Virginia follows Texas with NCBCPS

A year ago to the day, I reported that the sectarian proselytizing tool known as NCBCPS was receiving its first legal challenge in Texas. Luckily, that case ended well for our civil liberties as the state saw its unconstitutional adoption of this tool would lead to further lawsuits and dropped it from the curriculum.

Virginians have now followed in Texans' footsteps. All it will take to remedy this one, as well, are some courageous parents who actually think the Constitution matters and are willing to act to enforce it. Craig County is smack dab in the heart of, you guessed it, Appalachia! More glorious progress for science education in the Bible Belt.

Medved's cluelessness knows no bounds

I already knew he was a moron, but this is a new low for Michael Medved.

Brooks on "Neural Buddhism"

Interesting editorial by David Brooks about how science will be forcing a cultural revolution when it comes to religion. In his view, traditional belief in the Bible will continue to erode (as it has been) in the newer generations, while he thinks a sort of Buddhist approach to God will be embraced. Unfortunately, as with so many opinion pieces, his lacks any attempt whatsoever to provide evidence that this is occurring. I present mine in the form of statistics and trends.

Perhaps David thinks it's a framing issue? He never bothers to substantiate claims like:

Lo and behold, over the past decade, a new group of assertive atheists has done battle with defenders of faith. The two sides have argued about whether it is reasonable to conceive of a soul that survives the death of the body and about whether understanding the brain explains away or merely adds to our appreciation of the entity that created it.

The atheism debate is a textbook example of how a scientific revolution can change public culture. Just as “The Origin of Species reshaped social thinking, just as Einstein’s theory of relativity affected art, so the revolution in neuroscience is having an effect on how people see the world.

And yet my guess is that the atheism debate is going to be a sideshow. The cognitive revolution is not going to end up undermining faith in God, it’s going to end up challenging faith in the Bible.

Science has been doing that for decades and decades now. And I think, in large part, it's simply due to the way that science causes you to think and ask for evidence for claims and try to develop logical connections. Research has also pointed to psychological factors involved in the rejection of science in favor of creationism. I don't think it's simply a "liberal education = anti-religion" thing, although there are things to think through there. However, I've warned before against making another "failed prophecy" that science will wipe out religion, while at the same time recognizing:

f people agree that the scientific method establishes knowledge, and that faith is not knowledge, then the bifurcation of science and religion is a deep and meaningful issue. If faith has not suffered, it has certainly adapted as knowledge has been established to contradict the teachings and interpretations of the Bible. Admittedly, theists may always claim that the contradiction lies in the interpretation of their Scriptures, and not in the Scriptures themselves, but the effect of marginalization of faith via scientific progress is a real phenomenon that I think modern theists are quite well-aware of.

Next, David tip-toes up to the line of BS:

Over the past several years, the momentum has shifted away from hard-core materialism. The brain seems less like a cold machine. It does not operate like a computer. Instead, meaning, belief and consciousness seem to emerge mysteriously from idiosyncratic networks of neural firings. Those squishy things called emotions play a gigantic role in all forms of thinking. Love is vital to brain development.

Researchers now spend a lot of time trying to understand universal moral intuitions. Genes are not merely selfish, it appears. Instead, people seem to have deep instincts for fairness, empathy and attachment.

Scientists have more respect for elevated spiritual states. Andrew Newberg of the University of Pennsylvania has shown that transcendent experiences can actually be identified and measured in the brain (people experience a decrease in activity in the parietal lobe, which orients us in space). The mind seems to have the ability to transcend itself and merge with a larger presence that feels more real.

Not once does he bother explaining what, if anything, resembles supernaturalism in scientific research. Not once does he bother substantiating the idea that brain researchers are moving away from reductionist explanations, towards any form of spirituality whatsoever. Instead, he seems to make the same non sequiturs we've seen before from scientific findings claiming support for religious ideas. But there's biology, then there's bullshit. In fact, the more we look at morality and other previously-philosophy-only topics, the more simplified science makes them. Now, am I claiming here that some scientists and atheists don't admit that science does not yet (and maybe never will) have tools to "establish" things like qualia and morality as scientific theories? No. I've said so myself. But Brooks doesn't show us anything, anywhere, that resembles a "science is leading us away from naturalism and towards Buddhism" shred of evidence.

Obama's comments & the sociology of cultural conservatism

An Obama supporter's take: the infamous comments by Obama meant that people who had been left in dire economic straits throughout both GOP and Democratic administrations turned to an emphasis upon cultural issues to guide them in their voting. Nothing too outrageous when stated thusly, and this type of thinking has been around for a while in the Democratic party: that working-class people have voted against their economic self-interests partly out of frustration with politicians and partly on cultural conservatism.

I think the question of why so many people vote against their own best interests is definitely one worth exploring and arguing about. Are those people convinced that they are economically better off voting the way they do, or do they think cultural conservatism is more important than economic liberalism?

The argument that the GOP has been exploiting cultural conservatism in order to distract the electorate from economic realities is a fairly old one that has found new vigor in recent years. The old "God, guns and gays" joke has a little truth to it, I think. Why do working-class voters vote for economic conservative politicians who act against their own best interests?

Two liberal researchers have looked at the question from opposing vantages and have written on it from an objective perspective -- one who blames "God, guns and gays" and another who doesn't:

Larry Bartels wrote "Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age", the one with the really neat chart on income inequalities under GOP & Dem presidents, and he argues that the working-class doesn't really lean conservative, and that instead, they often don't vote or are outmaneuvered during campaigns. He's convinced Krugman.

Thomas Frank wrote "What's the Matter with Kansas?" and he argues that people are suckers for cultural conservatism. Here's his reply to Larry Bartels.

If what Obama (and Frank) said is in fact true, then it isn't "elitist" to say so. If it isn't, then perhaps it is. Either way, let's assume Obama's an arrogant asshole. This says literally nothing about his ability to run the country, and given the last few years of the "guy you want to have a beer with" and how he's f*#&$d up the country, isn't it worse to have a humble idiot than someone who is arrogant but competent? I'll take an elitist who can solve our problems over a likable idiot any day.

Perhaps the demographics supporting Obama explain his "elitism":

"Obama’s lead over Clinton among white college-educated Democrats (and Democratic leaners) has risen from 7 points to 12 points. Among those with post-graduate degrees, it’s exploded, from an 8 point lead to a 29 point lead. But among white voters with a high school degree or less, his deficit has barely budged, from 33 points to 30 points. As it stands, the educational chasm is stark."

Maybe he's giving up on that demographic. I've argued before that I think the Democrats should do so.

I've ripped on the South before, and its well-known issues:

• poverty
• low minimum wage
  
• poor health care quality (or here)
  
• poor education quality (esp. here in SC)
• horrid work environments
  
• obesity (and here)
• religiosity (or here)
  
• higher STD rates
• highest divorce, teen pregnancy rates (p.10) (or here)
• higher crime
• &c.
  

Now, I found a guy who uses some great sociological data to show correlations between religiosity and other factors:

1. Church attendance and income by state:





2. within-state correlations between rich & poor church attendance





3. affluent voters seem to be more influenced by religion than the working class

So the take-home lesson purports to show that it's the richer right-leaners who make the difference, and that "working-class" people are not as influenced by cultural conservatism as we have been led to believe ... rather, the more upper-middle classes and affluent classes are those most swayed by cultural conservatism. Also, check out Polarized America (H/T: Paul Krugman) for amazing graphs showing the correlation of income inequality to political polarization.

VT shooting & gun laws

It's hard to believe that it's been a year since the VT shootings. It's harder still to believe that Virginians refused to amend gun statutes to protect citizens from mentally-disturbed persons making gun purchases.

