Luke Ford

Prager emphasized that he only supports capital punishment for murder, therefore he did not favor such putting such folks for death if they haven't murdered anyone.

Just like you like to hug your children, or spouse, so too there are persons who love to murder. But they won't say that. They will give it a fig leaf - they do it for communism, or religion, or fascism.

Prager notes that to put up a picture of a bikini clad woman is a crime, but not to sell bacteria that can be used for anthrax.

Prager gave many reasons for not calling for the death penalty in this type of case - including giving those who hold the weapons of mass destruction, you give them no incentive to not release the murderous substance.

We cannot risk society's welfare, the deaths of thousands, because you enjoy experimenting with anthrax. Take up another hobby.

The lawyer of the man arrested in Nevada for owning dangerous biological weapons, says his client, a white supremacist, wanted to find a vaccine.

This is why, says DP, why people view such lawyers as whore. There is no shock for when such lawyers lie. It is assumed that lying is part of the law profession. Will the bar association say he is a liar? No. Other lawyers regard that as an acceptable tactic. It is classic legal thinking.

American law is tactics, not justice. We saw that in the OJ Simpson trial and in the NYC Tawana Brawley defamation trial. That trial has become a farce.

It is fascinating how people can leave all their values at their door, when they leave home. Could he lie to his friends or family like this? Probably not. But his profession welcomes it. That's why I say, if you go to law school, you are morally challenged. You can survive it and become a good human being, but you've been morally challenged. You are taught in law school to substitute legal thinking for moral thinking.

Undoubtedly, Hitler would've been defended as looking for an antidote to gas.

Then Prager took on President Clinton. He recalled a call from a guy who said that he could relate to President Clinton. That Bill was the type of guy he'd like to share six-pack with and chase the girls.

Dennis Prager's son David told him that some of his teachers used foul language. David: "Don't worry, it's not the religious teachers."

DP: "But they should still be your models."

David: "Why dad? You're my model. They are not my models."

DP says that one of the reasons he has a low view of the First Couple is their fawning over Hollywood actors.

It's like the common guy is in the White House. I'd like an uncommon guy to be my president.

DP read from this New York Times column by Frank Rich:

The Clintons' first overnight guests in the Lincoln Bedroom were Harry Thomason and Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, creators of the sitcom "Designing Women." Who would've guessed that there was nowhere to go but down?

Many Streisand and Spielberg soirees later, Bill Clinton's show-biz-entranced Presidency has reached a nadir in which Sandy Berger, the national security adviser, must take time out from saber-rattling with Saddam Hussein to field questions about John Travolta. On last Sunday's "Meet the Press," Mr. Berger testily explained just why he had wasted his time and taxpayers' money to brief a movie star's delegation, at the President's behest, about the Administration's defense of beleaguered Scientologists in Germany. Mr. Berger's answer -- "I was trying to get an autograph for one of my kids" -- is as revealing as it is pitiful. Imagine if a nobody requested a meeting about Christian persecution in China.

Prager claimed that today was his first sustained criticism of the President since before he was elected. DP says Clinton follows polls, rather than leading.

[I, Luke Ford, recall Prager criticizing Clinton innumerable times. He has probably said 300 times, "I never criticize the President," before proceeding to criticize the President. It has always been apparent that Prager has contempt for Clinton.]

DP wanted to know what ABC newspeople were doing at the White House dinner for Tony Blair. How can you maintain objectivity while doing that?

A caller suggested that many folks identified with Clinton because he came from their era, their world view. Caller said Clinton was not everyman like DP suggested. Clinton was extremely bright and charismatic.

Caller said that the kids on the MTV show who asked the President what type of underwear he wore, would've asked the same question of their dad, if their friends were over and everyone wanted to have a giggle. But they would not have asked the question of their grandfather.

Prager said that he doubted that his son's friends would ask him that question.

[Luke: DP is setting himself up to be asked this question, because he has said so many times that people would, in effect, not dare ask him what type of underwear he wears. But as DP is a radio talkshow hosts, he makes his living in a disrespectful medium, he will inevitably get asked this question, and frequently. Americans don't like people who put themselves above others. It's the egalitarian impulse in us that particularly dominates pop culture.]

Prager recommends that people list who they would like to have lunch with. It is a good way to better understand yourself and what you value.

DP had to keep holding himself back from psycho-analyzing the President.

