Right-Wing Radio Host Fabricates Controversy To Attack First Muslim Congressman

Right-wing radio host Dennis Prager wrote a column earlier this week claiming that Rep.-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim elected to Congress, had “announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.” Prager claimed this “act undermines American civilization,” and compared it to being sworn in with a copy of Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.”

Bloggers on the left and right — including Taylor Marsh, Steven Bennen, Eugene Volokh, Stephen Bainbridge — have torn apart Prager’s argument on constitutional grounds.

But Prager’s column is based on one other glaring error: the swearing-in ceremony for the House of Representatives never includes a religious book. The Office of the House Clerk confirmed to ThinkProgress that the swearing-in ceremony consists only of the Members raising their right hands and swearing to uphold the Constitution. The Clerk spokesperson said neither the Christian Bible, nor any other religious text, had ever been used in an official capacity during the ceremony. (Occassionally, Members pose for symbolic photo-ops with their hand on a Bible.)

Dennis Prager is a first class bigot.

Here's the article: http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DennisPrager/2006/11/28/america,_not_keith_el lison,_decides_what_book_a_congressman_takes_his_oath_on

Basically, he says that you must be a christian to serve in Congress.

Dennis Prager, like other right-wing talk show hosts, is now desperate for attention and ratings. I'm guessing this is just a stunt to get attention. No doubt it will work to some degree - certainly people who have never heard of the guy til now will check out his show to see what all the fuss is about.

Andrew

Prager never said you have to be Christian to serve in Congress. You probably don't know Prager is Jewish

Andrew you committed a logical fallacy by saying Prager is desperate for attention.

I haven't listened much to Prager, so I decided to see if there was any information available about him on Wikipedia. Reading the description there, I see some very important similarities between Dennis Prager and Michael Medved (who I have listened to):

1) Both of these talkshow hosts are Jewish but present a sociopolitical view that is meant to resound primarily with evangelical Christians.

2) They play to the notion that "evil" (in a spiritual sense) is an explanation for social problems.

3) They are affiliated with Salem Communications.


Reading through the Prager piece, it seems pretty obvious to me that he is playing on peoples' fear that any Muslim could be a terrorist. I'm not a fan of Islam in the same sense that I'm not a fan of Communism, but it seems to me like we're headed into an era that is very analogous to the Red Scare of the 1950s.

Alfredo, please listen to his show on KTRO 93.1 from 9 AM to Noon. I can say from listening to him, that he is a man of conviction. Medved is on 93.1 from Noon to 3 PM.

Our concern today should be with radical Islmam. Do you disagree?

DD, what does a Muslim Congressman's desire to take any oaths on a Koran and not a Bible have to do with radical Islam? Sorry, I don't get the connection here. "Islam" and "Radical Islam" are two different things. I wish George W. Bush had understood the difference in 2001-2002 when he finally decided to invade Iraq and unseat a secular Muslim leader...

I still say Prager did this for attention and ratings. I'm guessing that with the trend against the Republicans in the last year right-wing talkers' ratings are also down, and any stunt they can pull to get attention and some new listeners is "good" for them. I expect we will only see more of this kind of thing.

Andrew

Andrew I was responding to what Alfredo posted.

Supposed I said it would be best for America if marriage was defined as a union between a man and a women.

Response: You really don't believe what you said. You really want publicity and attention.

The response is a logically fallacy. It didn't answer the question. Missing kskd, if he were consistent, would call your response a DODGE.

Coupla things: A DODGE has not yet happened on this thread. Andrew deferred an answer by asking for relevance. Done repeatedly, this is a dodge. That hasn't happened yet.

I'm sure if relevancy is addressed, you'll get a solid answer from Andrew.

Re: Christian to serve...

I offer this: "America is interested in only one book, the Bible."

Technically, this is not requiring one be a Christian, but it is clearly discriminating against all religions that do not recognize the Bible as their authority.

Honestly, this whole approach is the issue, not a minor discussion about him actually saying Christian or not.

What is at issue is the claim about the Bible being the centerpoint of American culture.

Sorry, but that is just not the case. We have freedom of religon here. We have a law stating that no religious test shall be a condition of office. (Socially this test exists, which is sad, but legally is does not exist.) Finally, our culture is the whole Melting Pot thing.

Remember that in school? I do. That means we embrace others and their values and give them the same respect we give our own.