NRA continues to hold dominion over Virginia
Posted January 26th, 2008 at 9:30 am

Guest Post by Morbo

After the Virginia Tech massacre, I wrote a post predicting that the horrific incident would do nothing to change our gun policy. I secretly hoped I’d be proven wrong. Sadly, it looks like I won’t.

In Virginia, lawmakers have rejected modest legislation closing a loophole that allows people to buy weapons at gun shows without undergoing a background check. This should be a no-brainer after what happened, but still the measure failed.

Reported The Washington Post:

Gun-control advocates, including survivors of the April 16 shooting rampage that took the lives of 32 victims at Virginia Tech, poured into a Senate committee meeting to support a bill that would require background checks for all gun-show sales. They then staged a “lie-in,” lying on their backs outside the Capitol to draw attention to gun deaths in Virginia last year.

Some of the survivors offered compelling personal testimony. Colin Goddard, 22, who survived the shootings and is now a senior at the school, cut to the chase when he said: “People tell me I am alive because of God or luck or a bunch of other stuff. I don’t know how much I can accept any of those, but one thing I can’t accept is that it was just criminals being criminals and I was just caught in the wrong situation at the wrong time.”

Amazingly, several gun nuts attended this event with weapons strapped on their hips. That’s right — in Virginia, it is legal to attend a public meeting of government representatives wearing a pistol. One complained that background checks are “onerous” because they can take as long as one day to complete.

At the hearing, some of the surviving students were approached by gun nuts who explained to them that had the students been armed, they could have taken out the shooter, Cho Seung-Hui. These gun nuts are clearly disturbed — yet the legislature listens to them, not the families of those who were killed.

A panel of the Virginia House of Delegates had already voted down closing the loophole. The Senate hearing was an attempt to revive it, but on Wednesday the members of the Courts of Justice Committee voted it down 9-6. All seven Republicans on the committee voted against it, as did two Democrats.

To the gun nuts, “gun control” is synonymous with seizure of weapons. They do this on purpose to frighten people. Thus, the debate becomes whether people can have guns or not instead of what reasonable restrictions we can put in place to make sure the wrong people don’t have access to guns. I don’t want to take away the rifle your uncle Fred uses to hunt deer. I do want to make sure that a deranged person can’t go to a gun show, walk out with an assault rifle and head for the nearest middle school.

If Virginia won’t even pass a baby-step measure like this in the wake of the Virginia Tech killings, then all hope for any sensible gun laws in that state is lost. As I said back in April, we are left to wait until some other deranged person decides to top Cho Seung-Hui’s grim record.

After this was written, we had the NIU shootings. Did he get those guns illegally? Nope.

The graduate student bought two of his four guns at a Champaign, Ill., gun store Saturday — indicating that he had been planning his assault for at least six days, ABC News' Richard Esposito and Pierre Thomas report. The other weapons were purchased from the same store in December and August 2007.

Intelligent Design: Evolution = Holocaust!

The upcoming creationist propaganda piece, Expelled, has been exposed. Now, SciAm takes a turn, and it isn't pretty:

April 9, 2008
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed--Ben Stein Launches a Science-free Attack on Darwin
In a new documentary film, actor, game show host and financial columnist Ben Stein falls for the pseudoscience of intelligent design
By Michael Shermer

Editor's note: This story is part of a series "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed--Scientific American's Take."

In 1974 I matriculated at Pepperdine University as a born-again Christian who rejected Darwinism and evolutionary theory—not because I knew anything about it (I didn't) but because I thought that in order to believe in God and accept the Bible as true, you had to be a creationist. What I knew about evolution came primarily from creationist literature, so when I finally took a course in evolutionary theory in graduate school I realized that I had been hoodwinked. What I discovered is a massive amount of evidence from multiple sciences—geology, paleontology, biogeography, zoology, botany, comparative anatomy, molecular biology, genetics and embryology—demonstrating that evolution happened.

It was with some irony for me, then, that I saw Ben Stein's antievolution documentary film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, opens with the actor, game show host and speechwriter for Richard Nixon addressing a packed audience of adoring students at Pepperdine University, apparently falling for the same trap I did.

Actually they didn't. The biology professors at Pepperdine assure me that their mostly Christian students fully accept the theory of evolution. So who were these people embracing Stein's screed against science? Extras. According to Lee Kats, associate provost for research and chair of natural science at Pepperdine, "the production company paid for the use of the facility just as all other companies do that film on our campus" but that "the company was nervous that they would not have enough people in the audience so they brought in extras. Members of the audience had to sign in and a staff member reports that no more than two to three Pepperdine students were in attendance. Mr. Stein's lecture on that topic was not an event sponsored by the university." And this is one of the least dishonest parts of the film.

At the Crossroads of Conspiracy

Ben Stein came to my office to interview me about what I was told was a film about "the intersection of science and religion" called Crossroads (yet another deception). I knew something was afoot when his first question to me was on whether or not I think someone should be fired for expressing dissenting views. I pressed Stein for specifics: Who is being fired for what, when and where? In my experience, people are usually fired for reasons having to do with budgetary constraints, incompetence or not fulfilling the terms of a contract. Stein finally asked my opinion on people being fired for endorsing intelligent design. I replied that I know of no instance where such a firing has happened.

This seemingly innocent observation was turned into a filmic confession of ignorance when my on-camera interview abruptly ends there, because when I saw Expelled at a preview screening at the National Religious Broadcasters's convention (tellingly, the film is being targeted primarily to religious and conservative groups), I discovered that the central thesis of the film is a conspiracy theory about the systematic attempt to keep intelligent design creationism out of American classrooms and culture.

Stein's case for conspiracy centers on a journal article written by Stephen Meyer, a senior fellow at the intelligent design think tank Discovery Institute and professor at the theologically conservative Christian Palm Beach Atlantic University. Meyer's article, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories," was published in the June 2004 Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, the voice of the Biological Society with a circulation of less than 300 people. In other words, from the get-go this was much ado about nothing.

Nevertheless, some members of the organization voiced their displeasure, so the society's governing council released a statement explaining, "Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The council, which includes officers, elected councilors and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings." So how did it get published? In the words of journal's managing editor at the time, Richard Sternberg, "it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper, and as I was best qualified among the editors, I chose myself." And what qualified Sternberg to choose himself? Perhaps it was his position as a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design, which promotes intelligent design, along with being on the editorial board of the Occasional Papers of the Baraminology Study Group, a creationism journal committed to the literal interpretation of Genesis. Or perhaps it was the fact that he is a signatory of the Discovery Institute's "100 Scientists who Doubt Darwinism" statement.

Meyer's article is the first intelligent design paper ever published in a peer-reviewed journal, but it deals less with systematics (or taxonomy, Sternberg's specialty) than it does paleontology, for which many members of the society would have been better qualified than he to peer-review the paper. (In fact, at least three members were experts on the Cambrian invertebrates discussed in Meyer's paper). Meyer claims that the "Cambrian explosion" of complex hard-bodied life forms over 500 million years ago could not have come about through Darwinian gradualism. The fact that geologists call it an "explosion" leads creationists to glom onto the word as a synonym for "sudden creation." After four billion years of an empty Earth, God reached down from the heavens and willed trilobites into existence ex nihilo. In reality, according to paleontologist Donald Prothero, in his 2007 magisterial book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters (Columbia University Press): "The major groups of invertebrate fossils do not all appear suddenly at the base of the Cambrian but are spaced out over strata spanning 80 million years—hardly an instantaneous 'explosion'! Some groups appear tens of millions of years earlier than others. And preceding the Cambrian explosion was a long slow buildup to the first appearance of typical Cambrian shelled invertebrates." If an intelligent designer did create the Cambrian life forms, it took 80 million years of gradual evolution to do it.

