Monday, December 04, 2006

dennis prager's sound american thinking is under attack

i just read this on the internet news.

i first learned of dennis prager when i was going through my divorce in 1091. my sister had bought his tape cassette series called 'a course on happiness', which she loaned to me. ever since i listened to the tapes, i've been a fan of his. what he says just makes sense to me.

i used to listen to dennis prager as much as possible when i was able to listen to conservative talk radio at work), as i've always thought him to be an extremely intelligent person, an engaging speaker and one of the few people to whom i would look as a role model. in my opinion, his conservative views are based on sound thinking, a high level of education and are guided with a strong religious moral compass.

read the article and let me know your thoughts.

if you like listening to conservative talk radio dennis prager's talk show, in my opinion is the absolute best there is. for example, this morning he was talking about gambling. most people would just say, "i'm not really fond of gambling", but because dennis prager has a life hypothesis of sorts where happiness is a factor, he mentioned how the sadness of losing $100 outweighs the joy of winning $100. it's his in depth daily thinking that keeps me listening and inspires me to apply his concepts to my life (maybe i need to buy a better radio that picks up his AM frequency so i can start listening to him at work again).


Anonymous said...

xThere is a strong backlash against Muslims in the U.S. today. I can't speak for the rest of the world. What's dangerous to comment on is this in general. I'm for him standing for something especially values, specifically Christian values. I commonly see anti-sementic statements from Muslims so I can understand his ire. I do think it was a bad PR move on the part of this guy to choose the Koran especially as public sentament goes. I'm pretty sure even Jewish senators/representatives swear in on the Bible. I can admire the fanatasism on both sides, but I have to say, their pragmatism is lacking.


Anonymous said...

Here is my question: If they don't believe in the Bible they are swearing on, then isn't the whole thing starting off wrong? When you testify in court, you swear on the Bible to tell the truth, because essentially, you should fear God's wrath if you tell a lie. But what if they DON'T believe? Can you trust what they are saying is true?? At least this guy is swearing on something he believes in.

Layla said...

Wow, very interesting, thanks for pointing this out! I like Dennis too but have only heard him a few times. I did read his book on happiness and like you - thought it made a lot of sense.

I am really split down the middle here. I think that America is falling apart because we are more concerned about being politically correct than about following the values this country was founded on.

YET...KP has a point, If I were a Muslim I would not want to be sworn in on a Bible.

I guess the question is how does America feel about Muslims being in political office? I don't think we have a right to discriminate against a person because of their religious beliefs but how do you separate the average Muslim from a radical fundamentalist who's goal in life is to destroy The US?

Senor Caiman said...


It's funny, I feel somewhat obligated to gamble because I gained my fortune by taking advantage of legal loopholes. The weird thing is that because I don't care if I lose the money I seem to win. It's just mad crazy.

Saur♥Kraut said...

ahh, this is very interesting. The truth is, I'm a b.a. christian and feel that it's silly to use the Bible for oaths of any kind (swearing in, court, etc) because most people don't believe in it or take it seriously anymore. We might as well use a dictionary.

I say do away with swearing on any religion or religious document.

mckay said...

update: when i listened to good ol' dennis yesterday, he mentioned that he has made the suggestion that representative-elect keith ellison use both the koran and the bible for his swearing in ceremony. it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

thanks, everyone for your comments!

Mr. Althouse said...

It's a tradition... I don't really think it means all that much beyond that.


blair said...

I have to agree with Mike, it's a tradition and nothing more than that. But perhaps it is one that we should rethink. Since we do have non-Christian people in office, then shouldn't they swear in on their own bible? What if they are atheist? Does the swear even mean anything? How about a promise? I think a promise sounds much better than a swear.


Dave Morris said...

It is such a personal thing.

For me, I believe spirituality is an intensely personal thing, and anytime the government tries to tell me which book I "swear" by, I have a problem with it.

When you're sworn in, it IS an oath to tell the truth, or serve the public in a truthful manner. For that reason, I understand why the Bible has been used and has become a tradition.

But if I were Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim or even an athiest, I think I would want to eliminate it from the process and hope people would understand.

Prager seems a decent gent. I don't agree with everything he says, including his position on this subject, but you sense that he believes what he says. That's huge.

ablondeblogger said...

You'd think the threat of perjury charges would be enough to keep people from lying (unless you're Clinton *grin*)

I'm very Christian but I don't think making an atheist or Muslim swear on a Bible makes any sense.