We're Back to This Shit?!
The April issue of Moment magazine--commendable in many ways--features an article by everyone's favorite Constitutional theorist, Dennis Prager. Except by "Constitutional theorist", I mean...not. This article (an opinion column, really) attempts to explicate, exonerate and apologise for Prager's now-famous remarks about Rep. Keith Ellison, the man who wanted to destroy the fabric of America by getting sworn into office with a Quran and not a Bible. Leaving aside for the moment that the actual act of swearing in features absolutely no theological literature, which can feature only in a later, non-ceremony, this is a huge load of bunk. Horse-hooey, to take my cue from Molly Ivins.
Prager argues any number of inane and incorrect points, still attempting to play on stupid, outdated, and did I mention incorrect, fears about what is or isn't good for the Jews. Now, let me be clear: I love Jews. I love Judaism. I think we're pretty much past the point of denying it. (Just look at where I work.) And I love America. A lot. This country is an idea, and an ideal, and I can go on for hours about the eerie similarities between the practices of Constitutional law and Conservative Judaism, but I won't. I just want to firmly afix my street cred here.
So, incorrect point of Prager's, part the first: the values upon which America was established were Enlightenment values, but Enlightenment values are merely extensions ("largely add-ons") of Biblical values. Sorry, not true. Admittedly closer to true for Jews than Christians, still useless in this argument because, well, not a lot of Jews among the Founders. The Enlightenment valued reason (and beauty, as reason's physical manifestation) above all else. Religion values faith above all else. Yes, the social values of Judaism fit an Enlightened social agenda--especially if you take a highly-Americanized/Westernized, liberal, latter-day Judaism as your example. Which sort of defeats the point. Anyway, anyone who claims the Enlightenment was merely an extension of Biblical values, especially given that the Enlightenment was a reaction to a Church-driven society, is fairly murky on the precepts of the Enlightenment. Locke, Voltaire, Rousseau: these men valued sound reasoning, the triumph of reason as man's birthright. I don't know what their feelings on Jews were, but they would not be comfortable in Boro Park today. Dogma was not part of the agenda.
Anyway, incorrections, part the second: "These Bible-based Christians did not need the Enlightenment to tell them that government should not be theocratic." Except, um, of course they did. Not in every case, of course: the originial Jamestonians seemed to have been relatively lax on enforced religion (as long as you were a Christian--for further commentary on that, please allow me to refer you to the decided lack of tolerance shown those native peoples resitant to conversion). The colony of Pennsylvania was famous for religious tolerance. But the Puritans were some of the most intolerant sons of bitches this country has seen--no small feat. Anne Hutchinson? The Salem witch trials? People were regularly excommunicated--not to mention executed--for religious transgressions. This is seventh-grade social studies stuff, guys.
Parts the thrid and fourth: "While the United States has no state-established religion, it was designed to be a deeply religious country. And America's religiosity was uniquely Judeo-based." Okay, first of all, the US was not designed to be a "deeply religious nation." It was designed to be a society in which deep religiousity would be left on its own, so long as it didn't infringe on the rights of others. But design specifically to be religious? James Madison, who, in addition to signing the Constitution and, y'know, being President, wrote a hefty portion of the Federalist papers and sold the idea of the Constitution to America, state convention by state convention, agreed with Thomas Jefferson that the Constitution should build a wall around religion. Dennis--know anything else we're supposed to build a boundry around? There's zero evidence offered to support Prager's assertion, by the way.
And as for America's Judeo-based religion--which Prager later amends to Judeophilia--what a load of bunk. Certainly America has always perceived itself as a sort of secular Zion, a triumphant underdog in its early days that beckoned with the sweet scent of promise well into the present day. I can understand, even agree with, the fact that America has a sense of Judeophilia. But that doesn't counter the fact that America is overwhelmingly Christian. Overwhelmingly. I don't feel compelled to document this further than to point out the 2% thing, but if America's so Jewish and so in love with us, I guess we can call off our dogs.
In response to the assertion that until 1800, you couldn't graduate Harvard without learning Hebrew (which I think was perfectly reasonable for a curriculum that taught classics in their original language), I would say a far more relevant example of Jews' place in a thoroughly Christian America would be the fact that this selfsame institution, along with its Ivy brethren (don't know about sistren) instituted Jewish quotas in the 1920s and 30s. Love the Judaism, hate the Jew?
All in all, I'm disappointed by this article. What's with the quarter-hearted apology? All of these points add up to some very wishy-washy scholarship in my book, and I don't appreciate yet another older Jewish man lecturing me on the ways of America and what is or isn't good for the Jews. I was appalled in the first place to have an Islamophobic argument about Quran vs. Bible be blamed on what's good for me as a Jew (Mr. Ellins: fix healthcare and you can be sworn in with whatever you want). My disgust at an apologist attempt to tack this onto America's "Jewish" values is ever greater. If you're gonna shoot big, at least stick to your guns.
