DUMP DENNIS

In the wake of Dennis Prager’s furious condemnation of Congressman-Elect Keith Ellison’s plan to be sworn in on his own holy text – a story Prager described this week as more important to the future of this nation than what we do next in Iraq – the Council on American-Islamic Relations is calling for his removal from the United States Holocaust Memorial Council. As M.J. Rosenberg notes, President Bush appointed Prager three months ago to the Council, which oversees the Holocaust Museum.

That appointment demonstrates that George W. Bush has not fully learned the lessons of the Holocaust.

That language bristles no doubt, because there’s an unfortunate tendency to see big, dramatic historical events on whose moral character there’s a broad consensus – the Civil Rights Movement, the Abolition movement, the Holocaust – as somehow beyond the bounds of politics. But these are all political events. They are seismic moments not because they transcend politics but because they both expose and transform fundamental conflicts between different social visions held by different people and advanced through the exercise of power.

The Holocaust was a genocidal murderous enactment of an ideology of racial, religious, and sexual hierarchy and bigotry. It was an act of murder writ large in the name of Aryan heterosexual non-disabled Protestants being more human, having more worth, and possessing more rights than others. There are still those in this country who hold some or all those prejudices. There are some who will say so openly.

History does not interpret itself. But it demands meaning-making by responsible citizens.
That is not and never has been a process divorced without influence from or impact on our politics.

The Holocaust Museum’s “primary mission is to advance and disseminate knowledge about this unprecedented tragedy; to preserve the memory of those who suffered; and to encourage its visitors to reflect upon the moral and spiritual questions raised by the events of the Holocaust as well as their own responsibilities as citizens of a democracy.”

No one espousing the view that the “acceptance” of Judaism “as equal” to other religions “signifies the decline of Western civilization” would have a shot at a spot overseeing the Holocaust Museum. But someone who believes such about homosexuals was appointed to the Board three months ago by the President. That’s because the full humanity of Jews is considered a settled question in mainstream American political discourse, and therefore inappropriate to “politicize,” while the full humanity of gays is up for debate, and therefore it’s inappropriate to judge those bravely taking the “politically incorrect” stance.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “DUMP DENNIS

  1. Wouldn’t it be nice if Prager’s blatant homophobia were the center of this campaign, as opposed to his loutish (but fairly benign) devotion to Christian values in our government?

    I mean, doesn’t his intolerance of homosexuals more definitively disqualify him?

    I don’t know. I read his original article and his response to critics, and I found them pretty tame. I think the CAIR is blowing it out of proportion. Maybe that’s a necessary step to move this issue.

    Also, in a related note: isn’t there some cognitive dissonance when you put your hand on a Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution? It seems like it might be easy to elide the two — might be nice if they swore on the Constitution itself.

  2. Wouldn’t it be nice if Prager’s blatant homophobia were the center of this campaign, as opposed to his loutish (but fairly benign) devotion to Christian values in our government?

    I mean, doesn’t his intolerance of homosexuals more definitively disqualify him?

    I don’t know. I read his original article and his response to critics, and I found them pretty tame. I think the CAIR is blowing it out of proportion. Maybe that’s a necessary step to move this issue.

    Also, in a related note: isn’t there some cognitive dissonance when you put your hand on a Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution? It seems like it might be easy to elide the two — might be nice if they swore on the Constitution itself.

  3. Wouldn’t it be nice if Prager’s blatant homophobia were the center of this campaign, as opposed to his loutish (but fairly benign) devotion to Christian values in our government?

    I mean, doesn’t his intolerance of homosexuals more definitively disqualify him?

    I don’t know. I read his original article and his response to critics, and I found them pretty tame. I think the CAIR is blowing it out of proportion. Maybe that’s a necessary step to move this issue.

    Also, in a related note: isn’t there some cognitive dissonance when you put your hand on a Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution? It seems like it might be easy to elide the two — might be nice if they swore on the Constitution itself.

  4. Wouldn’t it be nice if Prager’s blatant homophobia were the center of this campaign, as opposed to his loutish (but fairly benign) devotion to Christian values in our government?

    I mean, doesn’t his intolerance of homosexuals more definitively disqualify him?

    I don’t know. I read his original article and his response to critics, and I found them pretty tame. I think the CAIR is blowing it out of proportion. Maybe that’s a necessary step to move this issue.

    Also, in a related note: isn’t there some cognitive dissonance when you put your hand on a Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution? It seems like it might be easy to elide the two — might be nice if they swore on the Constitution itself.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s