It is rumored that, when attending college, one of the members of our esteemed City Council took their oath of office for the Student Senate with his hand solemnly placed upon a copy of William Riordon’s “Plunkett of Tammany Hall’. Riordian’s book, like De Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America”, is a profoundly American historical document (and, unlike De Tocqueville’s, one which was written by an American), and it surely embodies many of the values of the political culture which are part and parcel of what conservative commentator Dennis Prager calls “American Civilization”. Would such an oath be acceptable to Mr. Prager?
I ask because Mr. Prager has seen fit to set himself up as a guardian of the gates of “American Civilization” concerning the very issue of what manner of documents are fit to serve the solemn task of hand-placement when swearing or affirming to such an oath. Specifically, Mr. Prager takes issue with the fact that newly elected Congressman Keith Ellison of Minneapolis, a Muslim, has announced that he will take his oath of office with his hand placed upon a copy of the Koran, rather than a King James Bible. Mr. Prager opines that “he should not be allowed to do so—not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.”
Mr. Prager is one of America’s leading Jewish apologists for the Christian Right. These characters generally come in two distinct flavors. The first variety is composed of Orthodox Jews, who basically accept nearly the entire Christian Right agenda on social issues, and dismiss the balance as insignificant. “Why worry about Christian prayers in the public schools? Our children don’t go there, and maybe some more impositions of Christianity will drive Jews back into Jewish schools where they belong.” This is by no means a majority view among the Orthodox, many of whom take the pragmatic position that religious minorities are best served by a strong wall between church and state. Nonetheless, the Orthodox apologists have their pragmatic side too. “Yes, those goyishe holy rollers are annoying, but they support tuition tax credits”.
The second stream of apologists is basically composed of neo-conservative intellectuals, whose views are entirely a matter of pragmatism. “Yes, of course the Christian Right are social Neanderthals, but they are also reliable allies. On the issues we really care about, like Israel and terrorism (and, sotto voce, affirmative action), they are our best friends. The issues where they go too far are of minor concern, and at any rate, the Constitution will protect us from their excesses” (although if their allies keep getting to choose judges, the protection afforded by the Constitution may prove analogous to that provided by a broken condom).
Strangely, Prager seems of neither variety; he is both a Conservative Jew (meaning a religious moderate) and a Jewish conservative, decidedly not of the neo-variety, but rather a reliable ally of the Christian Right on nearly every social issue. But, unlike many ultra-Orthodox Jewish allies of the Christian Right (Yehuda Levin come to mind), Prager does not represent a stream of Judaism that barely acknowledges the existence of “American Civilization” and their part in it. The ultra-Orthodox attitude toward American government, especially among Hasidic sects, is often merely a transactional one, best exemplified by the words of a Rabbi from Nazareth, “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”, perhaps also informed by Plunkitt’s declaration that he’d “seen his opportunities and took ‘em”. By contrast, Prager fully sees himself a leader of the movement to have America acknowledge and impose, in its public square, it’s “Judeo-Christian values” on those who may not share them, at home and abroad.
In this, he misunderstands not only “American Civilization”, but also Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The usual argument of those upholding “American Civilization” as “Judeo-Christian” is that our nation was created by those holding “Judeo-Christian values”. This might prove a shock to Tom Paine and Thomas Jefferson, but I’ll acknowledge that even their brands of religious skepticism were uniquely the products of a European culture which itself in its totality could fairly be called "Christendom"; of course, the works of the thoroughly anti-religious Voltaire are also the products of this culture. In reality, the complicated mixture of ideas which went into the founding documents of our democratic republic are Christian only in the same manner in which Noam Chomsky is Jewish (which hardly makes him kosher). And if the Christian part of this equation is more implied than explicit, the Jewish part of the equation is no more present than the grass the cow fed upon is present in a McDonald’s hamburger.
As Harold Bloom’s “Yeshua and Yahweh” makes quite clear, though Judaism and Christianity embrace some common texts, the values embraced by their founding documents, the Tanakh (Jewish Bible) and New Testament, are so profoundly different as to be completely incompatible. In fact, even among those documents allegedly held in common, are textual differences of a striking nature. The Tanakh’s version of Isaiah, which, coming first, would seem to have pride of place, makes no mention of the word “virgin” when discussing the messiah’s potential parenthood. In a recent issue of the ultra-Orthodox “Jewish Press”, an editorial noted, in passing, that Judaism as practiced in its proper manner (or, at least the manner deemed proper by “The Jewish Press”) had far more in common with Islam than Christianity; beards, skull caps, female modesty, an aversion to the porcine, Semitic language liturgy, etc., etc.