For more information about the Constitution, check out constitution.org, American Rhetoric, or email my friend Jon. Bro knows what he's talking about.
Kol tov...
Prager argues any number of inane and incorrect points, still attempting to play on stupid, outdated, and did I mention incorrect, fears about what is or isn't good for the Jews. Now, let me be clear: I love Jews. I love Judaism. I think we're pretty much past the point of denying it. (Just look at where I work.) And I love America. A lot. This country is an idea, and an ideal, and I can go on for hours about the eerie similarities between the practices of Constitutional law and Conservative Judaism, but I won't. I just want to firmly afix my street cred here.
So, incorrect point of Prager's, part the first: the values upon which America was established were Enlightenment values, but Enlightenment values are merely extensions ("largely add-ons") of Biblical values. Sorry, not true. Admittedly closer to true for Jews than Christians, still useless in this argument because, well, not a lot of Jews among the Founders. The Enlightenment valued reason (and beauty, as reason's physical manifestation) above all else. Religion values faith above all else. Yes, the social values of Judaism fit an Enlightened social agenda--especially if you take a highly-Americanized/Westernized, liberal, latter-day Judaism as your example. Which sort of defeats the point. Anyway, anyone who claims the Enlightenment was merely an extension of Biblical values, especially given that the Enlightenment was a reaction to a Church-driven society, is fairly murky on the precepts of the Enlightenment. Locke, Voltaire, Rousseau: these men valued sound reasoning, the triumph of reason as man's birthright. I don't know what their feelings on Jews were, but they would not be comfortable in Boro Park today. Dogma was not part of the agenda.
Anyway, incorrections, part the second: "These Bible-based Christians did not need the Enlightenment to tell them that government should not be theocratic." Except, um, of course they did. Not in every case, of course: the originial Jamestonians seemed to have been relatively lax on enforced religion (as long as you were a Christian--for further commentary on that, please allow me to refer you to the decided lack of tolerance shown those native peoples resitant to conversion). The colony of Pennsylvania was famous for religious tolerance. But the Puritans were some of the most intolerant sons of bitches this country has seen--no small feat. Anne Hutchinson? The Salem witch trials? People were regularly excommunicated--not to mention executed--for religious transgressions. This is seventh-grade social studies stuff, guys.
Parts the thrid and fourth: "While the United States has no state-established religion, it was designed to be a deeply religious country. And America's religiosity was uniquely Judeo-based." Okay, first of all, the US was not designed to be a "deeply religious nation." It was designed to be a society in which deep religiousity would be left on its own, so long as it didn't infringe on the rights of others. But design specifically to be religious? James Madison, who, in addition to signing the Constitution and, y'know, being President, wrote a hefty portion of the Federalist papers and sold the idea of the Constitution to America, state convention by state convention, agreed with Thomas Jefferson that the Constitution should build a wall around religion. Dennis--know anything else we're supposed to build a boundry around? There's zero evidence offered to support Prager's assertion, by the way.
And as for America's Judeo-based religion--which Prager later amends to Judeophilia--what a load of bunk. Certainly America has always perceived itself as a sort of secular Zion, a triumphant underdog in its early days that beckoned with the sweet scent of promise well into the present day. I can understand, even agree with, the fact that America has a sense of Judeophilia. But that doesn't counter the fact that America is overwhelmingly Christian. Overwhelmingly. I don't feel compelled to document this further than to point out the 2% thing, but if America's so Jewish and so in love with us, I guess we can call off our dogs.
In response to the assertion that until 1800, you couldn't graduate Harvard without learning Hebrew (which I think was perfectly reasonable for a curriculum that taught classics in their original language), I would say a far more relevant example of Jews' place in a thoroughly Christian America would be the fact that this selfsame institution, along with its Ivy brethren (don't know about sistren) instituted Jewish quotas in the 1920s and 30s. Love the Judaism, hate the Jew?
All in all, I'm disappointed by this article. What's with the quarter-hearted apology? All of these points add up to some very wishy-washy scholarship in my book, and I don't appreciate yet another older Jewish man lecturing me on the ways of America and what is or isn't good for the Jews. I was appalled in the first place to have an Islamophobic argument about Quran vs. Bible be blamed on what's good for me as a Jew (Mr. Ellins: fix healthcare and you can be sworn in with whatever you want). My disgust at an apologist attempt to tack this onto America's "Jewish" values is ever greater. If you're gonna shoot big, at least stick to your guns.
For more information about the Constitution, check out constitution.org, American Rhetoric, or email my friend Jon. Bro knows what he's talking about.
Kol tov...
posted by Di Freye Froy at 6:22 PM
0 comments
