You were maybe expecting Jeffersonian discourse from Prager?

Actually, I don't think Jews are supposed to take oaths. Anyway, every year at Yom Kippur, we renounce in advance all the oaths we will be making in the next 12 months. Oaths don't count for Jews.

We are just supposed to behave well!

MJ,

Anyway, every year at Yom Kippur, we renounce in advance all the oaths we will be making in the next 12 months. Oaths don't count for Jews.

We are just supposed to behave well!

You are of course referring to Kol Nidre service, the medieval Erev Yom Kippur tradition instituted for Jews to renounce conversions inspired by threats of violence and murder.  But why bother to explain such subtleties when there is an opportunity to buddy up with our resident anti-Zionist avatars of human rights with snarky jabs at Jewish behavior?  A million laughs.

Incidentally, over at TPM, a quote from a Republican, I believe Lindsay Graham defended the infamous oath on a Koran.  It was very nice, except for one phrase, about the man's right to sweat his allegiance to the Koran rather than the Christian Bible should he wish. I just wanted to point out that, for better or worse, such an act is solemnizing one's oath of office, not one's allegiance to scripture of whatever religion. 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

Since Israel did not really have a particularly close relationship with the U>S. until the end of the Vietnam. More than the Arab other the reason for the close relationship with Israel is the Arabs' close relationship with the Soviet Union.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

So Prager is trying to use Judaism to buttress the message of intolerence and hate espoused by the Wingnuts?  How lovely...NOT!!!

Prager, in the sense of being a Jew, is making a deal with the Devil by sucking up to the Wingnuts.  The Wingnuts deep down inside hate Jews because in the Wingnut's minds the Jews were the ones who nailed Jesus to the cross.  Prager should ask those fine christian folks what the letters KKK stand for and then he'll know where he stands with the "fine" christian folk who he is trying to help out in spreading their social agenda of hate.  Not to say all southern evangelical christians are klansmen but all klansmen are evangelical christians...but when attaining money and power is of the highest importance to a person it can make people like Prager sell their souls.

... akin to nazism...

Akin??? And Rudolph has a red nose... right?

~OGD~

I think there's more to a 'rural' vs. 'urban' conflict than jew/christian.

Still the Prager logic is totally twisted. As others pointed out, the oath is not TO the bible, it's to the office, and the bible just represents what the person at hand holds PERSONALLY sacred.

Dear Mr. MJ,

I try to read your blogs for their subtantive content --and thank you so much for that -- but the title of this post kind of makes you sound like a hater. Is that how one signifies a post-Christmas mellow?

Merry post-Christmas posting, Ticia

It doesn't seem to do much good to swear your oath on a text you hold sacred. Goode swore to preserve, protect and defend a document that expressly forbids the type religious test he is now advocating. To people like him, the Bible is more important than the oath they swear upon it. I say if you cannot take that oath in good conscience, no matter what you swear it on, you do not belong in the Congress.

Ticia: I am not a hater. But I hate haters.
Thus the paradox. But in the spirit of the holiday, I'll change the title.
MJ

Happy New Year

I too would like to see Prager removed, because he embarrases not only Jews but all those committed to bearing witness to the Holocaust, whatever their faith or creed. Prager's removal will not happen at the instance of Democrats, however, because Bush will never appear to his base--out of whom Prager emerged--to be kowtowing in the slightest to liberal pressure. The abjectly pusillanimous response from the White House so far about Prager's bigotry attests to that. Contrary to Mr. Rosenberg, any move by Democrats to force his removal will be seen as mere rhetoric.

If you want Prager gone involuntarily, the impetus has to come from GOP players like Lindsay Graham to have any chance of succeeding. Alas, don't hold your breath. It's just not that big an issue any more except to people here and on similar blogs, especially since Ellison answered Prager quite efffectively.

Ah, yes; but they're happy to be the beneficiaries thereof.