America is a nation of tolerance and freedom.

Looking for ratings: Hell yes he is! Anyone writing this crap could not possibly be doing anything else. Your average high school civics education (what little of it is left) would quite easily see the flaws. Any real student of this nation and it's history would dismiss this outright.

While this is not definitive proof, it does make a strong suggestion. This is an opinion I currently share, BTW.

Finally, invoking radical Islam --or any religion, for that matter, is outta bounds here. The law is clear, thus the request to swear in on the Koran is valid, legal and proper.

There is nothing more to this story than that.

DD writes:
Supposed I said it would be best for America if marriage was defined as a union between a man and a women.

Response: You really don't believe what you said. You really want publicity and attention.

Well, that's not exactly a controversial position (marriage definition), considering even John Kerry espouses it. Prager took a controversial, attention-getting stance guaranteed to cause an uproar. You know the saying: any publicity is good publicity, etc.

I still don't know what "question" I am supposedly evading? Can you restate it for me? A quick scan of the previous comments does not reveal an obvious question that I should take a solid position on...

Andrew

Prager: I believe the Bible should be the only and one book for swearing-in ceremony public officials.

Response: Prager "is now desperate for attention and ratings. I'm guessing this is just a stunt to get attention."

As an aside, the secular talk stations owned by Salem Communications pull even lower ratings than Air America affiliates and don't get much attention any other way.

By the way, how many out of control right wingers are there? Who are they?

Also, how many out of control left wingers are there? Who are they?

The number of outta control leftie or rightie wingers, nor their identity are necessary for context in this thread. The fact is, there are members of both groups, who could easily be characterized in this manner.

What matters is that this joker is one of them. In other words, he is not in full grasp of the facts when he pontificates, thus marginalizing himself in the greater discussion.

The more he does this, the less credence he has with your average rational American.

Another way of looking at it is that he is simply outta control on this matter. Rightie, leftie, innie, outie, does not matter. The non-rational outta control part is the issue.

So (feeling like Dr. Joy Browne)...what's the question to me?

Is it, "Should the Bible be the ONLY book used to swear in public officials?" Sorry, that's just a stupid, devisive question designed, as I said, only to incite controversy and get Prager attention. The answer is obviously "Of course not!" Being a Christian is not a requirement to hold public office in the USA, and no one who is not a Christian should be forced to swear over a book that has no significance to them.

You didn't really think Prager was raising a serious question, did you?

Andrew

You know, if there was an out-of-control left winger in this forum, I'd know I'd do all I can to straighten him/her out.

*Eggnog spurts out nose*

Yowza!

Reread Prager's column. He didn't say being a Christian is a requirement to hold public office in the USA. Please note Prager is a religious Jew.

To say Prager wants to incite controversy and get attention is a logical fallacy. By the way, do you really know that? Can you read his mind?

I listen to his program often. In my opinion, he is a man of honesty and integrity.

I don't agree. If he were honest, he would not have written the words he did:

"America is interested in only one book, the Bible."

This is not honest. These are also not the words of someone with integrity.

That phrase is contraversial, and it does get quite a bit of attention! It's also quite false.

DD, how could you not think that insisting someone use a Bible and only a Bible for a swearing-in ceremony doesn't imply one need to be a Christian to hold public office? Either that, or that Prager is insisting that non-Christians be forced to endure the ultimate insult by swearing over a book that contradicts their own beliefs?

DD, how would you feel if at your next job your employer insisted you take an oath over a Koran? Just as offended, probably, as a Muslim would be to be required to swear over a Bible.

This is not something that requires much discussion, honestly, and I'm not going to try again. It's obvious to pretty much everyone else that Dennis Prager's basic job as talk show host is to get people riled up, even mad at him, so they'll tune in, and surely that's what this stunt was, at least in part. I never said there was anything wrong with stirring up controversy in the media to get attention - that's how the game is played. I don't like Prager but I understand that's just part of a talk show host's game.

Andrew

> Our concern today should be with radical Islmam.
> Do you disagree?

Actually, I agree with you on this specifically because the word "radical" appears in your posting. The word "radical" specifically calls out a philosophy that sees violence as an acceptable or possibly necessary tactic to bring about change. People who are deeply pious are not necessarily "radicals."

Congressman Ellison might be a pious man, but there's no evidence that he holds any "radical" beliefs. We really should be careful whom we point the "radical" finger at, or we will be helping to usher in a 21st century version of the Red Scare.