Stein, however, is uninterested in paleontology, or any other science for that matter. His focus is on what happened to Sternberg, who is portrayed in the film as a martyr to the cause of free speech. "As a result of publishing the Meyer article," Stein intones in his inimitably droll voice, "Dr. Sternberg found himself the object of a massive campaign that smeared his reputation and came close to destroying his career." According to Sternberg, "after the publication of the Meyer article the climate changed from being chilly to being outright hostile. Shunned, yes, and discredited." As a result, Sternberg filed a claim against the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) for being "targeted for retaliation and harassment" for his religious beliefs. "I was viewed as an intellectual terrorist," he tells Stein. In August 2005 his claim was rejected. According to Jonathan Coddington, his supervisor at the NMNH, Sternberg was not discriminated against, was never dismissed, and in fact was not even a paid employee, but just an unpaid research associate who had completed his three-year term!

Who Speaks for Science?

The rest of the martyrdom stories in Expelled have similar, albeit less menacing explanations, detailed at www.expelledexposed.com, where physical anthropologist Eugenie Scott and her tireless crew at the National Center for Science Education have tracked down the specifics of each case. Astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, for example, did not get tenure at Iowa State University in Ames and is portrayed in the film as sacrificed on the alter of tenure denial because of his authorship of a pro–intelligent design book entitled The Privileged Planet (Regnery Publishing, 2004). As Scott told me, "Tenure is based on the evaluation of academic performance at one's current institution for the previous seven years." Although Gonzales was apparently a productive scientist before he moved to Iowa State, Scott says that "while there, his publication record tanked, he brought in only a couple of grants—one of which was from the [John] Templeton Foundation to write The Privileged Planet—didn't have very many graduate students, and those he had never completed their degrees. Lots of people don't get tenure, for the same legitimate reasons that Gonzalez didn't get tenure."

Tenure in any department is serious business, because it means, essentially, employment for life. Tenure decisions for astronomers are based on the number and quality of scientific papers published, the prestige of the journal in which they are published, the number of grants funded (universities are ranked, in part, by the grant-productivity of their faculties), the number of graduate students who completed their program, the amount of telescope time allocated as well as the trends in each of these categories, indicating whether or not the candidate shows potential for continued productivity. In point of fact, according to Gregory Geoffroy, president of Iowa State, "Over the past 10 years, four of the 12 candidates who came up for review in the physics and astronomy department were not granted tenure." Gonzales was one of them, and for good reasons, despite Stein's claim of his "stellar academic record."

For her part, Scott is presented in the film as the cultural filter for determining what is and is not science, begging the rhetorical question: Just who does she think she is anyway? Her response to me was as poignant as it was instructive: "Who is Ben Stein to say what is science and not science? None of us speak for science. Scientists vary all over the map in their religious and philosophical views—for example, Francis Collins [the evangelical Christian and National Human Genome Research Institute director], so no one can speak for science."

From Haeckel to Hitler

Even more disturbing than these distortions is the film's other thesis that Darwinism inexorably leads to atheism, communism, fascism, and could be blamed for the Holocaust. Despite the fact that hundreds of millions of religious believers fully accept the theory of evolution, Stein claims that we are in an ideological war between a scientific natural worldview that leads to Stalin's gulag archipelago and Nazi gas chambers, and a religious supernatural worldview that leads to freedom, justice and the American way. The film's visual motifs leave no doubt in the viewer's emotional brain that Darwinism is leading America into an immoral quagmire. We're going to hell in a Darwinian handbasket. Cleverly edited interview excerpts from scientists are interspersed with various black-and-white clips for guilt by association with: bullies beating up on a 98-pound weakling, Charlton Heston's character in Planet of the Apes being blasted by a water hose, Nikita Khrushchev pounding his fist on a United Nations desk, East Germans captured trying to scale the Berlin Wall, and Nazi crematoria remains and Holocaust victims being bulldozed into mass graves. This propaganda production would make Joseph Goebbels proud.

It is true that the Nazis did occasionally adapt a warped version of social Darwinism proffered by the 19th-century German biologist Ernst Haeckel in a "survival of the fittest races" mode. But this rationale was only in the service of justifying the anti-Semitism that had been inculcated into European culture centuries before. Because Stein is Jewish, he surely knows that the pogroms against his people began ages before Darwin and that the German people were, in Harvard University political scientist Daniel Goldhagen's apt phrase (and book title), "Hitler's willing executioners."

When Stein interviewed me and asked my opinion on the impact of Darwinism on culture, he seemed astonishingly ignorant of the many other ways that Darwinism has been used and abused by political and economic ideologues of all stripes. Because Stein is a well-known economic conservative (and because I had just finished writing my book The Mind of the Market, a chapter of which compares Adam Smith's "invisible hand" with Charles Darwin's natural selection), I pointed out how the captains of industry in the late 19th and early 20th centuries justified their beliefs in laissez-faire capitalism through the social Darwinism of "survival of the fittest corporations." And, more recently, I noted that Enron's CEO, Jeffrey Skilling, said his favorite book in Harvard Business School was Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene (first published in 1976), a form of Darwinism that Skilling badly misinterpreted. Scientific theorists cannot be held responsible for how their ideas are employed in the service of nonscientific agendas.

Questioning Darwinism

A final leitmotif running through Expelled is inscribed in chalk by Stein in repetitive lines on a classroom blackboard: "Do not question Darwinism." Anyone who thinks that scientists do not question Darwinism has never been to an evolutionary conference. At the World Summit on Evolution held in the Galapagos Islands during June 2005, for example, I witnessed a scientific theory rich in controversy and disputation. Paleontologist William Schopf of the University of California, Los Angeles, for instance, explained that "We know the overall sequence of life's origin, that the origin of life was early, microbial and unicellular, and that an RNA world preceded today's DNA–protein world." He openly admitted, however, "We do not know the precise environments of the early earth in which these events occurred; we do not know the exact chemistry of some of the important chemical reactions that led to life; and we do not have any knowledge of life in a pre-RNA world."

Stanford University biologist Joan Roughgarden declared that Darwin's theory of sexual selection (a specific type of natural selection) is wrong in its claim that females choose mates who are more attractive and well-armed. Calling neo-Darwinians "bullies," the University of Massachusetts Amherst biologist Lynn Margulis pronounced that "neo-Darwinism is dead" and, echoing Darwin, she said, "It was like confessing a murder when I discovered I was not a neo-Darwinist." Why? Because, Margulis explained, "Random changes in DNA alone do not lead to speciation. Symbiogenesis—the appearance of new behaviors, tissues, organs, organ systems, physiologies or species as a result of symbiont interaction—is the major source of evolutionary novelty in eukaryotes: animals, plants and fungi."

Finally, Cornell University evolutionary theorist William Provine (featured in Expelled) presented 11 problems with evolutionary theory, including: "Natural selection does not shape an adaptation or cause a gene to spread over a population or really do anything at all. It is instead the result of specific causes: hereditary changes, developmental causes, ecological causes and demography. Natural selection is the result of these causes, not a cause that is by itself. It is not a mechanism."

Despite this public questioning of Darwinism (and neo-Darwinism), which I reported on in Scientific American, Schopf, Roughgarden, Margulis and Provine have not been persecuted, shunned, fired or even Expelled. Why? Because they are doing science, not religion. It is perfectly okay to question Darwinism (or any other "-ism" in science), as long as there is a way to test your challenge. Intelligent design creationists, by contrast, have no interest in doing science at all. In the words of mathematician and philosopher William Dembski of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and a key witness in Stein's prosecution of evolution, from a 2000 speech at the National Religious Broadcasters convention in Anaheim, Calif.: "Intelligent design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God…. And if there's anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ as the free reign of the spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view."

