Prager on “Islamo-fascism”
Steven H. writes:
Dennis Prager went on a lengthy monologue today at the beginning of his show praising himself for speaking to a group of students on the subject of so called Islamo-fascism.
He said that the crowd was hamstrung by silence when he started to explain that conservatives were neither anti-Muslim nor anti-Islam. He left Americans with the impression that they had nothing to fear from Islam. I called his show within seconds to dispute his statement about Islam. The call screener said that I would be up next. This was about 12:10 EST. Prager then said he would like to take calls from those who disagree with him after I had already been put on hold. He refused to take my call. His screener said an hour later, after taking every pro Prager call, that he was moving on. He dodged any scrutiny over the lie he told to millions of Americans.
This is the state of “talk radio.” Try getting on the air in disagreement from the right, they won’t and can’t take your call because their views are liberal for the most part and indefensible.
Back to my story and to keep it short, Prager always says that he loves to engage in intellectual debate, yet he refused to discuss a topic he knows that he was lying about. Prager is aware of what is in the Islamic texts, and still he chose to deceive his listeners that progress is being made because of his weak kneed seminars about something that does not even exist—Islamo-fascism. Islam he said without equivocation is not the problem.
This “gang” of “conservative” talk show hosts is a disaster. It’s time to take this gang or should I say “clique” down.
The audio of his cowardly statements are posted on his website. VFR readers should send Prager a message. He must be called on the carpet for lying to millions of Americans.
LA replies:
Just one correction: Prager does not call himself a conservative, but a liberal.
Alan Roebuck also sent something about Prager. He writes:
Dennis Prager is discussing a speech he gave for Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week. The thesis of his radio show is that people came to the speech expecting him to attack Islam, and they were disappointed. After his talk, most of the questions from audience members were hostile, but as the pro-Islam faction realized that Prager was not “anti-Islam,” they became visibly depressed.
He says his term is “Islamic Totalitarians,” but he accepts the use of the term Islamo-Fascist. Just as referring to “Italian Fascists” is not anti-Italian, referring to “Islamo-Fascists” is not anti-Islamic.
He acknowledges that there are many Muslims who do evil, in the name of Islam, and he says “what else should we call these people?” He sees it as important to acknowledge, and to spread the word to those who are unaware, that much evil is being done in the name of Islam.
But he does not draw any conclusions from this about the nature of Islam. This is in accordance with his philosophy: religion does not have an objective content; it is a matter of individuals having faith. Prager judges religions solely by their consequences in this life, a standard which allows him to condemn the actions, and the practical thoughts, of the Islamic world. But he deliberately refuses to think in terms of essences and universals when it comes to religion.
Portions of Prager’s broadcasts are archived at Townhall.com, and you can listen starting tomorrow, if you wish.
LA replies:
Sounds like IFAW speakers cover quite a range in terms of their grasp of the issue, from the hopeless, such as Horowitz and Prager, to a truthful speaker like Greg Davis. I’m just realizing that Horowitz had to have a huge number of people competent to speak about, uh, whatever you call it, given that there were multiple events at over 100 campuses. How did he find all these people? And imagine the transportation and hotel costs for all those speakers. Let’s hope that most of them were better than Horowitz.
Michael B. writes from Sweden:
This episode would seem to illustrate a larger trend within the mass media, the setting up a faux “discussion” within narrowly defined parameters, where the created impression is that of an actual argument with two sides. You create a sense of participation in the audience, when in reality the parameters are so narrow that nothing of substance is being discussed at all.
These faux-conservatives are feeding on the real undercurrent of popular dissent. However, the small ripples of dissent that the likes of Prager, Beck et al are voicing are nothing more than peripheral, calculated sideshows. Basically “hijacking” genuine antipathies for Islam, twisting those around in the guise of criticism and speaking for the ordinary american, when in reality they are furthering liberal acceptance to Islam. A sort of obfuscating and diluting the whole issue of Islam in a version of the old bait-and-switch. And so the real agenda continues unhindered: the normalising and naturalising of Islam in America.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 26, 2007 05:36 PM | Send