Comments on: Dennis Prager – Hateful and Wrong – Updated

By: Dan S.

Dan S. — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 19:18:08 +0000

Prager’s a self-righgteous bastard.

By: Ed Darrell

Ed Darrell — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 03:54:27 +0000

Where there is no reason, there is no reason "Reasoned argument?" There is no reason in what Prager says. He is wrong on the law and the tradition, he is wrong on the history.

When a bigot makes a bigoted claim, it doesn't matter that he was not a bigot previously. Prager's argument is really dumb. Stupid. It's ill-informed and probably will lower the IQs of people who read it. It is hateful itself. Calling it for what it is, is a public service, a patriotic duty.

By: Ed Darrell

Ed Darrell — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 03:51:40 +0000

Utah's Jewish Governor, Simon Bamberger Someone ought to call the Utah Historical Society and see if there is any record of whether Utah Gov. Simon Bamberger used any book at his swearing in. He was a Jew, in a state that is humorously referred to as America's last theocracy. There may be some precedential value there.

By: Dan Faley

Dan Faley — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 12:53:31 +0000

Preger is just another right wing extremist Of course Dennis Preger would say as much…..He is as far to the Right as you get…..A Bush Bi Otch as you get……

Atheist is the best route, why? one GOD? I think not….Aliens have as much to do with our existence as some “GOD”….How much proof does any of these Right wing, christian mongers have? …..Extactly, NONE!!!, I do not have any proof aliens exist either, but at least I can be open minded about it……Hey, Preger, Go have sex with your self!!!

or you could with a catholic priest or even your butt buddy, Ted Haggard…..You people make me so Sick…..

By: Cheesehead

Cheesehead — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 01:40:56 +0000

Here Here Thank you for setting the record strait as to what Mr. Prager did and did not say. Mr Prager chooses his words very carefully, so if you can read somewhere in either of his articles that he is racist, bigoted, or whatever other name you can use to disregard his ideas, then you're not reading carefully enough. I must admit, I'm a long time listener to Dennis, and he's the reason I changed parties 6 years ago, so I'm aware that some of you will think I'm “brainwashed”, but truthfully, I think he's one of the clearest thinkers this country has. I think his biggest mistake in his original article was saying that if Mr. Ellison is allowed to go through with his wishes, it will do more to disunify our nation than 9-11 did. I read that and thought, “oh lord, he's just lost anyone who was on the fence on this issue”. I agree with him 90% of the time, but that was an over the top statement, that even if it's true, will piss off enough people such that his message will be lost. He is the most polite, civil, and fair talk show host we have (even and especially to people that don't agree with him). Even on the day of 9-11, when callers asked if Islam is a violent religion, he'd say he judges practitioners of religion, not the religion itself. He's had MORE than ample opportunities to “bash” Islam and never has. I challenge any of you who still think Dennis is a racist, Islamiphobe, or any other of the names that his opponents lob at him, to listen to him for just a week. I think even if you don't come to agree with him, you'll at least stop calling him names.

By: Watergate

Watergate — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 19:44:05 +0000

Prager clarified his quote Mr. Prager clarified in his radio show that he is not talking about any sort of legal prohibition, but merely that Mr. Ellison should not do what he plans to do. Mr. Prager posted a response to his critics on townhall.com that addresses this point, and further clarifies that all he wants is that Mr. Ellison bring a Bible as well as whatever other text he wishes. Mr. Prager does NOT want Mr. Ellison to swear on the Bible, but merely to have it present as so many, many, many others have done, to reflect that the Bible is indeed the source of so many of America's values -- even for nonbelievers. I am sure that many nonbelievers see the Ten Commandments as Ten Good Ideas, or at least 8 or 9 good ideas.

Even if you disagree with Mr. Prager (and I probably disagree), if you read what he has written, you should agree that his reasoned argument is not based on some hatred or even dislike of Islam. To call him a bigot or Islamophobe is remarkably ignorant, or just hateful for the sake of hating those you disagree with.

By: o2bindixie

o2bindixie — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 10:38:49 +0000

Re: Incorrect Reporting This quote is in Mr. Prager's own column. You can read it here: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2006/11/28/america,_not_keith_ellison,_decides_what_book_a_congressman_takes_his_oath_on

The first 2 sentences read "Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

***He should not be allowed to do so*** -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization."

By: Collin

Collin — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 18:10:39 +0000

Incorrect reporting There is an important inacurracy in this article. Mr Prager never stated that "[Mr Ellison] should not be allowed to take the oath of office on the Koran." Instead he stated that Mr Ellison should take the oath on the bible or even use both the Koran and bible.

The reported statement implies Mr Prager believes that Mr Ellison should be prevented legally from using the Koran, which is not true. Mr Prager never stated or implied Mr Ellison should be prevented from using the Koran.

Mr Prager's comments can be heard at pragerradio.com.

By: Will

Will — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 11:29:08 +0000

A Modest Proposal I wonder what the public reaction would be to the swearing-in scenario that

I believe *I* would find most meaningful:

In the room, in the background, there would be copies of the sacred

texts of EVERY faith practiced in America.

The person taking the oath would do so while placing his or her hand

upon a copy of The Constitution of the United States of America.

The Constitution would be the only required document. The religious texts

would be present only at the request of the oath-taker, but if any are present

*all* should be.

By: flaliberal

flaliberal — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 05:37:20 +0000

American Values upheld The unifying value system that underlies American civilization is the Constitution. It is THIS value system that elected officials swear or affirm to uphold.

Mr. Prager likened an elected official to terrorists because this elected official has a different religious affiliation than Mr. Prager. Does Mr. Prager remember the Consitiution guaranteeing him the right to practice Judaism as well as Mr. Ellison’s right to practice Islam?

I believe a man swearing on the Koran to uphold the Constitution will do more to unify and affirm the American value system than Mr. Prager’s flaccid attempt to make inflammatory statements ever will