When will people learn that Darwinian naturalism has nothing whatsoever to do with religious supernaturalism? By the very definitions of the words it is not possible for supernatural processes to be understood by a method designed strictly for analyzing natural causes. Unless God reaches into our world through natural and detectable means, he remains wholly outside the realm of science.

So, yes Mr. Stein, sometimes walls are bad (Berlin), but other times good walls make good neighbors. Let's build up that wall separating church and state, along with science and religion, and let freedom ring for all people to believe or disbelieve what they will.

Michael Shermer is Publisher of Skeptic (www.skeptic.com) and the author of Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design. His new book is The Mind of the Market.

Evolution = Hitler. Hmmm...sounds familiar to me for some reason.

The Virginian-Pilot's Bill Sizemore on Pat Robertson

My friend and yours, American Talibanist Pat Robertson, was exposed a while back for his role in denying compensation to a sponsor of his "age-defying shake" and threatening him when he chose to use legal means to recoup $. The Virginian-Pilot exposed Robertson, and he threatened to sue them...only to come back some time later (after talking to a lawyer who told him we have this pesky thing called "freedom of the press" -- Robertson never passed the bar exam after getting his JD in 1955) and try to buy off the paper.

The author of the original expose, Bill Sizemore, now has another great article on Robertson's past and details on how he came into the ministry and got involved with TV.

From Sizemore's piece:

In the decade between the time The 700 Club became a daily program and the midseventies, CBN purchased a new facility in Portsmouth with a 175,000-watt transmitter, then a staggering 2.25-million-watt transmitter that could reach most of the mid-Atlantic coastline. Robertson also purchased five radio stations in New York State and new TV stations in Atlanta and Dallas. Then, in 1976, CBN bought a satellite and, months later, broadcast its first feed from Jerusalem. Robertson’s teleministry was now big business. In 1972, Robertson wrote that you can’t “worry about technical production when the cameraman is caught up in the Spirit and begins to weep over someone’s testimony . . . Who cares about the time if God is moving?” But only a few years later, CBN’s brand of production had become distinctly professional. No longer were broadcast slots subject to whim. No more was airtime filled with homemade puppet shows.

Along with the increasingly political slant of the show came more and more secularized programming, aimed at broadening the network’s appeal. CBN began showing family-friendly reruns like Lassie to help finance pricey advertisements for The 700 Club on other networks. Soon, secular shows took up the bulk of CBN’s airtime. This shift led to Robertson’s first run-in with the government, when the state of Massachusetts realized that the programming on WXNE-TV in Boston, purchased by CBN in 1977, was more than 50 percent secular. The station could be tax-exempt only if it functioned as a church instead of a business. Robertson subsequently shifted his holdings to a new company, Continental Broadcasting—some said this shift was to prevent the state from accessing CBN’s financial records.

This glitch did little to slow CBN’s progress, however. The station was finally beginning to turn a profit, after years of surviving on charity from Robertson’s father and local donors. The gifts had often been generous (a local car dealer, for example, once gave Robertson a free Lincoln), but Robertson’s wife still had to work in a local hospital to support their four children—two boys and two girls. By the middle seventies, though, Robertson’s risky decision to “renounce wealth and privilege” to pursue a life of Christian televangelism was suddenly paying off in a whole lot of wealth and privilege.

Robertson is one of the loudest Religious Right figures, and IMHO, there is more reason for him to be investigated more than the six that Grassley has recently focused on. Why? He's used non-profit resources to push his own for-profit ventures for years now. Even with the shake, for-profit, which he promotes on a tax-free non-profit religious channel. The lines between churches and businesses have become far too blurred, and it's about damned time to levy taxes against churches who sell lots of products and make lots of money -- they forfeit their right to claim tax exemption when they start running like a for-profit entity.

He and Dobson have for years opposed the McCain-Feingold Finance Reforms that put a dent in their ability to buy influence in DC. Not that Robertson doesn't still have enormous clout there, especially with Bush in the WH and a huge percentage of Regent grads in Washington (but not Adam Key). I think much of the public is misinformed: the overwhelming majority of people do want church-state separation, not the other way around. Here are some of Robertson's greatest hits:

“I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he [Hugo Chavez] thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it.” [Link]

Robertson suggested that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s recent stroke was the result of Sharon’s policy, which he claimed is “dividing God’s land.” [Link]

“You know some of them [college professors] are killers!” [Link]

“I believe it’s [Islam] motivated by demonic power. It is satanic and it’s time we recognize what we’re dealing with. … [T]he goal of Islam, ladies and gentlemen, whether you like it or not, is world domination.” [Link]

[The following are from the American Taliban]:

"The Islamic people, the Arabs, were the ones who captured Africans, put them in slavery, and sent them to America as slaves. Why would the people in America want to embrace the religion of slavers?"

"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different...More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history."

"When lawlessness is abroad in the land, the same thing will happen here that happened in Nazi Germany. Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals – the two things seem to go together."

"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians."

"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense, I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist."

"I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period."

"[Homosexuals] want to come into churches and disrupt church services and throw blood all around and try to give people AIDS and spit in the face of ministers."

"[Planned Parenthood] is teaching kids to fornicate, teaching people to have adultery, every kind of bestiality, homosexuality, lesbianism – everything that the Bible condemns."

Gotta love him.

Update on Grassley & ministers investigation

I was reading about additional craziness from John Hagee, and it reminded me of something that I'd written about a while back but forgotten about. First, the article on Hagee divulged much of what I already knew -- that he and his ilk want war with Iran, like, yesterday. Why is it that tying this guy and Parsley around McCain's neck isn't a toxic political millstone? The double standard applied to Rev. Wright and Obama is obvious here.

As I read about Hagee's lavish lifestyle and million-dollar salary, it reminded me of Sen. Grassley's investigation into financial impropriety in "prosperity" churches. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has been leading an investigation by the Senate Finance Committee into the finances of six ministries commonly affiliated with "prosperity preaching" with the aim of updating the tax code to appropriately deal with this malfeasance. I admitted a little skepticism at the utility and motives of this investigation when I first read about it. At the time, I said:

I read this the other day and I'm still scratching my head. I mean, I dislike Benny "Let the Bodies Hit the Floor" Hinn as much as anyone, and I think the whole lot of those six are probably as corrupt and unethical as it gets. However, I just don't understand the legal power that a Congressperson has to audit the finances of these people.

The IRS? Sure! But Congress...!?!? We'll wait and see if this goes anywhere.

It turns out that three of the six ministries are cooperating, and have until March 31st, according to this press release:

Baucus and Grassley lead the committee with exclusive Senate jurisdiction over tax policy; the ministry inquiry that Grassley launched last November is meant to gauge the effectiveness of certain tax-exempt policies.

“This ought to clear up any misunderstanding about our interest and the committee’s role,” Grassley said. “We have an obligation to oversee how the tax laws are working for both tax-exempt organizations and taxpayers. Just like with reviews of other tax-exempt organizations in recent years, I look forward to the cooperation of these ministries in the weeks and months ahead.”

Grassley wrote to six ministries on Nov. 5, 2007, asking a series of questions on the nonprofit organizations’ expenses, treatment of donations and business practices. The questions were based on presentations of material from watchdog groups and whistleblowers and on investigative reports in local media outlets. One of the six ministries – Joyce Meyer Ministries of Fenton, Mo. – has cooperated substantially with his request and provided the requested information. Benny Hinn Ministries of Grapevine, Texas, has indicated a willingness to cooperate and provided answers to
five of the 28 questions so far.

