Video: Keith Ellison responds to Dennis Prager and Virgil Goode
posted at 7:19 pm on December 21, 2006 by Allahpundit
He’s totally right re: Prager, but I’ve made that point before and won’t belabor it again. The executive committee of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council on which Prager sits thinks so, too — without using the word itself, they passed a resolution today censuring him.
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Executive Committee of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, while recognizing that Dennis Prager has the right to express his personal views freely, disassociates itself from Mr. Prager’s statements as being antithetical to the mission of the Museum as an institution promoting tolerance and respect for all peoples regardless of their race, religion or ethnicity.
As for Goode, Moran uncorks a righteous rant but lets his dudgeon get a smidge too high. No, not all Muslim immigrants are a threat to the “values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America,” but the ones who take seriously the supremacy of shari’a are. To borrow one of Steyn’s favorite quotations, from James C. Bennett: “democracy, immigration, multiculturalism … pick any two.” As long as they’re on board with the first and not the third, Goode’s a tool and we can all relax. If they’re not, and some surely are not, we have a problem.
Here’s the clip. “All of us [Muslims] are steadfastly opposed to the same people he’s opposed to, which is the terrorists,” says Ellison of Goode, which is a wonderful sentiment but would be a lot more wonderful coming from someone who isn’t palsy walsy with CAIR.
Update: Reliably lefty Jacob Weisberg of Slate says it’s perfectly okay not to vote for people based on their religion.
Objecting to someone because of his religious beliefs is not the same thing as prejudice based on religious heritage, race, or gender. Not applying a religious test for public office, means that people of all faiths are allowed to run—not that views about God, creation, and the moral order are inadmissible for political debate. In George W. Bush’s case, the public paid far too little attention to the role of religion in his thinking. Many voters failed to appreciate that while Bush’s religious beliefs may be moderate Methodist ones, he was someone who relied on his faith immoderately, as an alternative to rational understanding of complex issues.
Nor is it chauvinistic to say that certain religious views should be deal breakers in and of themselves. There are millions of religious Americans who would never vote for an atheist for president, because they believe that faith is necessary to lead the country. Others, myself included, would not, under most imaginable circumstances, vote for a fanatic or fundamentalist—a Hassidic Jew who regards Rabbi Menachem Schneerson as the Messiah, a Christian literalist who thinks that the Earth is less than 7,000 years old, or a Scientologist who thinks it is haunted by the souls of space aliens sent by the evil lord Xenu.
That comes in the course of a discussion about Mitt Romney’s Mormonism. Dan Riehl helps Jake find the elephant in the room.