Take, for example, the already-infamous interview that CNN's Glenn Beck conducted with Mr. Ellison on November 14th. In it, there was this delightful attempt to not sound prejudiced despite the fact that the question was inextricably bound up in, and inspired by, Mr. Beck's prejudices:
BECK: OK. No offense, and I know Muslims. I like Muslims. I've been to mosques. I really don't believe that Islam is a religion of evil. I -- you know, I think it's being hijacked, quite frankly.
With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying, "Let's cut and run." And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, "Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies."
And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.
Let's see now, where to begin? Shall we start with the whole "Some of my best friends are Muslims!" preamble? No, that one's self-evident. Certainly Mr. Beck has a point in asserting that Islam has been hijacked by extremists, although I think it's truer that we in America don't pay attention to the millions of good practicing Muslims except when a few of them do something extreme; and then we make that awful leap we have made so many times, in assuming that all Muslims must think like the extremists.
(Note that I have been careful not to assume that Mr. Beck represents the thinking of all Republicans or conservatives. He's out on the fringe, even if he is a member of "mainstream media" stalwart CNN--and the whole point of this blog entry is to demonstrate how the mere fact of Mr. Ellison's election has been drawing these bald-faced bigotries out into the open for once.)
Then there is Mr. Beck's conflation of Democrats with "cut-and-run" appeasers who must therefore be secretly in league with the terrorists, a spectacular three-way failure of logic because none of those things follows from any of the others. Democrats are not ipso facto appeasers; appeasers are not ipso facto in league with terrorists; people in league with terrorists are not ipso facto Democrats; and so on. But unless you are willing to automatically assume that all three elements of that so-called syllogism are in fact congruent, then Mr. Beck's next question--nay, his next demand--"Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies" becomes impossible.
Any by the way, Mr. Ellison's response to this bit of blatant bigotry was remarkable for its grace, as he seemed to immediately forgive the undertones of the question and, in fact, willingly dignified it with a dignified answer:
ELLISON: Well, let me tell you, the people of the Fifth Congressional District know that I have a deep love and affection for my country. There's no one who is more patriotic than I am. And so, you know, I don't need to -- need to prove my patriotic stripes.
To which Mr. Beck, backpedaling like crazy, responded "I understand that. And I'm not asking you to," then moved on to talk about Somalians in Mr. Ellison's district. But of course he was asking exactly that, and bravo to Mr. Ellison for how well he handled this embarrassing interview.
Two weeks later, along came Dennis Prager in his column on Townhall.com, in which he harrumphed about the fact that Mr. Ellison plans to use a copy of the Koran when he is sworn in next month. This is a little better argued from a logical point of view, but it still amounts to one giant whopper. Where does Mr. Prager go horribly wrong? Right here: "America is interested in only one book, the Bible."
Well no, not really. Even Mr. Prager, later on in his column, notes that the collective Bible includes both the Talmudic Old Testament and a New Testament that is not a part of the Jewish religion, and no one denies that Jews have been a major part of American life for centuries. So Jews are not "interested" in "the Bible" per se, only a portion of it. There are perhaps three million Muslims living in the U.S., and of course they respect the Bible but it is the Koran they are most "interested" in. And let us not forget the Native Americans we displaced, who have never had any interest in the Holy Book we so often used as justification for stealing their land.
From this assertion, everything else follows. "If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress." But in fact, setting aside the Congress for a moment, two Presidents did not swear on a Bible: Theodore Roosevelt didn't use a book at all, and John Quincy Adams was sworn in using a lawbook as his preferred text. Furthermore, another incoming member of the next Congress, Hawaiian representative Mazie Hirono, plans to use no religious text at all next month. The Constitution--which is the only text that matters, the one whose primacy all elected officials are required to affirm--specifically requires that "no religious test" be used to determine whether a citizen can serve as an elected official.
(Again, not all conservatives think alike--elsewhere on Townhall.com, Michael Medved quite properly argued against Mr. Prager's conclusions, and Tucker Carlson has done so as well.)
Mr. Prager then argues as follows:
...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?
An interesting question, but more than a little specious. For one thing, anyone so devoted to their racism that they would insist on using "Mein Kampf" as their swearing-in text probably has enough of a history as that kind of a racist that they are extremely unlikely to actually get elected. In other words, even a mildly-informed electorate would prevent such a swearing-in by never electing the guy in the first place. But if such a person should be elected, then sure, let him use whatever book he wants. But because "Mein Kampf" is genuinely and legitimately offensive to millions of Americans--let alone other members of Congress--such a person would be instantly marginalized in Congress and, almost certainly, thrown out of office two years later. That's the logical fallacy, you see: "Mein Kampf" is inherently offensive; the Koran is not. Mr. Prager doesn't seem to understand this either--or perhaps, despite his many protestations to the contrary, he really does equate the Koran with "Mein Kampf."
And that would just be sad. Enough with him. But bravo to Mr. Ellison, a genuinely progressive voice in the Congress. Recently a news crew followed him around Washington during his orientation, and he seemed like a completely decent guy, a little disoriented as he tried to figure his way around the halls of power. I like him already, and I look forward to his contributions to the national discourse.
No comments:
Post a Comment