Want to challenge the exquisite irony of the slogan you quote? 

El Prager says:

"If you want to predict on which side an American will line up in the Culture War wracking America, virtually all you have to do is get an answer to this question: Does the person believe in the divinity and authority of the Five Books of Moses, the first five books of the Bible, known as the Torah?

I guess I live on another planet, the planet of liberal secularists who hate freedom, but no one I know believes in the "divinity" of the Bible. The very idea that the book was written by "God" rather than by some very wise humans is pretty alien to tens of millions of Americans, not to mention most Europeans and Israelis (for instance).

If I believed in the divinity and authority of the Torah, I'd have to stone my gay friends and kill others who drive on Saturday or eat pork.

I don't even believe Prager believes that. The Torah, Bible, Quran, etc are great books which include many good -- and many appalling -- ideas. But the idea that they came to us from a non-human source is..... I don't want to insult fundamentalists so I'll leave the rest out.

One indication of how stupid Prager's statement is comes from this slight substitution.

"If you want to predict on which side an American will line up in the Culture War wracking America, virtually all you have to do is get an answer to this question: Does the person believe that God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

Most of the Americans who would accept Prager's formula would accept the above as well. The two statements are equally valid i.e. not valid at all.

I guess I live on another planet, the planet of liberal secularists who hate freedom, but no one I know believes in the "divinity" of the Bible. The very idea that the book was written by "God" rather than by some very wise humans is pretty alien to tens of millions of Americans, not to mention most Europeans and Israelis (for instance).

I guess you live a pretty sheltered life, where everyone you know believes exactly the same things you do.  No wonder you're so parochial.

I come from a pretty liberal secular background myself, and would consider myself a bible skeptic.  I don't believe God had anything to do with the Bible.  But then I'm an agnostic on the God question as well.  Yet even I can see with my own eyes that I'm in the minority on that one.

The fact is that there are millions out there who do believe in the divinity of the Bible, and they can be found among the believers in both Judaism and Christianity.  This can mean anything from thinking that the Bible was "divinely inspired" to believing that the Bible is the "word of God".  The point is that the closer one gets to believing the Bible is actually the word of God, the closer one gets - generally speaking - to a socially conservative viewpoint.  I have had numerous conversations with friends and acqaintances who will say outright that the reason they oppose homosexuality is that it is condemned in the Bible.  Same with sex outside marriage and other issues.  Now of course these people are unaware or choose to overlook the contradictions in their viewpoints (the point about stoning gays is well taken), but that doesn't mean they don't believe what they believe.

You ought to step outside the liberal bubble in which you live.  You might learn something.

MJ,

I guess I live on another planet, the planet of liberal secularists who hate freedom, but no one I know believes in the "divinity" of the Bible....

Part of being among the "reality-based community" is understanding that American society in general, and the electorate in particular, is hardly limited to the people you know.

It doesn't divulge the sources, but Rolling Stone magazine's December issue (no. 1016/1017, p. 86) gives some polling numbers:  53% of Americans believe that "Human beings did not evolve from earlier species"; 64% of Americans believe that "Scientists have 'a lot of disagreement' about the existence of global warming."

Maybe we should all get out more in the coming year.

I would love to hear your explanation of why you believe that Israel didn't have a close relationship with the US until the '70s. The the post to which you were responding referred to Israel's "claims on the American psyche." Your response was one-dimensional and inadequate address to the reference.

Surely your measure of a "close relationship" looks at more than the US' bailing the the Israelis out of the hole they found themselves in during the Yom Kippur War, and then turning the State of Israel into a regional superpower under the theory that the US needed an ally in the Middle East in the petro-geo-political game. Or does it?

Brad the Dad,

Not that I necessarily want to carry Dennis Prager's water, and I'm sure I'll be flamed to a crisp for saying this, but what exactly is incorrect about this statement?