Representatives for Randy and Paula White of Without Walls International Church/Paula White Ministries, Tampa, Fla., verbally have indicated to Finance Committee staff that they will cooperate. Baucus and Grassley wrote to them on March 11 to thank them for the verbal commitment and to reiterate the committee’s role.

The remaining three ministries have not cooperated, citing privacy protections or questioning the committee’s standing to request the information. Baucus and Grassley wrote to them on March 11 to describe the committee’s jurisdiction and role in determining the effectiveness of tax policy developed by the committee, distinct from the Internal Revenue Service’s role, which is to enforce existing law. The three ministries are: Kenneth and Gloria Copeland of Kenneth Copeland Ministries, Newark, Texas; Creflo and Taffi Dollar of World Changers Church International / Creflo Dollar Ministries College Park, Ga.; and Eddie L. Long of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church/Eddie L. Long Ministries, Lithonia, Ga.

The committee’s jurisdiction includes the federal tax policy governing the billions of dollars donated to and controlled by the nation’s tax-exempt groups. The federal government forgoes the collection of billions of dollars to tax-exempt organizations every year.

It doesn't surprise me much about the Copelands or the Dollars. I don't know anything about Long, but I am quite familiar with Copeland and his reputation. I was pleasantly surprised about Hinn -- I figured him for one of those likeliest to resist, rather than cooperate. Randy and Paula White have faced enough personal problems recently with the divorce, so facing additional (scandalous) financial ones was probably a smart decision they made.

While you can read the pseudo-justifications for refusing to cooperate proffered by Creflo and Ken at their own sites, Eddie offers no such attempt at saving face. A little digging finds that some of these jokers are getting paid over $1M salaries. Fuc*ing absurd. Long's church has a gym inside ("Samson's Gym") that offers memberships and massages (all for a large fee, of course) -- the divisions between business and church blurred for these individuals long ago.

McCain's ties to Rod Parsley and John Hagee in TAP

**UPDATE: This story has legs.**

Two articles by The American Prospect on the link between McCain and two of the nuttiest religious nutballs out there -- Rod Parsley and John Hagee (also this):

1. McCain's "Spiritual Guide" (on Parsley)
2. McCain's Apocalyptic Support (on Hagee)

PS: Also see this and this.

And here are the two articles' full-text:

1. McCain's "Spiritual Guide" (on Parsley)

Yesterday at a rally in Cincinnati, Ohio, John McCain was flanked by Rod Parsley, who called the candidate "strong, true, consistent conservative," according to the Columbus Dispatch. McCain referred to Parsley, who preaches the same word of faith doctrine as the televangelists under investigation by McCain's fellow Republican Senator Charles Grassley, a "spiritual guide."

Later, according to the Dispatch:


Parsley said he supports McCain because the senator will be tough on national security and "protect the unborn."


The megachurch pastor, criticized in the past for mixing religion and politics, acknowledged that McCain isn't the ideal candidate for evangelical Christians, who overwhelmingly backed President Bush in 2004.

"Yet at the same time, when you put John McCain up against Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, the ideological and philosophical differences are overwhelming," Parsley said.

In conservative circles, Parsley's considered one of the religious kingmakers in the 2008 presidential race. While he's not universally loved in evangelical circles by any stretch of the imagination, McCain is likely very pleased with the, er -- shall we call it an endorsement? Add John Hagee, the chairman of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), along with McCain-endorser Gary Bauer, who serves on CUFI's board, and Parsley, who is a CUFI regional director, and it looks like McCain is lining up the support of a contingent of the Christian right that could make McCain's off-the-cuff bomb-bomb-Iran and 100 years in Iraq remarks seem, well, prophetic.


--Sarah Posner

Posted by Sarah Posner on February 27, 2008 10:56 AM

2. McCain's Apocalyptic Support (on Hagee)

John McCain picked up the endorsement yesterday of San Antonio televangelist and Christians United for Israel (CUFI) founder John Hagee, who cited the candidate's opposition to abortion and "support" of Israel.

Even though Hagee hosted Mike Huckabee for a guest sermon at his church last December, his support for McCain is not a huge surprise. Last year, Hagee and McCain had a private breakfast in San Antonio after which Hagee declared McCain "solidly pro-Israel", which, in CUFI parlance, is code for opposition to a two-state solution. Hagee contributed $1,000 to McCain's campaign (although he also later contributed to Huckabee's as well.)

This past summer, McCain appeared at CUFI's annual summit, where he "joked" about how hard it is to do God's work in the city of Satan. (He repeated a similar line earlier this week at a town hall event in Cincinnati at which McCain "spiritual guide" Rod Parsley shared the stage.) While McCain might be able to laugh this off as a little quip about the foibles of Washington, to followers of Hagee and Parsley, "spiritual warfare" is a very real part of everyday life, in which they, as godly people, do battle with Satanic forces. When talking about CUFI, though, talking about battles is really no joking matter, since Hagee has been beating the drum for war with Iran -- which he believes will result in the world-ending battle at Armageddon -- for over two years.

At the CUFI summit, McCain got a lukewarm reception, and many participants I spoke with were skeptical about his socially conservative credentials -- although Israel was a top issue, abortion was also high on their lists. Most I spoke to supported Huckabee, who at that point (July 2007) was still an asterisk, and some others Sam Brownback -- who is now supporting McCain. But as far as Hagee's endorsement goes, I guess there's not much of a question now what Hagee's upcoming sermon is going to be about.

--Sarah Posner


Posted by Sarah Posner on February 28, 2008 8:37 AM

Hagee is probably worse than Parsley, although it's a tough call. The former is in love with the idea of starting WW3 with Iran. I love how even the most supposedly "independent" and "maverick" members of the GOP are still groveling suckers at the feet of these fat hypocritical preachers.

Creationism by region

My rant from a while back about the South is now supplanted by this regional assessment of creationism:

"Muslims cannot be good Americans" - a dialog

I'm having a hilarious email exchange with a group of Christians over a dumb email that has been circulated called "Muslims cannot be good Americans." The latest victim, Jerry, has written me back

Jerry,

I'm not sure if you got the email response I sent to Margaret before you composed yours or not, but I think mine makes clear that I was making a rhetorical point. My responses were SUPPOSED to be absurd, just as the original email purporting that Muslims cannot be good citizens was absurd. Read it below if you missed it before:
___________________________________________
(beginning of email to Margaret that was CC'd to you)

You may call me Daniel.

I don't think you got the point of my email. The point of my email was to show that just as Scriptures can be used to claim that Muslims cannot be good Americans, so they can also be used against Christians. And my suspicion is that, just as you feel that the ones I used were taken out of context, so many good American Muslims would probably say the exact same about the email that maligned them.

If you really believe that our nation was founded on "Christian principles," I fear you may be engaged in some quasi-revisionism of history: America was founded by a revolution against monarchy, in direct contradiction to the Bible's (NEW Testament) mandates on submitting to authority (Romans 13) and rendering unto Caesar that which is due him. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that in any way, shape, or form looks like representative democracy and the free society that we have. After their return from exile, and after the Maccabean Revolt, the Hebrews lived under a theocracy until they were conquered by the Romans, who allowed them some freedom but eventually felt their society too incapable of assimilation. Never did the Jews enjoy any semblance of freedom of religion, expression/speech, assembly, petition, press...the very things our country is founded on. I simply don't understand people who claim that this nation is somehow founded "upon" God/the Bible. I see very little concern from God/the Bible over civil liberties, domestic freedoms and taxes.

