I was more than willing to meet the argument on its grounds, Pern. I tried in post #158618.<quoted text>
When someone presents their view with clarity, does not bash another's religion but simply sets forth the view that he sees America as based on certain values that he sees as being undermined by certain disregard, should not bring about the vehemence that was aimed at Prager. His views were not anti social nor abhorrent. They are a legitimate opinion. Does Willie have a right to his opinion, yes absolutely, is it rational. I don't think so. He refuses to meet the argument on its grounds and rushes in to name calling. It's knee jerk at its basest level.
The same for the so called lawyer. I would think that someone who makes his living in a courtroom using words and facts as his tools of the trade would have done a better job than just name calling.
Give a reasoned argument or look like one who is afraid of those who think differently. What do you call those people? The word escapes me.
You zipped right past my attempt to meet the arguments on its grounds in your haste to portray me as intolerant.
I identified at least three sections of Prager's essay I found wanting. I guess the problem was that I used terms you didn't like but that I felt appropriate (nonsense, absurd, ludicrous).
I used those terms because I felt the exaggerations and distortions in Prager's essay meet the criteria. There's no way a Muslim swearing into Congress on the Koran is a greater threat to American civilization than 9/11, just to use one example.
I also think that the lack of intemperate language doesn't disguise the fact that the essay was nothing more than an attack on Ellison's religion. That's the only reason for those exaggerations and distortions.