December 22, 2006
A little fact checking and this mess might have been avoided
In America we love to celebrate firsts. John Glenn and Neil Armstrong are forever lauded for being pioneers in space and on the moon respectively. Jackie Robinson is a hero for breaking baseball’s color barrier and Charles Lindbergh was an instant celebrity after being the first to fly solo across the Atlantic. The first baby of the year is an annual staple of the New Year’s Day newspapers and just about any other first gets celebrated and praised in perpetuity.
So why then are we seeing so much intolerance from the conservative end of our political spectrum on the subject of Keith Ellison, D-MN, the first Muslim elected to Congress?
The furor started not while Ellison, a native of Detroit, was running his campaign, or after the people of his district decided they’d like him to be their representative in Washington, but after he announced his plans to use a Koran during his honorary swearing in ceremony instead of a bible. This ceremony is actually nothing but a photo-op as members of Congress are actually sworn in on the house floor with nary a book involved.
Still this didn’t stop conservative talker Dennis Prager from condemning Ellison’s planned Koran grab-and-grin, saying the incident will do no less than “undermine(s) American civilization.” I’m not one to believe the situation is quite that grave Mr. Prager, but I do think your much-discussed diatribe shows off some of the uglier tendencies toward intolerance and injustice that fester on the right side of the political spectrum.
Prager, who is Jewish, state his belief that the Christian bible is the accepted American holy book and should be used by all Americans. He justifies his stance by declaring Ellison to be hubristic by putting his culture above “America’s culture” while imagining the outrage he’d expect from the left if a racist elected to Congress wanted to be sworn in on Hitler’s Mein Kampf.
Personally, I’d have no objection to whatever symbolic gesture his hypothetical racist politician wants to make. By showing such a stance publicly that politician would marginalize him or herself and cast their electorate in a poor light for choosing such a divisive and contemptible representative. People should have the right to make such ignorant statements in public. This allows the public to see them for who they are and to condemn the statements while defending the right for them to be made. It’s in this same spirit that I’m happy to call Prager a moron for the statement’s he’s made, but I’d never dream of telling him his ideas are dumb so he should just keep them to himself.
That’s exactly what his essay was saying to Ellison. Of course Prager’s entire premise is so poorly researched to be laughable, but the sentiments behind his argument show some of the worst aspects of our politically polarized country. The Bill of Rights guarantees a wide range of freedoms and right up front are freedoms of religion, speech and expression. Ellison is exercising all three of these freedoms, but Prager seems to feel he should only be able to express himself
outside of a forum as public as Congress.
Prager is a member of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council and he’s now been officially condemned by that body’s executive committee for his remarks. There have been numerous calls for his resignation as well. I’m not sure that is the correct punishment for him, as I think he needs as much education in diverse cultures and tolerance of others as possible. Serving on the Council might help him realize the dangers of a society that demands complete and total integration and homogenization.
The Nazi’s had their deadly ways of dealing with people who were different, and being constantly reminded of these atrocities might just help Prager understand the value of multiculturalism and defending your neighbors right to be different. You never know when you might find yourself on the wrong side of societal persecution and in need of you different neighbor’s assistance and acceptance.
The strangest tangent to emerge from this issue comes straight from the pen (or computer) of Virginia Rep. Virgil Goode. This highly intelligent Congressman is a true credit to his party and his state’s caucus as he sent a letter to his constituents connecting the non-existent dots between Ellison using the Koran at his swearing in and rampant immigration that will lead to an Islamic takeover of the nation. As he writes it:
“I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America.”
Goode’s statements express the same ignorant and intolerant spirit espoused by fellow Virginian and now former Senator George Allen when he made his ill-fated “Macaca” comment about native Virginian of Indian descent S. R. Sidarth. This notion from conservatives that all minorities must be foreigners is arrogant and completely lacking in any sense of our nation’s history.
This country was built by immigrants who fled persecution only to sadly and ironically persecute and destroy cultures and peoples who previously occupied these lands. While tolerance and openness toward differences has always been preached in American politics, there’s a mixed record of actual practice of these ideals. Still in the last 50 years the nation has come a long way and that scares some people.
Whenever people make this sort public statements they provide further evidence of how far we still have to go. For his part Ellison has taken the high road. In response to his detractors, he’s spoken of a need for further education on issues of diversity and the workings of his religion. Education may or may not be the answer, but increased openness to accept differences will only serve to strengthen American culture and broaden its appeal to others.
The melting pot people love to refer to shouldn’t be boiling at such a high temperature that everything dissolves into one mass. Instead it should bubble just enough to stir everything together, eliminating boundaries between ingredients without breaking them down until their identity is unrecognizable. After all, homogeny doesn’t stay interesting for long.