Well, so far there's been one accusation of "neocon Likudnik" thrown at you.  Judging from the policies that have dominated the domestic agenda, it's cold comfort that the realities appear to be on your side...

Overall, 64 percent believe the story of Moses parting the Red Sea is "literally true, meaning it happened that way word-for-word." About as many say the same about creation (61 percent) and Noah and the flood (60 percent). About three in 10 say, instead, that each of these is "meant as a lesson, but not to be taken literally."

Seventy-nine percent of Americans believe that, as the Bible says, Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, without a human father....

Fifty-four percent (54%) of all Americans believe the Bible is literally true while 32% disagree and 13% are not sure. Among those who attend Church at least once a week, 74% believe it is literally true.

Ellen:

I'm sorry that you attribute what Prager wrote to all American Zionists. I'm not prone to name-calling and I don't know why you chose to paint with such a broad brush, so I will assume your post was made in good faith and without prejudice. In any event, I'm copying a post I made on The Agonist yesterday which, at a minimum, should dispel the notion that all "American Zionists" (which would include me) believe in what Prager wrote:

Josh Marshall points this morning to this latest screed from Dennis Prager. Prager's column reflects his continuing effort to justify his absolutely outrageous position that Representative-Elect Ellison should violate his Islamic faith and place his hand on the Bible in order to be properly sworn in as a member of Congress. How do I count the ways that this ticks me off? First of all, as an American citizen, I deeply resent Prager for: (a) ignoring that the actual oath of office is done en masse in the House chambers, and it is only those who choose to do so that later on place their hand on a Bible in a private "swearing-in" ceremony; and (b) trying to inject religion where it just doesn't belong. Second, as a Jew, and a fairly observant one (everything's relative), I really resent Prager's ongoing efforts to tell me what I'm supposed to believe in in the realm of politics. It disgusts me that he would twist what is so near and dear to me into false and slanderous political argument.

This is not the first time Prager has ticked me off. For the past several years I have been invited to give the sermon at my synagogue on Labor Day weekend and I relish the chance to remind my fellow congregants about that inextricable link between the history of the American labor movement and the history of American Jews. Two years ago I devoted my whole sermon to Mr. Prager, in response to one of his columns (I wish I could find it) in which he elected to separate Americans into two distinct camps: (1) the secular socialists on the one hand; and (2) the right-wing alleged keepers of the Judeo-Christian faith on the other. The irony is, as I opined at the time, that people like Prager ultimately do more to diminish all the good that can come from religious belief, beginning with the notion that one should practice what he or she preaches.

WHY doesn't anyone confront Dennis Praeger with the FACTS? Expose him for the ignorant moron that he is and ask the financial backers of his program WHY this idiot -- and Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly -- can gain access to the public airways when advocates for the poor, the sick, and the downtrodden can not??

1) First of all, my estimate is that 80% of CHRISTIANS --including many Southern evangelicals -- do NOT "believe in the divinity and authority of the Five Books of Moses".

Not in the sense of thinking the Torah is important or binding upon Christians. When was the last time anyone heard their minister trying to enforce the rules in Leviticus??

2) My impression is that many Christians re the New Testament as the important book -- the Old Testament is more like interesting background that was superceded by Christ's teachings in the New Testament. Why do you think that so many copies of the New Testament --sans the Old Testament -- are sold?

When we visited my relatives in the South, my wife talked with my father's minister re a story in the Old Testament and the preacher asked her if she had read all of the New Testament. He indicated that he didn't understand why people spent time on reading the Old Testament -- that the New Testament was what was important in saving one's soul.

bmastiff,

WHY doesn't anyone confront Dennis Praeger with the FACTS? Expose him for the ignorant moron that he is and ask the financial backers of his program WHY this idiot -- and Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly -- can gain access to the public airways when advocates for the poor, the sick, and the downtrodden can not??

We will have to lean on all those fresh new Democratic lawmakers, and legislate the message to the enterprises that dominate the means of communication at this time.