The American Revolution began as a reprisal against "taxation without representation," hardly a holy motive. While I'm certainly glad that it did, the liberties that some Christians take with re-writing the motives and actions of our nation's founding is troubling to me. While most of the Declaration's signers were Christians, a notable number of them were not, and our nation's Constitution was literally the first in the history of the world to leave out any reference to a deity of any kind. A thorough debunking of some "Christian nation" claims can be found here:

http://www.bjcpa.org/resources/pubs/pub_walker_barton.htm
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2003/12/answering_a_christian_nation_e_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/08/staclu_and_the_christian_natio.php
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/10/madison_and_the_christian_nati.php

As Ed said in the third link above,

This nation was founded by and is based entirely upon the Constitution. If it was really founded on "Christian principles", then it shouldn't be too difficult to point to specific provisions in the Constitution and point to their analogs in the Bible. I doubt you can. I can point to provision after provision in the Constitution and trace them directly to the writings of John Locke and the Baron de Montesquieu, among other Enlightenment thinkers. Separation of powers? Checks and balances? The notion of unalienable rights? Religious freedom? These things are utterly non-existent in the Bible, and were throughout the history of Christian thought as well. They come from Enlightenment philosophy, not from Christianity.

If you can show me how any of these things are "Christian principles" from the Bible, I will stand corrected and apologize. Otherwise, what I would embrace, if I were you, are the concepts and freedoms afforded us in the Constitution, all of which were paid for with the blood of patriots, none "given" as some sort of free gift from God. It is their blood paying for those very things that enable you to worship and vote as you please.

By the way, thousands of people in the South used the Bible to JUSTIFY their slavery. Read Ex. 21. Simply put, the Bible can be used to argue from or for many things. I certainly don't find women's rights in the Bible, which is why it took so long for progressives (like me) to insist on women's suffrage (I insist on other, modern progressive reforms, of course).

Warmly,
Daniel M.

(end of email to Margaret that was CC'd to you)
______________________________________

Now, I will analyze your points below, prefaced by three carets ">>>". Keep in mind that I was composing these to sound like and follow the same reasoning as the points made about "good Muslims":

Jerry Kaifetz wrote:

Margaret, this is some of most convoluted, tortured and twisted reasoning ever!

Theologically - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to Jesus, the Lord of Hosts. The first commandment ("Thou shalt have no other gods before me.") condemns those who worship any other than the biblical god. (Ex 20:3)This is the entire foundational basis of our country: "One nation under God." The Founding Fathers ADVOCATED putting God first. This is neither mutually exclusive, NOR a zero sum game.

>>>"One nation under God" was a MUCH later addition to our country's heritage -- the Founders wisely chose a secular motto: e pluribus unum.

Religiously - no . . . Because no other religion is accepted by his Jesus except Christianity (John 14:6, Bible). Christianity has always taught civil harmony with peaceful religions of a different stripe. How was Jesus a bad Roman citizen?

>>>I never said he was. However, you had perhaps better read over many of the parts in the NT that indicate that the world would "hate" them and persecute them, and so the idea that Christianity was going to peacefully coexist with secular societies was never advocated. If you insist you're right, we can trade chapter & verse, I guess.

Scripturally - no. . . Because his allegiance is to Jesus, the doctrines of Christianity and the Bible.This is the MOST absurd of all! (I am incredulous that any thinking person could truly hold this view.) Allegiance to Christ was foundational in the patriotism of most of the founding fathers. Madison said it was essential to good citizenship. Even the Deists like Franklin & Washington held the highest place for God in this system of thought.

>>>Read much of the above email to Margaret. The Founders used the terms "religion" and "morality" very broadly -- they never claimed a person needed Christianity to be a good citizen, but they did think that people needed a form of religion to be moral. Of course, they were wrong. They were wrong about many things: slavery, women's rights, voting rights...

Geographically - no. . . . Because his God favors Israel "above all people," (Ex 19:5) and Jesus said, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! (Luke 13:34)" The Jews were instructed to "purge" the land of all other ethnicities and religions by destro! ying them. God used the Jews as His agent for the destiny He had decreed. No Christians should ever take the worm's-eye-view of this & accuse God of ethnic cleansing. (Biblically, this comes awfully close to "the unpardonable sin.")

>>>Obviously you aren't disputing that Christians believe that they and Jews are God's favored people. As I said above, when I composed these, they were SUPPOSED to look stupid.

Socially - no. . . . Because his allegiance to Christianity forbids him to make friends with pagan witches or warlocks, and the Bible commands him to put them to death (Lev 20:27). So making friends with witches and warlocks is a prerequisite of good citizenship?????? Thankfully, we still have the freedom to choose our friends.

>>>Not only making friends. They were required to stone "outsiders" in terms of religion.

Politically - no. . . . Because he must submit to the prophets (spiritual leaders), who teach the supremacy of Israel and the eventual destruction of all unbelievers. He must believe that all people of all other religions are inferior and will be cast into the lake of fire. This is a positively ridiculous and laughable interpretation of Hebrews 13:17, the passage on pastoral authority. It is off by light years! The obedience suggested by Paul has to do with a reasoned yielding to persuasive understanding and is based on the Greek word pisteuo -- meaning FAITH. The Lake of Fire will be populated by those who have rejected God's salvation. "Inferior" is hardly the word I would use to describe them.

>>>Three questions: 1) Do the prophets teach the supremacy of Israel and the eventual destruction of all unbelievers? 2) Must believers must yield to the words of the prophets? 3) How are any of your responses contradictory to what I said?

Domestically - no. . . . People are given instructions for how to hold, sell and trade slaves, and also how to have more than one wife (Ex 21). If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. (Ex 21:7) If you see a pretty woman among the captives and would like her for a wife, then just bring her home and "go in unto her." Later, if you decide you don't like her, you can "let her go." (Deut 21:11-14) If a man marries, then decides! that he hates his wife, he can claim she wasn't a virgin when they we re married. If her father can't produce the "tokens of her virginity" (bloody sheets), then the woman is to be stoned to death at her father's doorstep (Deut 22:13-21). If your brother, son, daughter, wife, or friend tries to get you to worship another god, "thou shalt surely kill him, thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death." (Deut 13:6-10) Women are inferior in that they are forbidden from entering the holiest of holies and cannot be priests (1 Tim 2:11-12). They are also "unclean" during their monthly period. It is sheer idiocy to judge anyone's moral code other than in the historical context in which they lived. Makes no more sense than to call people idiots for eating with dirty hands before germs were discovered.

>>>Again, keep in mind that the verses' context for the original email was not clear, either. However, do you need me to go to the parts of the New Testament that talk about slavery? Try 1 Cor 7, Ephesians 6, Colossians 4, Titus 2, Philemon 1, &c. Never once is slavery made an explicit sin in the Bible. Jesus never felt it was necessary to condemn slavery, although he had openings (Matt 18, Luke 7/Matt 8/, &c.) My point is that the Bible's prescription of how to treat women & slaves is hardly progressive or modern, and this applies as much to Judaism and Christianity as any charge against Islam.

Intellectually - no. . . . Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on UN-Biblical principles, like the freedom of religion and conscience, and the freedom of speech and thought. The Bible is clear that all our words and thoughts should be taken under the captivity of Christ and that there is only one true religion. The first commandment ("Thou shalt have no other gods before me.") ! condemns those who worship any other than the biblical god. (Ex 20:3) There is no more thoroughly biblically based civil document in human history than the US Constitution.

