Holocaust Museum Distances Itself from Prager
Holocaust Memorial Reaction
The U.S. Holocaust Memorial distanced itself from Prager in a short statement.
"Talk show host Dennis Prager speaks solely for himself," the emailed statement from a media relations contact read. "His statements do not reflect the position of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum."
Ellison wasn't available for comment on Tuesday.
If Prager isn't dismissed from the Holocaust Memorial, CAIR officials said that they will gauge the next course of action, but didn't give details.
During his radio show today and yesterday Prager asked listeners to write letters to the editor about this editorial from the Strib. He didn't like being called a "gasbag". Well if the shoe fits.
Prager also claimed he never bashed Muslims in his life. I suppose this was praise for muslims:
This argument appeals to all those who believe that one of the greatest goals of America is to be loved by the world, and especially by Muslims because then fewer Muslims will hate us (and therefore fewer will bomb us).
But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible. In fact, the opposite is more likely: Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America.
Michael Medved responded to Prager's call for Ellison to go ahead and swear on the Koran, but also have the bible present.
Paul from Minneapolis comments:
The guy you linked to just below calls him a racist. Or at least the headline does; and I don't think every two-bit website has headline writers. He also engages in the utterly dishonest characterization of Prager's use of Mein Kampf in the original column, in the manner Prager talks about.
Using words like "whining" is a cheap tactic. For myself, I agree with him: almost every enraged response I've seen has been characterized by some amount of venom but more importantly dishonesty, as he says. Honest venom is fine. Dishonest venom is not.
I do think it's interesting, if true, as Prager says, that this is the first time a national politician has rejected the Bible (or the Torah, which in Prager's mind stands as part of the Bible, although it's not his preference for swearing-in purposes) in favor of an entirely different spiritual source. And I also think it's true that it's not Prager who made this an issue, it's Ellison. He was making a statement; according to the left, is the only permissible response to that statement to have no resposnse or to praise it? Criticism is simply not allowed? Huh.
Poor me blather in my view is whining. Prager can dish it out with strong - and hateful - rhetoric, but has a hard time with people reacting. Prager made this an issue by writing that over the top column.
It's not just the left that's been condemning Prager's column. Glenn Reynolds, Eugene Volokh, Stephen Bainbridge, Michael Medved - and many other conservatives have condemned Prager's column.