Urge your congresspeople to support HR 3302, the Media Ownership Reform Act of 2005.

Likudnik Brad the Dad strikes again -- too cowardly to answer the challenge though.

I don't engage in that kind of rhetoric and know very few people who do. When you wish to discuss issues or even debate them, I'm here. But I don't play nanny nanny poo poo, except with my infant daughter.

I think now you clearly have exposed yourself Ellen, and nakedly so -- in the public square. This was a post about Dennis Prager, and his ridiculous and bigoted assertion that the Jewish Bible or the Christian Bible should be sworn to as part of one's initiation into Congress. You chose to bring the term "American Zionists" into the fray, when Prager was speaking only of Jews and Christians. My only conclusion, and it is with regret, is that you chose to substitute the term "American Zionists" instead of coming right out and showing us your own stereotypical feelings about Jews. Why, I invite you to explain (and I will listen to you)did you not refer to Jews, about whom Prager was writing, and say it is the Jews who seek to dehumanize the Arab people? My hunch is you understood that that wouldn't sound very compelling to your audience so instead you chose to refer to "American Zionists". Again, let me be clear: my finger points as such only because Dennis Prager's disgusting column had nothing at all to do with Zionists or with Zionism.

Now I have no doubt that you would like your audience on here to believe that it's all about your deeply held feelings about the Palestinian people and how they have suffered. That is a legitimate topic, one that is painful and complex. I am prepared to discuss or debate how we might come to a peaceful resolution in Israel and in Palestine. I'll even go so far as to discuss that topic with you, notwithstanding what clearly appears to be an angry and xenophobic dispostion on your part.

Indeed, Ellen, you are exposed, and I think you should free yourself, admit your bias, and let us break bread and talk to, rather than past one other. I believe you would feel liberated and less angry; and I also believe it would be far more productive.

I don't know. This seems like a most excellent circular argument for the theodically challenged:

"The rabbis of the Talmud were certain there is an afterlife; and a moment’s reflection on the question should lead anyone who believes in a good God to the same conclusion: Why would God make a world that is so manifestly unjust without some mechanism to right that injustice? How could God be good and not rectify the suffering of the good and the prospering of the evil? If there’s no afterlife, God is not good. And finally, why would a non-physical God create a world that is only physical?"

Thank you for that reply Ellen, and I think I have a better understanding of where you are coming from. I really do loathe the name-calling thing and psychoanalysis from afar.

I hear what you are saying and I guess somehow you think that "self-styled supporters of Israel" somehow benefit from people like Prager. I respectfully disagree. People like Prager don't help our cause; people like Prager say things that constitute low-hanging fruit for people who detest the State of Israel and its right to exist in secure and defensible borders. That said, to the extent Prager somehow aids the cause of Israel (and again I don't understand how he aids the cause), what can one in my position do except condemn him?

Having said that, I guess your argument is analogous to those of us who detest what the Bush Administration has done in Iraq. One could argue that the increasing death toll of American boys and girls "aids our cause" to the extent it increases domestic opposition to the war. But that's the kind of assistance I'd really rather do without. I have no doubt you would rather not have that kind of assistance either (based on my assumption that you are not a supporter of our venture into Iraq).

Ellen,

I'm afraid, bslev, you don't understand Prager's intent and purpose. Simply put, it's to align Jews and Christians against Muslims -- as I said earlier, to "other" the Arab. And such has been the Zionist project for years.

How does Prager's intent and purpose become the sum total history of the Zionist project? 

What is the difference between narrow-minded blanket condemnations of those critical of Israeli policies as "antisemitic" or "self-hating" and a narrow-minded condemnation of all Zionists and their sympathizers as "neocon Likudniks"?

I see you've fallen for Zionista's fallacy of the excluded middle. ??? ???, bslev.

Ellen,

...Zionista's fallacy of the excluded middle.

"Too cowardly to answer the challenge...."