Gil Dodgen over at Dembski’s Home for Wayward Sycophants says that one of the main influences in his conversion from an “obnoxious, nasty, self-aggrandizing, pathetically prideful atheist” to an obnoxious, nasty, self-aggrandizing, pathetically prideful Christian was Dennis Prager. And he highly recommends Prager University, Prager’s sad attempt to become the next Glenn Beck.
Let’s recall some of Prager’s truly ridiculous arguments, shall we? Like in 2006, when Prager argued that Keith Ellison should not be allowed to swear his oath of office with his hand on the Quran:
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…
First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism — my culture trumps America’s culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.
As I wrote at the time, this is positively idiotic — even from Prager’s magical perspective. There are really only two positions on such oaths: you either believe they mean something, that they actually have something to do with whether a person actually supports the Constitution, or you believe, as I do, that they are absolutely meaningless. But if you believe that they are meaningful, then the reason can only be that they mean something because by swearing on a holy book one is making a pledge to God, a pledge in the name of their most sacred beliefs, and that such a pledge has more meaning and is more likely to be followed than one who merely makes a promise. This is the same kind of thinking that says that if you “pinky swear” or spit in the palm of your hand before shaking hands, that means more than just saying you’ll do something.
But the point is that if you think swearing an oath on a holy book is a meaningful exercise, then in order to be consistent you must recognize the futility and absurdity of requiring someone to swear on a holy book that they don’t believe in. If such a ceremony actually has meaning, if it actually does correlate with one’s faithfulness in carrying out their duties, then the worst possible thing you could do is require someone to swear such an oath on a holy book whose sacredness the person does not accept; in doing so, you’ve already established right up front that his oath has no meaning to him, at least, because he is willing to play a dishonest game of pretend right up front.
This is also the man who argued that married women should always have sex when their husband demands it, that higher education is bad because it leads to atheism and liberalism, and that the only reason transsexuals are included in the battle for equality is because gay people want to destroy the very idea of male and female.