, and many of those traditions are even religious in nature. But asking a man to actively partake in a ritual that clearly implies his belief in a God to which he does not profess his faith is immoral, unjustifiable, and probably unconstitutional.

And if this entire line of reasoning doesn't convince you, how about going to the source. 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 (emphasis mine)."

I have come to expect more from Mr. Prager.