Did Dennis Prager Praise A Plagiarist? A Paid Hack?

If Luke Ford is correct, the answer is yes.

Luke has a great new site design, too.



Filed under Blogs, Media

4 responses to “Did Dennis Prager Praise A Plagiarist? A Paid Hack?

  1. mikhaelmeir

    I used to think that Prager said some very snesible and reasonable things, but I was a bit turned off by his criticisms of Keith Ellison’s being sworn in on the Quran. From what I know of Ellison, as a young man, he has indeed at times defended Farrakhan and been involved with CAIR, most of the politics of which I despise. Nevertheless, if he chooses to be sworn in to public office on the Quran in a personal, private ceremony as an expression of his own private Muslim faith, that is none of Dennis Prager’s business. I think Prager went so far as to say that the only valid religious texts to be used for a swearing in ceremony in the United States are a Bible for Christians or a Tanakh for Jews. A little over a century and a half ago, in England, one of the Rothschilds was elected to the House of Commons as the first practising Jewish MP but was not allowed to take his seat because he refused to be sworn in on the New Testament and insisted on his right as a British Jew to choose to take his oath on a Tanakh. Does Prager insist on returning to that kind of intolerance for Muslim-Americans?

  2. mikhaelmeir

    Slight correction to my earlier statement, Lionel Nathan Rothschild was permitted to be sworn in to Parliament with a Tamakh and without the New Testament, he was, however, supposed to swear that he would be loyal to the British Crown and take the oath yusing the words “upon the true faith of a Christian”. This he refused to do, and he was denied his seat at Westminster for 11 years after being elected until the oath was finally allowed to be changed. The other thing I heard about him, was that after the controversy regarding his searing in died down and he was allowed to take his seat, he became a back bencher who never uttered a word!


  3. B”H
    Do you realize that the Quaran doesn’t require upholding an oath to “infidels” as we can see from the example of Muhamed himself quoted in the Quaran braking a 10 year peace treaty in I think 3 years when the situation changed?
    The quaran also teaches that there is an easy way to attone for breaking any oath to feed few poor people so his oath is at most worth $50.
    On the other hand the constitution allows it so unless the law is changed we should all at least beware of this.

  4. mikhaelmeir

    pilegesh advocate guy asked:

    “Do you realize that the Quaran doesn’t require upholding an oath to “infidels””

    Much has been made in recent years in the right-wing blogosphere about the concept of “taqiya” in Islam, which is what I guess you are referring to–taqiyya refers to a doctrine that permits Muslim believers to swear an oath, for instance, about not being Muslims, for instance if a Muslim would be forced to renounce his faith on pain of death–he could “convert” to Christianity, or lie and say he is not a Muslim (ordinarily a Muslim has to say it loud and proud what he believes), in order to live another day and “fight on” (in times of war). Now, I am not denying that this concept is cited by the extreme terroristic element within Islam to justify tactics such as “let’s pretend we are moderate in order to deceive our enemies”. The fact that taqqiya was given this interpretaion by al Qaedanik types and other assorted jihadis at different times, has allowed Islam haters, who have learned about this word and this practice to say “oooh, every time a Muslim says something peaceful and moderate, he is lying, he is practicing taqiyya” because we know what his true intentions and aims are! They can’t fool me!” The fact is that similar quotations and doctrines from our Talmud regarding our relationship with the nations have been seized on and distorted by ignorant anti-Semites and taken out of context to paint Jews as a whole as deceptive and not to be taken at our word.

    “On the other hand the constitution allows it so unless the law is changed we should all at least beware of this.”

    First, Ellison swore on the Quran in a *private ceremony*, he did not use the Quran in his public swearing in. The constitution explicitly states that there should be *no religious test* for being sworn in to public office, that the person being sworn in must merely affirm in an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, it says nothing about what text the person is being sworn in with should make an oath on. So, it is sufficient to raise your hand and say “I solemnly swear..etc. etc.” you don’t need to do it on a Bible, a Tanakh, a Book of Mormon, a Quran or a Playboy Magazine. If you want to be sworn in on the text of your choice you can do it in a private ceremony, which is what this guy Ellison chose to do. Nothing is wrong with that, and the constitution should not be changed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s