P. was discouraged that Clinton intervened with Germany to help Scientology after John Travolta asked him.

A caller remembered a time in Seventh Grade when he saw Michael Landon. A girl asked him where they went to the bathroom, when they were out in the country. Michael said, "actors don't have to go to the bathroom."

Caller: "Even in seventh grade, I knew that the question was taboo."

When Prager attended Columbia University, he remembers how leftist academics said the Cold War was equally the fault of America. Now it is clear that it was the fault of the Soviets. DP says the same will happen with Iraq. The need to punish this evil regime is an easy call.

Prager says that his celebrity has no effect on him. It adds nothing to his life. He has gone to no Hollywood parties.

"I have worked with some of the best known people in Hollywood. I know some of these people. It was a kick and a joy. I generally think actors are sweet. I generally like people in show biz. My point is that if you ache to be around celebrities"… that indicates a lack of depth.

CALLER: Politicians are actors today. Politics has become show business…

Prager: It does not negate anything I said. You may not have meant to have negated anything I said. But I need to say that you did not negate anything I said.

[LUKE: Prager seems to filter and understand almost every call to his show as either agreeing or disagreeing with HIS point. I've frequently felt taken aback when Prager responded to my point, by saying his wasn't sure if it negated HIS point. I and others often call to simply have OUR say, not necessarily to respond to HIS points. We often phrase our calls so they relate to things Prager has said, simply so that we can get past his screeners, and have OUR say.]

2-21

I, Luke Ford, wrote on the Prager E-mail list:

> One of Dennis's >perennial topics is that there can be no morality without reference to God.

Prager loves to throw in the word "objective." As in, there can be no "objective morality" without God.

But the premise itself is not objective. God takes a leap of faith. Hence, there is only this "objective morality" if you make this leap of faith. So, in truth, there is still no "objective morality."

Also, even if you posit God as the source of objective morality, and you posit God, you still do not have objective morality. You need divine revelation.

According to the traditional view, the five books of Moses, the Pentateuch, came from God, honey dripped from HIS lips.

But virtually every Bible scholar in the world will tell you that the Torah is a post-Mosaic composite work. Every Bible scholar will tell you that the Torah contains hundreds of errors, and it is rationally impossible to hold otherwise.

So, even if you posit God, there is still no objective morality, because the source that we supposedly have of this divine revelation is so flawed.

Then there is the linguistic challenge. Words of metaphors for reality, they are not intrinsic to the universe, to bio-chemistry.

So, rationally, I do not find that Prager's arguments hold up well. I wish I did.

Incidentally, the biggest problem I have with Prager, which is really a metaphor for the biggest problem I have with religion, is the issue of truth.

Particularly vis-a-vis Biblical scholarship.

I've listened to Prager's lecture on who wrote the Torah many times. He makes no persuasive argument against the truth of biblical scholarship. All his arguments are about the results of believing in biblical scholarship, which is no argument against biblical scholarship.

I love listening to Prager teaching the Torah verse by verse, and reading Telushkin on similar topics, but, in the final analysis, I am not sure how seriously I can take these guys as they effectively ignore the evidence and views of virtually all bible scholars on the literary composition of the Torah.

I've heard Prager relate the anecdote about the man who told him that the primary reason he had not committed adultery was that it was mentioned in the Ten Commandments. This is a frequenlty offered Prager example for the need for this "objective morality." But the commandment against adultery in the bible only applies to married women. You cannot have sex with a married woman, unless you are her husband. But if you, the man are married, and want to have sex with an unmarried woman, that is not covered in the Commandment.

So this frequently offered Prager example is not intellectually honest.

Dennis might follow up: Judaism does not end with the Torah. It continues with the rabbinic tradition, and the rabbis ruled that married men may not have sex with single women, that that in effect is adultery.

But Prager does not hold rabbinic law as divine and binding.

I want to offer an example of why there is much about Telushkin and Prager's public presentation on this and similar topics that I do not buy:

From page 92 of Rabbi Telushkin's excellent new book: BIBLICAL LITERACY.

"The midwives' refusal to obey Pharaoh's murderous edict on grounds of conscience constitutes history's first recorded act of civil disobedience."

There was no civil disobedience recorded before 3000 years ago?

But most importantly, why would you regard the TORAH as history? On what basis do you regard the Torah story about the midwives as history?