"Cassius was right: 'The fault, Dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves.' Good night and good luck."

Andrew, I don't know if I agree with Prager. But what he wrote should be pondered and discussed seriously. Instead he's maginalized as an out of control right winger and bigot who's desperate for attention. Unfortunately his column has been distorted.

Prager: “But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either.”

Prager has a point when he says the Bible is America's book regarding swearing in ceremonies. Now we want to make an exception for Muslims. Do you see where he is coming from?

Prager I’m sure would make the same case for the Koran if the Koran were “America’s book.”

DD, Prager is simply wrong that the Bible is "America's book regarding swearing in ceremonies." It's a tradition among Christians - who have made up the vast majority of public office holders in our history, to use the Bible for swearing-in ceremonies. It is not a subject for serious discussion any more than pondering whether a "whites-only" sign is OK at public drinking fountains because most people in public buildings were white people years ago. Some things are simply idiotic and not worthy of serious discussion.

The Jews who have taken an oath on a Bible could at least comfort themselves knowing that they are taking an oath on the Old Testament - but I still think it's wrong to force them to do so. Many blacks complied with the Jim Crow laws too - does that make those "Whites-only" signs OK?

We are not making "an exception" for non-Christians by allowing them to take an oath on a book holy to their own religion, because our Constitution protects freedom of religion. Actually, I'm an atheist, and I would not take an oath over any religious book - perhaps over a copy of the US Constitution but that's it. In any case, courts of law do not require people to swear over a Bible - people can simply affirm not swear an oath.

Andrew

DD, you miss the entire argument.

No congressman swears in on any book unless he or she requests that.

Senators Chuck Schumer, Ron Wydon, Joseph liberman and Arlen Spector are Jewish.

Did they have a swearing in ceremony? If they did, was it with the Christian Bible?

Nobody freaking cares!

They swore in, and that's the only requirement that matters here.

...thus the attention getting part Andrew mentioned.

We have no religious test for office in this country. This whole line of discussion is a non-issue.

DD's IS BACK!!!!
DD's IS BACK!!!!

I will be listening to Dennis Prager on Monday because KTRO makes it into the concrete bunker where I work and because I believe that I should listen to the man's views before offering further comments.

On this particular issue, I think that it has been established that the swearing in cermemony for federal officials is not legally prescribed, so this is a non-issue. This is different than if public servants were made to swear a legally defined oath that contained religious verbiage. For instance, the state of Texas once made officials swear on a God oath, so Atheists and agnostics could not legally serve (OK, you could lie but technically that would be perjury). I don't know whether the oath-swearing law in Texas has been changed.

KTRO is a brainwashing station. Those that listen regularly are weak minded.

"KTRO is a brainwashing station. Those that listen regularly are weak minded."

Substantiation, please?

Herb

The format is substantiation enough.

Nice dodge.

We'll remember that next time you want evidence.

Spin on.

Herb

That's not a dodge, that's an answer you don't like.

The ratio of solid arguments, with solid being those that do not use labels or contain or are fallacies is not favorable.

Those of weak mind will not consider this, therefore the greater body of listenership is highly likely to be weak minded, as those of stronger and more refined mind will make such a consideration and find it to be unsatisfactory programming in general.

A quick look at similar formats, reveals similar traits.

Of course, this is exactly what Reinstatepete was getting at.

Herb is a FAUX man and he LOVES to be spoon fed crap all day long...
Wonder when the next blond CO-ED is gonna end up missing...
Stay tuned to FAUXNews....
We report
You COMPLY....

What talk station is for strong minded people?

Kbbt, suppose I made this Statement:

"KPOJ is a brainwashing station. Those that listen regularly are weak minded."

You asked me for evidence. MY response was: "The format is substantiation enough."

Would you be satisfied with my answer?

Don't hold your breath, DD.

Herb

Coupla things:

Given no prior conversation, I would not be happy with that answer.

However, I understand completely where Reinstatepete is coming from. I would be happy with his answer.

I added what I did, because I thought the added context, which might not be obvious to all readers, would help clarify thing.

Here is a quote I'm sure you'll dislike:

"The Bible said it, I believe it, and that settles it."

I'll rephrase it.

"Reinstatepete said it, I believe it, and that settles it."