Ironically, as far as commonalities go, Christianity can also be said to have more in common with Islam than with Judaism. Two out of the three acknowledge the holiness of Jesus; Jews are the odd one out. Both Christianity and Islam have historically practiced manifest destiny upon a global scale, while Jews tend to discourage converts and have territorial designs confined, at most, to both banks of the Jordan and portions of Williamsburg. If “American Civilization” as defined by Prager, can be said to be the next logical jump from Christianity, then so can Islam; therefore “American Civilization” and Islam can be said to be fraternal. The Judeo elements, by contrast, are at least one more generation removed from each.
Thus, is Ellison’s insistence on taking the oath on the Koran really any different than Mr. Justice Goldberg or Congresswoman Deborah Wasserman Schultz taking their oath upon the Tanakh? Did Mr. Prager find their ceremonies objectional as well? Certainly, if one book can be said to embody the values underlying English-speaking Christendom and, by extension, “American Civilization” (at least as defined by Mr. Prager), it is the Bible of King James. If taking the oath of office on the Koran offends such values, then the Tanakh is barely an improvement.
Perhaps it is best to look for “American Civilization” elsewhere. I prefer our Constitution, which prohibits any religious test for holding public office. Moreover, it should be noted that no member of Congress actually takes their official oath using a Bible. The Speaker of the House administers the oath en masse using no religious books whatsoever. Religious books (or even "Plunkitt") come into play only during personal ceremonies involving each member and those they chose to invite. Personally, I think the public is best served if their representatives swear upon a document they actually believe in (which may not be possible in all cases; thankfully, "Plunkitt" is still in print). Since, when it comes down to dust, “American Civilization” is embodied in the values held by Americans, the question of whether these “private” ceremonies, involving the members, their families, and as many cameras as it takes to create a useful photo opportunity, embody “American Civilization” would seem to be a matter best settled between a member and his constituents (unless the “private” ceremony really was, in which case, it would be no one’s business).
Actually, I am not even that majoritarian. Cultural radicals of the left delight in pointing out that the American Constitution is a document designed to be “anti-majoritarian”. But, while those who make such an argument are correct in applying this designation to the Constitution’s worst aspects, it also applies to its best aspects as well. The Bill of Rights is a highly “anti-majoritarian” document. No one (at least in a non-totalitarian society) needs a Constitutional guarantee of free speech if they are going to be saying things which everyone else agrees with. Likewise, the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of our Constitution, which seem to trouble Mr. Prager so greatly, are primarily protections of religious minorities against the consensus of the majority.
Let us remember, as many on the Christian Right are only too happy to proclaim, when they are talking among themselves, and thereby relieved of the need to insincerely spout the term “Judeo”, that America is “a Christian nation”. I mean this in the sense that most of its inhabitants call themselves Christians. Even then, there are not a few willing to deny such a label to Unitarians, Mormons and Catholics, and some who refuse to apply it to anyone who does not meet their definition of “born again”. Those same folks often circumscribe the definition in ways that allow themselves the privilege of calling themselves a persecuted minority, whenever someone questions their desire to impose their majoritarian impulses upon the entire society. As the percentage of Americans composing the Christian majority becomes smaller and smaller (it is worth noting that, as a result of the recent election, our Congress now contains not only members outside the non-existent Judeo-Christian consensus, but also two Buddhists, with religious ideas clearly outside the monotheistic worldview of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic trinity), and the divisions among the conservative and liberal streams in Christianity (not to mention similar divisions in our other religions) become more and more intense, the urge to impose such views has seemingly grown exponentially.
The “Holiday Season” affords us a unique opportunity to explore this phenomenon further. It is a time when members of the Christian majority have the most in common with each other, and non-Christians are most cognizant of their outsider status. A friend who grew up in the 60’s in a heavily Jewish suburb outlined this best, “when I went to school, nearly everyone was Jewish, but when I turned on the TV, we barely existed. Even in first grade I evolved the theory that we were the majority, but that they controlled the media. It was only when I got older that I learned it was the other way around”. In feeling marginalized at Christmastime, non-Christians actually are reacting to two different but related phenomena. The first is the universalized and commercial secular societal celebration of a religious festival outside of their religion; the other is that the religious aspects of that secular celebration many times join the commercial in the schools and other areas of the public square.
