Defining Our National Character

IN A JEWISH STAR EDITORIAL IN THE LAST ISSUE, DENNIS PRAGER, THE RADIO TALK SHOW personality, is accurately described as being fair, rational and reasoned in his arguments and dialogue.

But according to the Star, Mr. Prager made an error in judgment when he argued that Democrat Keith Ellison, recently elected to the House of Representatives from Minnesota, should not be allowed to take the oath of office on a copy of the Qur'an, Mr. Ellison's holy book (the informal ceremony did take place subsequent to the Prager article).

Tradition and custom, Mr. Prager holds, indicate that the Judeo-Christian Bible affirms a "unifying value system" underlying our American civilization.

Mr. Ellison, a Muslim, made his refusal to take an oath on the Bible a defiant statement, indicating that his personal choice of faith is to take precedence over American custom.

Mr. Ellison has a perfect right not to swear on the Bible, but he should not have been permitted to substitute another in its stead. To resolve his dilemma he could have brought a Qur'an along, together with the traditional Bible.

IF, UNDER THE GUISE OF diversity, we become a nation with no cultural, religious or unifying characteristics, we will then render ourselves unidentifiable, a mindless condition wherein we Americans won't know who we are.

The Qur'an differs from the Judeo-Christian Bible upon which our national character has been defined.

Contrary to the wisdom and advice to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's", the Qur'an directs its adherents to practice no loyalty higher than that to Allah, leaving a serious question for one who is taking an oath of loyalty to a nation he has been elected to serve.

Islam characterizes the authority of the government and religion as one. In the United States, these two elements and sources of authority are clearly separated.

In America, we have customs and holidays which we voluntarily celebrate.

For example, there is no mandate or law that commands us to sing the Star Spangled Banner, our national anthem, but we do so in order to identify ourselves as a people, in spite of our differences.

It would be unacceptable to replace the national anthem with the anthem of another nation.

Additionally, there is no law demanding or requiring that we display the flag of the United States on the Fourth of July or Flag Day or other holidays of national interest.

But we do so as a sign of national identity and unity. It would be unacceptable to fly foreign flags on these occasions.

We do not follow these customs because we are commanded to do so by law or threat, but rather because they are essential, symbols defining us as a people.

Elected officials, also follow custom when they place a hand on the Bible, which represents the foundation for the "God-given rights" we enjoy as citizens of the United States.

In one's private life one is free to subscribe to any faith of choice. When the occasion arises, combining both books of faith has been done without incident.

But defying custom deliberately is to deny our heritage in an act of willful hubris.

A national stew of diversity which allows everything and anything to challenge, erase or question our historic practices and values will soon redesign Americans so that they become a mass of people with little adhesive to bond them together with a sense of pride and purpose.

If allegiance to the Qur'an - or any other faith - conflicts with or undermines one's own nation, the stew of diversity will soon become a brew of discontent.

We are the product of Western Civilization which brought to the world great contributions in the arts, sciences, philosophy, music, literature and (most of all) a gift of freedom and liberty for men.

Our civilization has demonstrated a unique acceptance of the diverse nature of people. It has brought a generosity to the world unheard of heretofore, along with a freedom in much of the world, where other lands still suffer bondage under despots.

To pledge allegiance to this great country has to say something specific about its citizens. We are not required to agree with each other or with our government, but whatever our cultural origins, we are directed by conscience to honor our nation's customs.

Mr. Prager is correct. We should ask ourselves: What is the virtue of diversity that remains diverse? We have not only accepted and recognized our minority differences but we have literally "bent over backwards" to make every one comfortable in this society.

But that does not mean we as a nation are obliged to permit such differences to redefine our national character and customs.

THE CLOSING STATEMENT of the Star's editorial declares that the controversy surrounding Mr. Prager's argument signifies a "divided country on edge, one facing the future with nervous unease."

And why is that?

It is partially so because of the unrelenting desire on the part of some to dismantle the fabric of this nation's cloth, exemplified by Mr. Ellison's demand for special treatment.

There is still time to halt this erosion, but the question remains: Do we have the vision and the courage to do so?

Well, that's another subject for Dennis Prager to contemplate.

[Sidebar]

In defense of Dennis Prager

[Author Affiliation]

By VIRGINIA BOYD

SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT