Quote

Life is like that, full of words that are not worth saying, or that were worth saying once but not any more ....
~Jose Saramago, The Cave
Latest Comments
- NV on What’s Best for the Children of Divorce?
- Kendall on The Baby
- siditty on The Baby
- TT on The Baby
- Anisah on The Baby
- jacqueline on The Baby
- will shetterly on The Baby
10 Latest Posts
Categories
Posts Coming Down the Pike
Non hierarchical models of ministry
Community Aesthetics
Notes on Muslim Culture
De-facto Atheism
Bossy Know it All Trifecta
Signs that My Hubby Is Not a UU "Who Doesn't Know It"
Movies About Bad-Ass Chicks

Dec

5

Prager’s Response to Ellison Controversy

Filed Under politics

I wrote a brief letter in response to Prager’s column. My letter said that I disagreed with his argument, pointed out that his initial column had inaccuracies, and asked who determines what is traditionally American behavior? Not once did I use profanity or resort to name calling. I got a mass response email today. Wow. Just wow. In response, I now have to insult him (a little bit) by borrowing a line from Jake Gittes: “You’re dumber than you think I think you are.”

Comments

4 Responses to “Prager’s Response to Ellison Controversy”

Anonymous on December 5th, 2006 4:09 am

Why don’t you post your email to him so that we may see your objections ourselves and decide why it is his response was unwarranted? Further, he did not say that EVERY differing opinion was hate-filled or vulgar.
Chalicechick on December 5th, 2006 5:54 am

My question is: If we must have someone swear in on a religious test, why WOULDN’T we want someone swearing in on a book they believed in?

I, for example, could take an oath by swearing on a stack of Dennis Prager columns. But I wouldn’t feel particularly obligated to keep it.
LaReinaCobre on December 5th, 2006 6:44 am

Anon,
Unfortunately I don’t have my email because it was one of those web entry forms and I didn’t think at the time that I wouldn’t see it again.

Yes, I know he did not say that every single differing opinion was vulger; this didn’t prevent him from describing “left-wing” blogs in the way he did. I only explained what my email was like so that it was clear.

My objections about his response is that his argument is stupid. The whole basis of it is that because it’s an unwritten tradition, and because the Bible is the foundation of Western Civilization, Ellison shouldn’t break it. Furthermore he says that Ellison “ends” the tradition of not swearing on a Bible. Assuming Ellison was the first person to ever do so how is he “ending” it? What stops the next 500 officials from swearing on the Bible?

As if that were not enough hyperbole, he doesn’t even bother to address the most insensible part of his original column: “Ellison’s doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal — the Islamicization of America.
Anonymous on December 5th, 2006 3:57 pm

K, Makes sense. Thanks for the reply.

I think Prager’s point is that we should not collectively shrug our shoulders when something like this becomes a big deal. Prager says it was not he who made it a big deal, but rather Ellison who did so by publicly announcing what he would do in the first place. Personally, I think no one really cared too much till Prager made an issue of it, but then again, I’m not in the shoes of those who were upset about it before Prager penned his column. Guess it’s a chicken/egg thing, or maybe just the schema you look at it through.

I don’t think his argument is stupid, though I think it’s wrong. So, I am more sympathetic to your point. But I won’t dismiss his argument as stupid, especially when he so carefully explains his logic. I don’t agree with some of the premises on which he bases his conclusions, though. Therefore, I don’t agree with his conclusion. But, I can’t say it is stupid. If 1/10 of the right-wingers were as circumspect as Prager (as opposed to bombastic like Rush), the country would be a much better place.

Also, while some were rightly pointing pointing out that there could be ulterior motives to his argument, I think it was way beyond the pale for people to definitely assume so (I know, you did not do this) and then exacerbate it by ad hominem attacks rather than attacking the weakness of his premises.

Finally, got you on the “left-wing” blogs thing. He was way to quick lump everyone together. Not to mention that the right-wing blogs have more than their fair share of same (though I risk repeating Prager’s mistake of stereotyping:-)