Jews had long inured themselves to the secular celebration; my grandfather always had a de-religionized (no manger) Christmas display in the window of his children’s clothing store, although not de-relionized to the extent of including even one lousy dreidel. “Baruch atah adonia eloheynu melech ha’olam”, he’d say “who has given us Jesus so that we may close the year in the black.” And, as to the religious aspect being dragged into realms we found inappropriate, Jews usually made the prudential decision to suffer in silence. However, in recent decades, our stance against both has become more pronounced, both at home and in the world at large. Some of this has manifested itself in joining in litigation attacking both secular and religious public celebration. I am of the opinion that this is a mixed blessing. It is one thing to fight against outrageous examples of prostelytizing by chaplains at the Air Force Academy, quite another to invest energy and money into a politically counterproductive fight against the meaningless rote recitations of belief in the eternal as they are manifested in the flag salute. Frankly, I am of the belief that reminders of one’s minority status in society are not always a bad thing, contributing as they do to a better sense of what we Jews like to call rachmonis, and which others call empathy. The problem with too many of my co-religionists, who are lacking in this quality, is that they’ve gotten the idea that they are white people. It’s not so bad for them to be reminded otherwise every once in a while.
Certainly, this more militant attitude by Jews and other non-Christians has also contributed to a change of societal attitude which has resulted in more ecumenical holiday celebrations. This has, of late, infuriated the Christian Right. Last year, they got themselves all tied into a knot about a non-existent “War on Christmas” (with Jackie Mason playing their Pragerian Jewish shill). Ironically, the Right’s fury took the form of both defending and attacking secular celebrations. The Christian Right is all for any celebration which emphasizes the universalism of Christmas among Americans; but at the same time, it stands against any attempts to de-religionize such celebrations. Ironically, the impetus to de-religionize comes not primarily from government (despite the infamous “two reindeers rule” about holiday displays in the public square), but rather from the same commercial impulse that impelled my grandfather to put the Christmas display in his window. Christmas celebrations have become “Holiday” celebrations because we are a less “Christian” society (even among our Christians) and people are voting with their wallets. This is not about political correctness, it is about dollar savvy. As Kinky Friedman once said “Jews didn’t kill Jesus, Santa did”. Nicholas may indeed be a Saint, but the Christian Right should remember that his anagram, Satan, was himself God’s fallen angel.
But while the Christian Right may find itself discomforted, the universalism of Christmas celebration has more profoundly affected the lives of non-Christians. Chanukah, a celebration of a war fought against religious assimilation, specifically what was known as Hellenization, is now celebrated by most American Jews, to the extent it is celebrated at all, by emulation of as many Christian customs as possible. This desire to blend in and emulate the majority does not restrict itself solely to “Holiday time”; what better example of it than Dennis Prager’s craven attempt to show his right wing Christians masters that he is one of them, not a dirty Moslem at all, but a good Greek. Dennis Prager is a Hellenist.
How does one properly respond to such an affront to “American Civilization” and civility in general? The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) advocates Prager’s removal from membership on the US Holocaust Commission’s Memorial Council, and it seems clear that Mr. Prager does indeed lack the sensitivity to serve on a body which exists largely to educate the public about the dangers of persecuting members of minority groups. Education certainly should not be in the hands of the blitheringly ignorant. On the other hand, this call seems ironic coming from a group whose leadership includes a substantial number of individuals on record in denying the Holocaust’s very existence; without public repudiation of such individuals and a cleansing of its own house, I’m not sure why anyone should care what CAIR has to say about the matter. But, speaking of cleaning house, it seems time to note that Mr. Prager earns a substantial portion of his income speaking on the Jewish equivalent of the Chautauqua circuit; should we allow this to continue? I offer a simple test, which balances the need for being open to differing viewpoints with the concomitant right of a group not to not play host to those whose views it finds repugnant: all those who would open their pulpits to Tony Judt should feel perfectly free to allow Mr. Prager to speak as well; I would not have either at my congregation.
Incidentally, I do not think Dennis Prager belongs on the Holocaust Commission, and I hope a Democratic administration gets the opportunity to remove him. More importantly, I think that the proper response of all real Americans to Prager’s declarations about “American Civilization” is to loudly declare “Ich bin ein Muslim!” I chanted those words last night between the kiddish and motzi and I never felt like a better Jew.