Friday, December 01, 2006

Dennis Prager hates America

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

-Article VI, United States Constitution-


What bothers me most about the effort to make the United States into a Christian State where non-believers or believers in other religious traditions have no place, is that there is so little protest. Forgetting that early Christians were persecuted as atheists, atheists are said by many self-styled Christians to be unfit to be full citizens much less to hold political office. Republicans from George H. W. Bush to Katherine Harris have asserted this notion.

I read in Crooks and Liars that Fox News’ latest attempt to make the Christian bible an official US Government document includes the crucifixion of Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota) who, as is his guaranteed right, wishes to use the Koran instead of a Christian document. Take Sean Hannity, for instance. If Ellison gets to use the Koran , he asks, then what’s to prevent some other representative elect from using “Mein Kampf. My answer would be nothing – and thank God (and the Constitution) for that.

Of course the unexplained equation of a Hitler Book with the Koran is an obvious inflammatory ploy, but the insinuation that there should be government rules regarding which books are acceptable, is obviously in opposition to the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Fox seems to hope that you’ll be afraid enough of those “Liberals” electing a Muslim ( read potential traitor) to give up your right to vote for whomever you please, whether he reads the Koran, the Gita or Bible Stories for Children.

This wouldn’t be the first or most egregious attempt of Fox to overthrow the rule of law in the US, nor would it be the clumsiest or most thinly disguised, but of course the real problem with Fox’s attack on America is not the rickety, fear mongering fallacies, but the inherent assertion that the government can, should and must legitimize one religion and render another illegitimate.

“If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress,”

said Foxhound Dennis Prager and thereby advocating the denial of both equal protection and freedom of religion to an American citizen in good standing. Now where is the riot? Where are the marches and demonstrations? Where are the legions of mocking and bloviating radio personalities and swiftboat crewmen? Why are Hannity and Prager and all the other dogs of Fox not in Quantanamo?

Dennis Prager hates America. Fox News and its billionaire media tycoon owner hates America and is spending billions to try to overthrow the rule of law and replace it with mob rule and Fundamentalist Theocracy. Where is the protest?

If you are unable to accept the legitimacy of the US constitution, says Captain Fogg, and must resort to creating fear in this country in order to promote your attack on the Constitution and the Republic for which it stands, then you and Fox News and Rupert Murdoch (for whom it stands) are terrorist insurgents. Perhaps you’d like to reconsider your stance on torture, habeas corpus and special renditions?

9 comments:

Intellectual Insurgent said...

The Republican Party hates America.

Capt. Fogg said...

If only more Americans would return the sentiment!

d nova said...

my ex loves prager.

come 2 think on it, she lives in florida.

i shd send her a link 2 this post.

Capt. Fogg said...

I should send Prager a copy of the Constitution - maybe wrapped around a Louisville Slugger?

Anonymous said...

Amazing.

It shows how little most American's understand about their system of government...

and just how bigoted and stupid they are.

Peter Kay said...

You should read Prager's column before making such false and irresponsible comments.

The issue that's up for fair debate is whether or not the Bible is the founding text on which our forefathers started this government and wrote its constitution. That's the point he makes in his column.

You may disagree with the point, but if you want to come off as somewhat cohesive, at least write as to why you disagree with his premise.

Instead what we get from you is frothing at the mouth, which does nothing to improve the tone of the public discourse.

Capt. Fogg said...

"Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."

-Hosea 13:16-


Fair debate? Oh please.

Perhaps you should read Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and the others before making such statements. These gentlemen equated the Bible and the Christian religion with tyranny and spent their lives vigorously denying what you are claiming to be their motivation.

Jefferson insisted that your Bible was a priestly concoction and instrument of ecclesiastical tyranny having little to do with anything like divine inspiration. I don't suppose you've read The Jefferson Bible or his correspondence with Benjamin Rush.

A debate does not consist of a one-sided defense of absurdities and there is no debate about the biblical basis of the United States Constitution any more than there is about whether the universe rotates about the sun.


Maybe you can reconcile Biblical support for slavery, polygamy, witch hunts, prostitution, exploitation of women, merciless genocide, religious intolerance and persecution - and most of all abject obedience to divinely authorized kings and priests with the humanist movement that produced our constitution where I cannot. I invite you to try.

The Bible does not support democracy, freedom of the press, or of free speech or assembly. It does not guarantee a fair trial or anything that goes with it. It does not support freedom of religion or protection from cruel punishment much less the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Does our constitution mandate the worship of Jaweh? Does it forbid graven images? Does it forbid the eating of shellfish or cheeseburgers or riding a horse or lighting a candle on the Sabbath? The Bible does. Does our Constitution suggest gouging out eyes? How many of the 600 odd Biblical commandments will you find in it? How would you reconcile the Bill of Rights with the Bible? Not one item would be supported.

How would you reconcile a system of government wherein all law descends from God with a system where all law ascends from the will of the governed? How would you reconcile the prohibition against religious requirements for public office with a bible based Constitution? How would you reconcile the prohibition against government support or regulation of religion with the Bible? Face it, we both know that our Constitution was meant to be the end of religious interference with the law and a blueprint for a secular society. Don't call this a debate.

Trying to subvert the United States and its laws by pretending that it all has a religious basis is what you are doing. Trying to reintroduce religious precepts and peremptory prohibitions is what it's about; trying to establish the divine right of government and by extension the right to rule by recieved law is what it's about. Don't claim that there is a debate when what there is is an insurrection and don't demand that I dignify lies.

Anonymous said...

brilliant!

i wish i'd written that, cap.

did u c (misnamed) rep goode's attack on ellison?:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=goode&btnG=Google+Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn

Capt. Fogg said...

Yes I did, but I'm too mad to write about it yet.