CNN's Snow did not call Prager on backpedaling on use of Quran for oath
On the December 14 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, correspondent Mary Snow uncritically aired a clip of conservative radio host Dennis Prager asserting that he has "no problem" with incoming Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) "taking his oath [of office] on his holiest book. ... I have a problem with the Bible not being present at all. That's what I wrote. That's what I keep saying." Snow did not mention, as Media Matters for America noted, that Prager claimed in his November 28 column that Ellison "should not be allowed" to "take his oath of office ... on the bible of Islam, the Koran." Prager went on to compare Ellison's choice of the Quran to a hypothetical representative's choice of "Hitler's 'Mein Kampf,' the Nazis' bible, for his oath."
Snow's report on The Situation Room focused on former New York City Mayor Ed Koch's (D) recent criticism of Prager's attack on Ellison. Snow reported that Koch is calling for Prager's removal from the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council, to which Prager was recently appointed and of which Koch is also a member.
From the December 14 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
WOLF BLITZER (host): In the culture wars, a controversy over the use of the Quran in a congressional swearing-in. It's leading to a virtual holy war of sorts. It has two high-profile men, both Jewish, at very public odds with each other.
Let's turn to CNN's Mary Snow. She's watching the story for us -- Mary.
SNOW: Wolf, at the heart of the controversy is the book an elected official uses when taking the oath of office. And now there's a new chapter.
[begin video clip]
PRAGER: Well, who's going to dialogue with a bigot?
SNOW: Dennis Prager admits he's become a lightning rod in what is turning out to be a war of sorts over holy books. It started with the debate over the Bible being used during swearing-in ceremonies and is growing wider.
Prager is the conservative radio talk-show host who took aim at newly elected Minnesota congressman Keith Ellison, who is planning to use a Quran during a private swearing-in. Prager says America, not Ellison, should decide the book used.
PRAGER: I have no problem as such with his taking his oath on his holiest book. I have a problem with the Bible not being present at all. That's what I wrote. That's what I keep saying.
SNOW: But Prager is now coming under fire himself from former New York City Mayor Ed Koch.
KOCH: This particular act, which was a stupid act, is certainly a bigoted act.
SNOW: Koch serves alongside Prager on the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council, which oversees the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. He wants Prager removed from the board.
KOCH: We will not tolerate, never again, animus and vitriol against a people on the basis of their religion.
SNOW: Prager insists he is not taking aim at Islam. He is Jewish and says while other Jewish lawmakers have taken the Hebrew Bible with them to be sworn in, he says he would take both the Old and New Testaments.
PRAGER: As a Jew, I do not want this country to abandon its Judeo-Christian values. I will get hurt. That so many of my fellow Jews do not recognize this is a colossal tragedy.
SNOW: As for the Holocaust Memorial Museum's position, it released a statement saying, "Talk show host Dennis Prager speaks solely for himself. His statements do not reflect the position of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, whose board is not self-appointed."
[begin video clip]
SNOW: Members of the council are appointed by the White House. Now, the controversy is expected to come up at the council's next meeting on Monday -- Wolf.
Prager is geting rightfully slammed for his racism and religious bigotry, so he does what comes naturally for right-wingers.
Lie and backtrack on past statements.
...providing cover.
Why even have a Fourth Estate if they are just appendages of the Second?
Snow has nice hair. Nothing against OJT, but please, Mary read a book, get prepared, get a clue, or get thee to the secretarial pool.
The marketing department made the decision to hire her...
as long as the bible is there? i've said before there are so many of these people who do not want freedom "of" religion, they want freedom to choose what you have to participate in. and i have no problem with anything they choose to believe, but it's their belief, not mine. and i wish you would stop telling me to "have a blessed day" when i pay for my slurpee. i just say thank you as a general statement, but the 7-11 or other store is not the place to spread your religion.
Please adhere to your own liberal principles. And have a blessed day.
does the government sponsor 7-11?
Does the government sponsor Wal-Mart?
I guess there was no basis for anyone complaining about "Happy Holidays" then, was there?
the perfect example of what i'm saying. did i suggest the government was or should be involved in 7-11? did i suggest that i can make a private business stop something? i said i do not care for the practice because it forces me to hear something i do not wish to hear when i all i am doing is patronizing a store. keep it to yourself and after work go spread the word anywhere you like.
merry christmas, christmas trees, no problem, it's just generic time of the season stuff.
found this in his print column: "most retail stores are saying 'merry christmas' again, and the aclu can't stop them." nor has the aclu ever tried, in spite of the lying liar's implication. everyone realizes that these are private businesses that the government has no control over in this issue. and the whole happy holidays-merry christmas business was just that, business. trying to please the most amount of customers. it all comes down to the dollar. and the aclu has actually gone to court where cities have displayed menorahs and said they have to allow a nativity scene also. [neither is appropriate on government property.] but then it could be i misunderstood o'reilly. maybe he meant to say that ornaments on the fox website last year said "happy holidays" until this site pointed it out. at which point those ornaments disappeared faster than george bush from washington, on the way to his month long vacation in crawford.
So if I were to say how I hate it that atheists live in this country and how everybody has to be a Christian, I wouldn't get lectures on freedom?
When you tell other people what to do on a political site, it'll come off as promoting policy.
do insist everybody has to be a christian. prayer in schools [jesus only of course], commandments in the courthouse, under god in the pledge of allegiance, you name it. i say go to it, on your own. a lot on the other side say, no way, you got to join in. dance all you want, you know it's true.
Para. 3, of the Constitution? "The Senators and Representative, before mentioned, and...[other public officials]...shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation , to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall eve be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States"
In the face of this constitutional privilege, why is Prager even making his argument? Ellison doesn't even have to swear at all. No such official needs to. S/He could simply affirm and that is sufficient. Instead of affirming, which carries no religious implication, he wants to use the bible of his religion. He thinks, as do some Christians, that his word is better because he supports it with religious conviction.
We all know there are plenty of Christian politicians and holders of the public trust who have failed to uphold their own oath, so how important is an oath to begin with? Is it 'better' than an affirmation? Not hardly. So what is Prager arguing? That an oath on one type of holy book is better than an oath on another? If so, how? And can he demonstrate it?
And where is Snow? She should be pointing out the constitutional underpinning.
Plus, if Prager is insisting that Ellison use a Christian Bible, isn't he requiring a religious test of Ellison, one which is prohibited by the last sentence of Article VI?
Somebody in the media please call Prager out! Snow doesn't know enough to do so.
From the days he had his trashy Los Angeles newsletter defining for everyone else HIS definition of a "serious Jew," Prager has been what Bob Grant used to call a fake-phony-fraud. His soi-disant punditry on faith and morals is worse than the Vatican's.
Doesn't prager know that lying is frowned upon in his chosen faith lifestyle?
Since when does the GOP have anything to say against lying when it's one of their own who does it?
The religious right is very good at cherry-picking the tenets of their chosen faith lifestyle. They love the Ten Commandments unless a lie is convenient. And "love your neighbor as yourself" is great until the neighbor pisses you off; then, kill the bastid!