Of Prager and Priorities
Recognizing both the lack of substance and assault on the U.S. Constitution that are embedded in Dennis Prager’s evolving argument about holy books and swearing-in ceremonies, I once promised to let the subject go. Unfortunately, Mr. Prager declines to reciprocate, compelling me to bring the subject out of retirement.
He’s at it again today, claiming that the “culture war� in this country boils down to a fight between those who accept the authority of the first five books of the Old Testament, also known as the Torah or Pentateuch, and those who don’t …
That a belief or lack of belief in the divinity of a book dating back over 2,500 years is at the center of the Culture War in America and between religious America and secular Europe is almost unbelievable. But it not only explains these divisions; it also explains the hatred that much of the Left has for Jewish, Protestant, Catholic and Mormon Bible-believers.
Prager then concludes …
This divide explains why the wrath of the Left has fallen on those of us who lament the exclusion of the Bible at a ceremonial swearing-in of an American congressman. The Left wants to see that book dethroned. And that, in a nutshell, is what the present civil war is about.
Three points jump out from these excerpts.
- Before self-validating his own argument, Prager labels it “almost unbelievable.�
- He dismisses “the wrath� of the Right and Center voices that have chided him for ignoring the Constitution-encoded separation of Church and State, and attributes all dissenting voices to “the Left.�
- He upgrades the “culture war� to a “civil war.�
That last point is the only point on which Prager may have a point.
Though it is being fought with words rather than guns, I suspect there is a civil war in this country – a war over priorities, a war over which is the more important, more critical set of issues: abortion/sexuality vs. social justice/caring for the unfortunate.
A minority of voices (primarily on the extreme Right) believe abortion and sexuality should be the focus of our social debates; while a growing majority of voices (from the Right, Left, and Center) disagree, preferring we invest our limited resources and finite energy in the latter category of social justice issues.
It is this growing majority who cheer both President Bush and the Democratic leaders of the next Congress when they pledge reforms to wasteful earmarks that build $223 million bridges to islands of 50 inhabitants. They cheer this talk of reform because they recognize that if even a third of the $67.1 billion in earmarks in the 2006 budget were shown to be the equivalent of a “Bridge to Nowhere,� those funds might have been saved for more noble, more moral purposes: such as providing thousands of dollars in aid to each of the millions of Americans who suffer from rare diseases and can’t afford the medicines or treatments they require to lead productive lives.
I challenge Mr. Prager to spend a few hours with these and other disadvantaged citizens. If he does, I suspect he will be compelled to re-visit his claim that the cause of our civil war is a tug-and-pull between believers and non-believers in the Torah – that such a claim is not “almost unbelievable,� it is “entirely unbelievable� – that instead, the essence of the current civil war is between mean-spirited debates over peripheral matters versus compassion for living, breathing people who are caught in the middle of matters of life-and-death.
8 Responses to “Of Prager and Priorities”
He’s such an ass.
I think shithead or doche bag would be better. Calling him an ass is an insult to the pack animal.
Your point is not strengthened by name-calling.
Prager is wrong on this issue, the same way he has been wrong on some other issues. He isn’t the devil, a bigot, or anything of the sort. He’s just wrong.
Rather than post insults, spend the post practicing your argument style- while Prager likely won’t be reading these comments, someone who agrees with him might be, and comments like those above are hardly the ones which will be convincing.
One hallmark of Prager’s style is that he eschews ad-hominem in pretty much all cases. He carefully constructs arguments so that the conclusions follow inexorably from the premises. Thus, the way to defeat one of his arguments is to challenge a premise.
Prager, and many others on the right, make the hasty generalization fallacy every time they demonize “the left.” Similarly, he stereotypes people who don’t believe in the “divinity of the Torah” (which is ironic, because most Christians don’t follow all of the rules contained therein) in a likewise generalizing fashon.
He also falsely equates belief in the divinity of the Torah with morality, which isn’t necessarily the case (I have en ex girlfriend who demonstrates this). People who try to make that type of argument make so many assumptions that it makes my head spin.
David B, thanks for reminding us that incivility is unpersuasive.
Prager commits an error that is easy to make. The promise of the USA is based on an inspired constitution implemented by people who value its principles.
Unreflective Religious devotion alone would not have created the USA.
Thank you David B, Matt Pearl, and Paul in Austin for attempting to point this discussion back to what it should be about.
It should not be about Prager or even the religious threads of his argument. Instead, it should be about the wasted breath of his argument. In other words, if he and others are concerned about morality, would they not do a greater service to humanity by focusing less on the utterances of morality (as in the Torah) and more on the practices of morality (as in caring for those with rare disorders)?
That is the subject on which I had hoped to spur discussion. Perhaps my intent was too buried in the post to be evident, and hence I hope this clarifying comment will spur a new discussion along the above-mentioned lines.
Fixed.
Prager is, in fact, a knucklehead.
Anyone who thinks he’s constructed a rational argument ought to try paraphrasing it, avoiding the fearfulness and sweeping generalizations that are the evidence of sloppy thinking. Do you really think his fear and sloppiness deserve to be defended?
I think profanity reflects poorly on those use it. Insults do make the name-caller look intelligent, particularly when they are improperly spelled. I do, however, think the truth should be called by its true name. And I believe this to be the case particularly in light of the successful fear-mongering that has been the hallmark of recent history.
If that makes me immoderate, so be it.
If there’s a serious argument for why a Muslim, duly elected in 21st century America, should not swear an oath on a book holy to him, please make it.
Prager is a knucklehead.