>>>That's a laugh. If the Constitution was really founded on "Christian principles" and the Bible, then it shouldn't be too difficult to point to specific provisions in the Constitution and point to their analogs in the Bible. I doubt you can. I can point to provision after provision in the Constitution and trace them directly to the writings of John Locke and the Baron de Montesquieu, among other Enlightenment thinkers. Separation of powers? Checks and balances? The notion of unalienable rights? Religious freedom? These things are utterly non-existent in the Bible, and were throughout the history of Christian thought as well. They come from Enlightenment philosophy, not from Christianity -- the Church had never developed anything resembling these concepts because they aren't found in the Bible. Most of the Enlightenment thinkers that developed these ideas used philosophy to argue for them; none used Scripture. They laid out their premises and drew support for certain conclusions using lines of reasoning and evidence. That is exactly how I prefer to come to my own conclusions. Am I saying, then, that this means that those concepts are UN-biblical? Some may be, from certain perspectives, but I don't really care either way. Most aren't "UN-biblical" or whatever, but if you can show me how any of these things are "Christian principles" from the Bible, I will stand corrected and apologize. Otherwise, what I would embrace, if I were you, are the concepts and freedoms afforded us in the Constitution, all of which were paid for with the blood of patriots, none "given" as some sort of free gift from God. It is their blood paying for those very things that enable you to worship and vote as you please.

Philosophically - no. . . . Because Christianity, Jesus, and the Old Testament do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Christianity cannot co-exist. Every Christian government is either dictatorial or autocratic -- just consider the Dark Ages and the Inquisition! Ex 22:20 says, "He who sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed." If this commandment is obeyed, then the four billion people who do not believe in the biblical god must be killed. Ex 23:13 says, "don't even mention the names of the other gods." This violates the freedom of speech. Ex 23:24 says, "Do not allow others to worship a different god. Conquer them and destroy their religious property." This violates the freedom of religion. Ex 23:32 says, "Stay away from those who worship a different god." What kind of uneducated fool would not understand that the Bible contains a NEW TESTAMENT that Christ brought to REPLACE the OLD COVENANT! That is a lot like saying, "God causes volcanoes to erupt, and that is violent, so God is violent and should not be worshipped!"

>>>What kind of uneducated fool wouldn't know that Jesus said, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but these words [the words of the law] will never pass away," (Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33) What kind of uneducated fool wouldn't realize that they have to choose one of two things:

1) That God is a moral relativist -- the things he told one group of people to do were good for them, but not for us. That means God's law is morally relative; we have a different set of standards for what is good and what is evil than they do because these standards are not objective and universal. What was moral then may or may not be moral now; what was immoral then may or may not be immoral now.
2) That God is a moral absolutist -- the standards of good and evil that God applied in the past, to any race or people or time period, are just are correct and true today as they were then. What was moral then is moral now; what was immoral then is immoral now.

Which side do you come down on?

Spiritually - no. . . . Because when we declare ! "one nation under God," this unnamed God is all-inclusive, while Jesus should be named explicitly. He says in Mark 8:38, "If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels." The sovereignty of Christ has always made a complete provision for man's free will. The smallest children have no problem understanding that.

>>>The Founders were wise enough to never mistake freedom of religion for freedom of denomination. They never used "Jesus" in any way in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence. Keep in mind that I was composing these to sound like and follow the same reasoning as the points made about "good Muslims"...

Therefore after much study and deliberation, perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL CHRISTIANS in this country.

Margaret, this person has some incredibly deep-seated bitterness toward God, and just enough intellectual capacity to be dangerous to biblically and historically underinformed people. His entire system of reasoning is the most bizarre house of cards that I have ever seen! He is unable to distinguish between Christian and Muslim principles, and paints religion with the broadest and most careless brush I have ever seen. Sadly, he has bet his eternal soul that the Bible is a lie, and then compounded the consequences by infusing his poison into the lives of others. jk

>>>If you say so, jk. You actually know nothing of me or my religious beliefs. Furthermore, you are obviously incapable of discerning that my response was meant to show how DUMB it was to try to say Muslims couldn't be good Americans, and that it was EQUALLY DUMB to say the same about Christians. I think your reading was careless, likely because you got emotionally invested in what was written and in refuting it before even bothering to figure out what the reason for my writing it was. As I said in the original email:

"See how poorly this works out? Anyone can use Bible verses and this sort of logic to say the same thing about Christians as the email says about Muslims."

And so obviously I meant it worked out just as "poorly" against Christians. Perhaps next time you'll invest some time and energy in reading comprehension before spending time and energy "refuting" points that were made in futility. Best of luck with that.

Highest regards,
Daniel M.

s

The GOP & race

If the muck of Ron Paul's racist nonsense isn't a clear enough demonstration of the fundamental differences between the GOP & the party with a black man and a woman as its frontrunners, then perhaps Mike Huckabee's support of the Confederacy is (and don't forget his lovely and telling rant about aligning the Constitution with "the Word of the Living God.") Or, maybe the right wing's reaction to this...whatever recent example you choose, the GOP has a race image problem, if not a race problem.

Science Debate 2008

This is probably old news to some/most, but I wanted to highlight the Science Debate 2008 site and cause, as it's definitely in line with my reasoning for my YouTube question and the link to firstfreedomfirst's "Sound Science" ad.

Here's a nice argument from an op-ed in the Wichita Eagle that I think summarizes the issues well:

Presidential race needs science debate

Science and technology are central to many of America's most pressing challenges and controversies: Climate change. Energy independence. Stem cell research. Nuclear proliferation. And on and on.

You wouldn't know that, though, by listening to the presidential debates so far.

If these questions do come up, they're often swiftly dispatched with a boilerplate answer or two.

Too often, science is pushed to the sidelines of presidential debates to make way for presumably weightier topics, such as whether Hillary Clinton is really likable or whether Dennis Kucinich saw a UFO.

In one forum, Mike Huckabee responded to a question about a proposed Mars mission by suggesting that Clinton should be the first passenger.

OK. But can we get serious for a moment?

The next president faces difficult, historic decisions in science and technology that will shape our country's future for decades to come.

That's why voters should support a bipartisan effort now gaining steam to hold a presidential science debate.

A grassroots group called Science Debate 2008 is pushing for a televised debate sometime after the Feb. 5 primaries to plumb the candidates' views on energy and the environment, technological and scientific innovation, and medicine.

Organizers say the purpose is simply to acknowledge the overriding importance of science and technology to our nation's prosperity and future.

That future is hardly assured.

A recent report from the National Academies of Science, "Rising Above the Gathering Storm," reported that the "scientific and technological building blocks critical to our economic leadership are eroding at a time when many other nations are gathering strength."

Just a few examples:

• The United States is now a net importer of high-technology products.

• In 2003, American 15-year-olds ranked 24th out of 40 countries in an examination of students' ability to use mathematical skills to solve real-world problems.

• China and India are leaving the United States behind in producing new engineering doctorates.

For the most part, the candidates have offered few specifics about science policy or they've dodged the questions altogether.

Why? Because science isn't one of the issues the bases of either party are fired up about right now. And candidates aren't always eager to talk about these complex issues.

No one expects them to be experts on nuclear physics or the intricacies of evolutionary theory. But voters deserve to know whether a candidate has some scientific literacy, is comfortable discussing and evaluating technological issues, and employs good science and standards of evidence in decision-making.

Among the questions that could be asked at a debate:

Is it realistic for the United States to achieve energy independence? How do we get there?

What is the government's role in fostering innovation and the new generation of alternative energy technology?

How can our schools better prepare students to compete in science and mathematics?

Should creationism and intelligent design be taught in our schools?

How do you assess the evidence for climate change, and are specific measures needed to control greenhouse gases?