Strong minded people don't need to listen to talk radio because they can think for themselves. Weak minded people like to be told what to do, and right wing talk show hosts take advantage of that weak mindset.

Does that apply to KPOJ listeners? Are they weak minded too? Do they like to be told what to do?

No, KPOJ listeners are not the same as right win talk radio listeners, because it's a different format, and therefore, different listeners.

Both stations have talk show formats. The only difference is that one is ideologically to the right and the other is ideologically to the left.

This is not completely true.

IMHO, listeners on both sides of the spectrum have some need for reaffirmation.

However, the fact to BS ratio on the left leaning talk programs is considerably better in terms of factual content. This is undisputed, BTW.

"Both stations have talk show formats. The only difference is that one is ideologically to the right and the other is ideologically to the left."

Exactly.

The audiences are like night and day when it comes to comparisons. Like Kbbt said, the BS factor is much higher on the right, because the audience is gullible.

Show me the evidence?

What you said is really an opinion not a fact. But I understand why you believe it, because you are on the left side of the spectrum.

Have you ever listened to KTRO?

The best evidence is the Fox theory, and that is that Fox viewers are less informed compared to others, and it's my belief that this isn't just a Fox theory, it's a conservative media theory. Those that listen to conservative media are less informed, so that would would listeners to KTRO as well.

I listened to KTRO for about 15 minutes many mohths ago to check it out. The Michael Medvid show was on. It's pure crap for the brainless if you ask me. And I don't listen to KPOJ either.

DD's said>>>>
Does that apply to KPOJ listeners?

YES IT DOES!

Listen to AM970 Solid State Radio!

Politics is popular on call-in talk radio, and virtually all stations that carry this format are intentionally biased to one side or another of the political spectrum. I would say that anybody who listens to just one of these stations religiously might be weak minded because:
1) They are demonstrating that they have no interest in listening to other points of view.
2) They are probably taking what is said on that station to be gospel and not doing any fact checking.
(For the record, I see the blurring between facts and opinions that occur because of talk radio, discussion boards, blogs, etc. as a real problem. This doesn't make these media bad or useless, but people need to be a little more diligent.)

Just out of curiosity, I listened to Dennis Prager's show this morning, and he was still talking about the Ellison/Koran controversy.

He talked a lot about the reactions that his column provoked, including a mention on Saturday Night Live and some name-calling in an angry newspaper editorial. I couldn't help but think that perhaps Prager was expecting this type of reaction all along, and he wrote the column so that he get publicity and play the "victim card" to his listeners.

His main theme was repeated over and over. He believes that all societies have some religious text that makes up their identity and value system. He believes that if that text is taken away, then that society's value system crumbles. In the case of the United States, he says, that text is the Bible. He did concede that it would be OK if Ellison used a Koran AND a Bible in his ceremony.

Prager couldn't convince me HOW changing the way that a swearing-in ceremony is done for one guy is supposed to start a chain of dominoes falling that could eventually change the structure of our system of government, affect the Bill of Rights, or make any significant change to the American culture as a whole.

One point that came up on the show that was interesting was that of censorship in history classes. He and a few of the callers held the view that mention of religion has been censored out of American history classes insofar as explaining our history up to the writing of the Constitution. I do remember that religion occasionally did come up in my public school history classes (I'm 32, so things may have changed since I was in school). I do remember learning that the settlers at Plymouth went there for religious reasons, and they observed Thanksgiving to give thanks to God. However, according to my history classes, discord started to develop between the different religious groups that lived in the different colonies. The framers of the Constitution recognized that they would have to make some compromises to come up with a document that all the colonies would ratify, and thus the establishment clause in the 1st Ammendment was written. Our religious heritage was not as harmonious as Dennis Prager et al. would like us to believe.

"Prager couldn't convince me HOW changing the way that a swearing-in ceremony is done for one guy is supposed to start a chain of dominoes falling that could eventually change the structure of our system of government, affect the Bill of Rights, or make any significant change to the American culture as a whole."

Of course he couldn't. The reason why is that would diminish the use of fear, which works quite well with his audience. It's much better to make the audience afraid than educate them.

I tuned in to the Dennis Prager show again this morning. Lo and behold, the topic was still about Ellison and the Bible. It sounds like Prager has tweaked his stance slightly: It is OK to swear in with the Koran as long as the Bible is present in the room. Prager is now just coming across as a whiner.