Comments on: Umm…We Might Need To Get Active Soon

By: david smith

david smith — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 18:51:12 +0000

Mobi,

Holy shit! I think you might want to take a deep breath. I mean, I couldn’t possibly agree more with your frustration, or simple disgust, at the insipidity and tendentiousness of the ubiquitous “self-hating Jew” reflex. Nonetheless, Miriam is quite right; the instantaneous “your-banned-for-life” edict is a tad on the Nero-level imperious side. Besides, it’s kind of comforting to know that the many commenters at Jewschool include the occasional fish in a barrel like Pragerwasright.

By: miriam

miriam — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 15:04:27 +0000

Aw, Mobius, do you really need to dump ‘pragerwasright,’ because of the idiotic remark? Shouldn’t we keep the lines of communication open? Where would we all be if we simply turned our backs on the thoroughly ignorant? If we do turn our backs, how can we expect the ignorant to make t’shuvah?

And, by turning our backs, does this not mean that WE reject t’shuvah?

By: Y-Love

Y-Love — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 14:19:38 +0000

All of us are self-hating Jews? Since when was there any one thing everyone on Jewschool could be considered as having the same opinion on!

By: Mobius

Mobius — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 13:43:10 +0000

self hating jew epithet eh? congratulations. all of your comments henceforth will be banned.

By: Pragerwasright

Pragerwasright — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 13:16:42 +0000

Whatever your opinion of his op-ed, Prager is a proud Jew, unlike most of the people on this “progressive” site.

By: Grand Muffti

Grand Muffti — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 08:43:15 +0000

Has it occurred to you guys that Prager is a road block and distraction designed to keep you focussed on the lunatic fringe rather than on the people who actually have power in this country?

By: Eric

Eric — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 03:39:38 +0000

In fact i had already extended my index flexon, clicked the link and read through the entire article and there’s nothing there that contradicts anything i wrote. JQA avoided the Bible b/c of fear of God. Pierce “affirmed” instead of “swore”. Hoover also “affirmed”. And several Jewish congressmen/women have sworn with their hands ON a tanach or siddur. So what? That has nothing to do with a bible being in the room or demanding that it not be in the room.

I do not support the AFA proposal. Based on what i’ve heard him say neither does prager. (he says he does not want any legal action at all on this) As i already said I’m against forcing anybody to swear with their hands ON a book they do not believe is holy. But that has nothing to do with whether or not the foundational text of america should be in the room. I dont support the AFA proposal because its: 1. in very bad taste. 2. flirting with the religious test clause of the constitution. But i’ve already covered that. This isnt a legal issue. Its an issue of american culture and custom and political life.

By: Y-Love

Y-Love — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 02:07:39 +0000

Dude, please, you obviously didn’t even take the 1/16 of a second it would have taken to extend the flexon in your index finger to evenclick on the link. You would have seen precedents from such presidents as J. Q. Adams and Franklin Pierce. And governors, and two Jewish represenatives, and and and…

J. Q. Adams may have had his motive rooted in fear of G-d, as may Pierce have. The point remains — the AFA would have incarcerated (at worst) or invalidated the inauguration (at best) of all of these men. And on what basis?

By: Eric

Eric — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 00:18:12 +0000

The overturning of practice has to do with insisting that no bible be present–when for 230 years it has been in one form or another. I certainly respect those Jews whove chosen to take their oath on a Tanach but if they also insisted that no christian bible be present in the room i think theyd be provoking the exact same questions. Even in that case though the fact is the tanach is the root of the christian bible so they’re really not excluding it in the same way. (thats what i don’t really get about ellison in the first place. I thought islam holds that both tanach as well as the christian bible are holy and are part of their scripture.)

The Theodore Roosevelt thing is totally inaccurate and i don’t understand how thats become a topic of discussion. Roosevelt was inaugurated immediately after the assassination of Mckinley. He was given an emergency swearing-in in Buffalo on saturday afternoon of september 14, 1901 and the only reason they didnt use a Bible was because there was no time to find one because Mckinley had already died 12 hours earlier, and they were very anxious to restore the presidency to the country and so the entire urgent affair took place under emergency conditions. The one other time that a bible was not used that i’ve heard of was with John quincy adams–he felt that the bible was so holy that he could not take a political (or maybe any) oath on it.

I’ll just add that ellison himself obviously does not feel that this issue is just “a footnote”.

By: Matt Borus

Matt Borus — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 23:49:35 +0000

“Overturn 230 years of practice”? Eric, did you read Y;Love’s original post? He wrote,

most requests for alternative books have been by Jews, asking for Tanaâ€chs, or in one case, prayer books. Theodore Roosevelt even decided to forego a Bible at his first inauguration.

This makes clear that this is not overturning 230 years of practice. If you’re questioning Y-Love’s facts, do so directly and explain why. If you’re accepting his facts, don’t make claims about such overturning. Ellison’s choice of what to swear on should be a footnote, not a cause of ahistorical hysteria.