Prager Basks in Glow of Hate

Fundie pinhead Dennis Prager, who is upset at Keith Ellison swearing his oath of office on the Koran, has come out with another column, in which he gloats about how right he is (both senses of the word) and how wrong the Left is for defending the First Amendment.

I wonder if this guy really believes this stuff, or if he just writes it for the publicity. When fundies write articles that whip their sheeple into a frenzy, it’s always good for a bump in donations. It also gets traffic to their web sites and snags a few more zombie followers.

Well, Prager has gotten himself a giant puddle of publicity, and he’s wallowing in it. Let’s look at his latest effort of self-aggrandizement.

[T]here was widespread coverage on left-wing blogs, which, with no exception I could find, distorted what I said, charging my column and me with, for example, racism (see below), when race plays no role at all in this issue or in my column.

I haven’t read a lot of the other blogs, so I can’t attest for them. I suspect that you didn’t look very hard, if you couldn’t find one that didn’t “distort” what you said.

For the record, because I deem this a significant statement about most of the Left, I found virtually no left-wing blog that was not filled with obscenity-laced descriptions of me.

I haven’t surveyed the blogosphere, and I don’t doubt that there were a lot of wickedly-profane (and wickedly-funny) comments about you, but there was no profanity in mine.

Aside from the immaturity and loathing of higher civilization that such public use of curse words reveal, the fury and hate render the leftist charge that it is the Right that is hate-filled one of the most obvious expressions of psychological projection I have seen in my lifetime.

What a whopper! Let’s pick that one apart piece by piece.

Aside from the immaturity and loathing of higher civilization that such public use of curse words reveal…

I’ll give you “immaturity”. There are more mature ways to make a point. Of course, when you’re dealing with somebody whose moral development stopped at the simplistic level of behaving “properly” (10 Commandments) just to avoid punishment (God’s wrath), maybe they felt they had to talk down to your level.

I hardly think that letting out the occasional blue streak reveals a “loathing of higher civilization”. That’s a bit of a stretch. Typical of fundies. They tie everything they don’t like to the decline of civilization.

How about this, Dennis? Why don’t you go back to school and learn proper English? You said “…use of curse words reveal…”. The verb goes with “use”, not “words”, dumbass! (Whoops! I just brought down Western Civilization! Sorry! I’ll say “retarded fundie moron” next time.) The sentence is supposed to read “…use of curse words reveals…”. Tell you what. If you ever get yourself elected to public office, we’ll let you swear your oath of office on an English grammar book.

…the fury and hate render the leftist charge that it is the Right that is hate-filled one of the most obvious expressions of psychological projection I have seen in my lifetime.

Whoa, big fella! Break that sentence down into several smaller ones. When you go back to school, your teacher will show you how.

Any hate that came your way is a result of your very specific actions. Hate may be warranted in such situations. Right-wing hate from people like you is typically directed at entire classes of people, most of whom have done nothing, directly or indirectly, against you. You have generalized, free-floating hate. Your non-specific spite is directed at groups of people just because they exist. Since you enjoy hating so much, why don’t you redirect your hate toward the people who are actively trying to infringe on other people’s rights? Oh, wait. That would be you.

Clearly, many Americans, including some conservatives and libertarians, have no problem with the idea that for the first time in American history, a person elected to Congress has rejected the Bible for another religious text when taking his oath of office.

I love your use of loaded language, Dennis. Ellison didn’t “reject the Bible”! He just has a different religion!

[H]ere are my responses to the most frequently offered objections to my piece:

Well this ought to be fun.

Accusation: I am advocating something unconstitutional by demanding that the Bible be included in oaths of office.

Response: I never even hinted that there should be a religious test.

You most certainly did! By forcing people to swear on your holy book, you are excluding everybody whose religion prevents them from swearing allegiance to a different religion.

The idea is particularly laughable in my case since I am not now, nor ever have been, a Christian. I am a Jew….

Oh my gawd!! You rejected the New Testament! You rejected the Bible!

Many office holders who do not believe in the Bible at all or who reject some part have nevertheless used the Bible at their swearing-in.

We’ve always done it that way! By that logic, we should have never ended segregation.

A tiny number of Jews have used only the Old Testament. As a religious Jew, I of course understand their decision, but I disagree with it.

I see. You can understand that, but you can’t understand Keith Ellison using his holy book? (See? I told you this Prager guy was an idiot! It’s easy for me to make fun of him and call him a fundie pinhead just because I disagree with him, but come on! This is flat-out proof that there are more California condors in the world than there are brain cells in this guy’s head.)(So you don’t have to look it up, there are 299 condors left.)

You don’t have to be Christian to acknowledge that the Bible is the source of America’s values.

What? Since when? How about never! It certainly is one source of values, even a very important one, but it is not the only source.

We don’t get inalienable rights from the Constitution; we get them from God. Which is exactly what the signers of the Declaration of Independence wrote: We are endowed with inalienable rights by our Creator, not by government and not by any man-made document.

Actually, they didn’t write that last phrase. You stuck that on there yourself. What were you saying about other people distorting what you wrote?

A few points:
(1) It says “Creator”, not “God”. It was deliberately vague, in order to be inclusive.
(2) The Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land. The Constitution is. The Constitution says nothing about God.
(3) “Getting inalienable rights from God” is an unsupported premise. Please provide evidence to support this claim.

[T]he very fact that it is a ceremony makes my point far more forcefully. Obviously, Mr. Ellison will have already been officially sworn in. Therefore, the use of the Koran has absolutely nothing to do with taking an oath on the book he holds sacred.

Yes, it does. You swear on your holy book. Whether it is ceremonial or not is irrelevant. Are you trying to say that it is OK to swear on the Bible and then break that oath, because it was only a ceremony and not real? OK, then. Let’s have everyone swear on The Pet Goat. It’s just a ceremony, after all. It doesn’t count.

It is used entirely to send a message to the American people.

No, it’s not. It’s used to show how important the oath is.

Accusation: My column and/or I are racist, bigoted and Islamophobic.

I think racist is too strong, and probably too hard to prove. You don’t want an entire class of people to have the right to do something. That does make you a bigot. You seem to be afraid of the Koran, which suggests that you are Islamophobic. Phobic is probably way too strong a term. “Islamo-nervous” might be more accurate.

“Bigoted”: Bigoted against whom? Against non-Christians? I am a non-Christian. Am I bigoted against myself as a Jew?

No, you idiot! Against Muslims! Geeeeeezzzzz what a retard!

[N]either I nor tens of millions of other Americans will watch in silence as the Bible is replaced with another religious text for the first time since George Washington brought a Bible to his swearing-in.

Ahh! That’s your problem! You Judeo-Christians have had a stranglehold on our government since the beginning. Now that one Koran has appeared on Capitol Hill, you view it as the leak in the dam. Yes, one day, maybe the Pledge of Allegiance will indeed have “under God” removed. But rather than simply deleting the phrase, it will be replaced with “under Allah”.

Now aren’t you beginning to understand the importance of the separation of church and state?

Retarded fundie moron!

One Response to “Prager Basks in Glow of Hate”

  1. The Watcher Says:

    Excellent post, Bay! One good turn deserves another, so I’m deferring to you on this one. I’ll direct my readers this way.

    I’d also like to point out that in addition to Prager’s hilariously cursory search of the Blogosphere, he has a simple, shortsighted idea of international politics. Prager writes, “I cannot name any Western European country that does not have a document similar to the American Constitution and something akin to our Bill of Rights.” Someone should inform the poor fool that Great Britain has no Constitution.