What is the future of NASA's manned space program?

How can we continue to attract the world's best and brightest scientists to study and live here?

Democrats charge that under President Bush, scientists' advice has been censored and politicized. Is that true? If so, what would you do to restore the integrity of science?

Americans deserve clear, specific answers to these and a host of other questions.

Admittedly, a science debate will be difficult to pull off amid the tight election-year schedule. Don't expect the candidates to jump at the opportunity. But a growing number of leading science organizations, university presidents, business leaders and politicians are endorsing the idea.

The timing is right for citizens to make a difference.

To get involved, check out the group's Web site at sciencedebate2008.com and sign the petition. At the very least, let the candidates and media know you want a more meaningful discussion of science policy.

We can't afford not to talk about science and innovation. America's future depends on it.

Randy Scholfield is an Eagle editorial writer. His column appears on Fridays. Reach him at 316-268-6545 or rscholfield@wichitaeagle.com.

Indeed.

"Sound Science" ad from firstfreedomfirst

Sounds like a good question to me, a lot like the one I submitted to the CNN-Youtube debate:

Ron Paul: being a creationist wasn't bad enough

Finding out that Ron Paul is a creationist is not nearly so morally repulsive as his neo-confederate rhetoric on MTP.

They'll love him for it here in Jesusland, of course.

My daemon

After reading Courtnix's review, I've decided to go check out the movie based on Pullman's first book in the His Dark Materials series, and then perhaps the books themselves. Heck, it's almost worth paying just to see RR folks get apoplectic over the earnings and popularity of it.

My Golden Compass daemon is called Arphenia, a raccoon. I am "modest, a leader, assertive, shy and spontaneous." Those seem a little incongruent, but whatever.

PS: Apparently 'coons make up only 3.6% of the spectrum.

Cohen on the transatlantic religious divide

From "Secular Europe's Merits":

That is why I find Romney’s speech and the society it reflects far more troubling than Europe’s vacant cathedrals.

Romney allows no place in the United States for atheists. He opines that, “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.” Yet secular Sweden is free while religious Iran is not. Buddhism, among other great Oriental religions, is forgotten.

He shows a Wikipedia-level appreciation of other religions, admiring “the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims” and “the ancient traditions of the Jews.” These vapid nostrums suggest his innermost conviction of America’s true faith. A devout Christian vision emerges of a U.S. society that is in fact increasingly diverse.

Romney rejects the “religion of secularism,” of which Europe tends to be proud. But he should consider that Washington is well worth a Mass. The fires of the Reformation that reduced St. Andrews Cathedral to ruin are fires of faith that endure in different, but no less explosive, forms. Jefferson’s “wall of separation” must be restored if those who would destroy the West’s Enlightenment values are to be defeated.

Also see this.

Giving credit where it is due

I wanted to add something to what I said earlier this morning about Mitt's speech on religion (reposted in full at the bottom).

First, for the sake of comparison, a quick check -- who said the following:

[M]y answer to people is, I will be your president regardless of your faith, and I don't expect you to agree with me necessarily on religion. As a matter of fact, no president should ever try to impose religion on our society.

A great—the great tradition of America is one where people can worship the way they want to worship. And if they choose not to worship, they're just as patriotic as your neighbor [emphasis mine]. That is an essential part of why we are a great nation. And I am glad people of faith voted in this election. I'm glad—I appreciate all people who voted. I don't think you ought to read anything into the politics, the moment, about whether or not this nation will become a divided nation over religion. I think the great thing that unites is the fact you can worship freely if you choose, and if you—you don't have to worship [emphasis mine]. And if you're a Jew or a Christian or a Muslim, you're equally American. That is—that is such a wonderful aspect of our society; and it is strong today and it will be strong tomorrow.

And who also said:

Let me talk about freedom of religion, as well, which is an incredibly important part of our society. My job as the President is to make sure -- this may get to your question, by the way, besides speech -- an incredibly important part about what you're asking is, can people worship freely, as well. Yes. That's the part of the job of the President, is to make sure that people can worship any way they want, any way they want. And they can choose any religion they want. Or they can choose no religion. You see, you're just as big a patriot -- as good a patriot as the next fellow if you choose not to worship. It's your choice to make. [emphasis mine] And the freedom of this country is that you can choose to do any way you want. And it's important that we keep that -- that freedom real and intact.

And finally:

First of all, we strongly believe in the separation of church and state here in Washington, D.C., and that's the way it's going to be. Secondly, I love the fact that people are able to worship freely in our country, and if you chose not to worship, you're just as patriotic as your neighbor. Freedom of religion means freedom to practice any religion you choose, or the freedom not to practice. [emphasis mine]

The answer is one that you are almost certainly going to be surprised by:

George W. Bush said all of the above.

For all the horrible things Bush has done to our country, I have to give him credit for one thing: he respects the non-religious in his public speeches. Do I think he respects us in his heart? No. Does he have to? No. But the man understands that a national community has to include all faiths...as well as those without faith at all. This is something Mitt got completely and seriously wrong in his speech.

And, if you want to see that spelled out very articulately, read Friday's NYT editorial on the topic:

Mr. Romney tried to cloak himself in the memory of John F. Kennedy, who had to defend his Catholicism in the 1960 campaign. But Mr. Kennedy had the moral courage to do so in front of an audience of Southern Baptist leaders and to declare: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.”

Mr. Romney did not even come close to that in his speech, at the George Bush Presidential Library in Texas, before a carefully selected crowd. And in his speech, he courted the most religiously intolerant sector of American political life by buying into the myths at the heart of the “cultural war,” so eagerly embraced by the extreme right.

Conservative David Brooks even gives a critical note:

And yet, I confess my own reaction is more muted [to Romney's speech].

When this country was founded, James Madison envisioned a noisy public square with different religious denominations arguing, competing and balancing each other’s passions. But now the landscape of religious life has changed. Now its most prominent feature is the supposed war between the faithful and the faithless. Mitt Romney didn’t start this war, but speeches like his both exploit and solidify this divide in people’s minds. The supposed war between the faithful and the faithless has exacted casualties.

The first casualty is the national community. [emphasis mine] Romney described a community yesterday. Observant Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Jews and Muslims are inside that community. The nonobservant are not. There was not even a perfunctory sentence showing respect for the nonreligious. I’m assuming that Romney left that out in order to generate howls of outrage in the liberal press.

Romney's speech will wither into the mist of history forgotten and mundane. It's just another ploy from another politician, not a genuine work of masterful prose and logic.

From WSJ's Peggy Noonan:

There was one significant mistake in the speech. I do not know why Romney did not include nonbelievers in his moving portrait of the great American family. [emphasis mine] We were founded by believing Christians, but soon enough Jeremiah Johnson, and the old proud agnostic mountain men, and the village atheist, and the Brahmin doubter, were there, and they too are part of us, part of this wonderful thing we have. Why did Mr. Romney not do the obvious thing and include them? My guess: It would have been reported, and some idiots would have seen it and been offended that this Romney character likes to laud atheists. And he would have lost the idiot vote.

My feeling is we've bowed too far to the idiots. This is true in politics, journalism, and just about everything else. [emphasis mine]

Amen, sister.

(from earlier)

So the big news in politics for the past few days has been Mitt's long-awaited speech on religion. Basically he pandered to religious godidiots by talking about the "religion of secularism" and implied that atheists are not Americans.

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

The idiot says the above, then goes on to admit that Europe is becoming more secular (but is still a country with more freedoms than we enjoy, thanks to King W) without seeing any contradiction. Jesus' General offers serious analysis of the issues at play and why considering a candidate's religion matters (from a secular standpoint).