Dennis Prager: Clueless About America

Ken AshfordCongress, Constitution, Right Wing Punditry/IdiocyLeave a Comment

A view days ago, I linked to a debate between an noted agnostic and evangelical columnist Dennis Prager on the subject of the existence of God.  The debate was civilized and I bent over backwards to give Prager as much credit as I could possibly muster (even though his best argument for the existence of God boiled down to "It’s nice to believe in God, therefore God must exist").

Well, Prager put his foot in his mouth today, and the reason it went in so deeply is because his brain is the size of a pea.

It’s the most mind-numbingly America-ignorant colimn I have read in a long time, so bad that the most aporpos reaction is the one offered by The Seventh Sense reader Brett Borowski (who brought this to my attention)/  To quote Mr. Borowski:

Aaaaaaggggggghhhhh!

Indeed.

So what did Prager write about which is causing Americans’ brains to melt?  You can read the full Townhall column here, but the gist is in the title and the first few paragraphs:

America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on

by Dennis Prager

Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

He should not be allowed to do so — not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism — my culture trumps America’s culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison’s favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

It’s seems that Prager knows almost nothing about America’s culture.  One of the founding principles, if not THE founding principle, is religious freedom.  It’s the freakin’ FIrst Amendment.

When Prager writes, "If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book [the Bible], don’t serve in Congress."

Does Prager know that the Constitution says this:

“No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

That’s the American culture, baby.  But what Prager proposes — and he apparently is serious — is an outright and literal violation of the Constitution (a document which Prager ought to read before he opines on what is "American" and what is not).

Prager completely ignores what an oath actually is — its purpose is to bind the oathtaker to his duty.  To make that oath more palpable and meaningful to the oathtaker, it IS important that he take the oath on something sacred to him.  Otherwise, the oath would be (in his eyes) meaningless.

Americans have recognized this since the inception of America.  Here in North Carolina, for example, they had a debate whether to ratify the new Constitution back in 1788.  On the subject of requiring religious oaths to a particular religion (which Prager is advocating), this was said:

A very remarkable instance also happened in England, about forty years ago, of a person who was admitted to take an oath according to the rites of his own country, though he was a heathen. He was an East Indian, who had a great suit in chancery, and his answer upon oath to a bill filed against him was absolutely necessary. Not believing either in the Old or New Testament, he could not be sworn in the accustomed manner, but was sworn according to the form of the Gentoo religion, which he professed, by touching the foot of a priest. It appeared that, according to the tenets of this religion, its members believed in a Supreme Being, and in a future state of rewards and punishments. It was accordingly held by the judges, upon great consideration, that the oath ought to be received; they considering that it was probable those of that religion were equally bound in conscience by an oath according to their form of swearing, as they themselves were by one of theirs; and that it would be a reproach to the justice of the country, if a man, merely because he was of a different religion from their own, should be denied redress of an injury he had sustained. Ever since this great case, it has been universally considered that, in administering an oath, it is only necessary to inquire if the person who is to take it, believes in a Supreme Being, and in a future state of rewards and punishments. If he does, the oath is to be administered according to that form which it is supposed will bind his conscience most.

Heck, even the Bible commands that "Ye shall not swear falsely", but this is exactly what Prager believes Ellison should do.

Prager is un-American not because he is mean-spirited, but because he is ignorant about the country he lives in.  And it’s a shame that he has such a large public forum and following.  (Fortunately, his remarks are being condemned as ignorant and misguided by the right and the left).

By the way, Franklin Pierce chose to take an affirmation rather than an oath with his hand on the Bible.  Teddy Roosevelt also didn’t use a Bible for his first inauguration.  (More Presidential inauguration Bible trivia here).

Oh, and by the way?  NOBODY who gets elected to the House of Representatives gets sworn in on a Bible.  The swearing-in ceremony consists only of the Members raising their right hands and swearing to uphold the Constitution.

RELATED:  Rep. Ellison has seen this fearmongering before.  Conservative CNN host Glenn Beck had a go at him, too.  Jon Stewart’s takedown is a classic:

UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds weighs in.  And here’s Prager defending his views with Eugene Volokh, and losing.  In fact, he makes little sense (what is "The American Bible"?)

Godfather Sold Separately

Ken AshfordRandom MusingsLeave a Comment

Hfr76471Love this warning which appears at this website, which is selling a FurReal Friends Butterscotch Pony (pictured right).  The product carries the following warning:

Adults take note: Pony comes unassembled in box with head detatched. You may wish to not open the box around your children if they may be frightened by a box with a decapitated horse inside.

Noted.

The Top 100 TV Catch Phrases Of All Time

Ken AshfordPopular CultureLeave a Comment

As compiled by TV Land, in alphabeticial order:

  • "Aaay" (Fonzie, "Happy Days")

  • "And that’s the way it is" (Walter Cronkite, "CBS Evening News")

  • "Ask not what your country can do for you …" (John F. Kennedy)

  • "Baby, you’re the greatest" (Jackie Gleason as Ralph Kramden, "The Honeymooners")

  • "Bam!" (Emeril Lagasse, "Emeril Live")

  • "Book ’em, Danno" (Steve McGarrett, "Hawaii Five-O")

  • "Come on down!" (Johnny Olson, "The Price is Right")

  • "Danger, Will Robinson" (Robot, "Lost in Space")

  • "De plane! De plane!" (Tattoo, "Fantasy Island")

  • "Denny Crane" (Denny Crane, "Boston Legal")

  • "Do you believe in miracles?" (Al Michaels, 1980 Winter Olympics)

  • "D’oh!" (Homer Simpson, "The Simpsons")

  • "Don’t make me angry …" (David Banner, "The Incredible Hulk")

  • "Dyn-o-mite" (J.J., "Good Times")

  • "Elizabeth, I’m coming!" (Fred Sanford, "Sanford and Son")

  • "Gee, Mrs. Cleaver …" (Eddie Haskell, "Leave it to Beaver")

  • "God’ll get you for that" (Maude, "Maude")

  • "Good grief" (Charlie Brown, "Peanuts" specials)

  • "Good night, and good luck" (Edward R. Murrow, "See It Now")

  • "Good night, John Boy" ("The Waltons")

  • "Have you no sense of decency?" (Joseph Welch to Sen. McCarthy)

  • "Heh heh" (Beavis and Butt-head, "Beavis and Butthead")

  • "Here it is, your moment of Zen" (Jon Stewart, "The Daily Show")

  • "Here’s Johnny!" (Ed McMahon, "The Tonight Show")

  • "Hey now!" (Hank Kingsley, "The Larry Sanders Show")

  • "Hey hey hey!" (Dwayne Nelson, "What’s Happening!!")

  • "Hey hey hey!" (Fat Albert, "Fat Albert")

  • "Holy (whatever), Batman!" (Robin, "Batman")

  • "Holy crap!" (Frank Barone, "Everybody Loves Raymond")

  • "Homey don’t play that!" (Homey the Clown, "In Living Color")

  • "How sweet it is!" (Jackie Gleason, "The Jackie Gleason Show")

  • "How you doin’?" (Joey Tribbiani, "Friends")

  • "I can’t believe I ate the whole thing" (Alka Seltzer ad)

  • "I know nothing!" (Sgt. Schultz, "Hogan’s Heroes")

  • "I love it when a plan comes together" (Hannibal, "The A-Team")

  • "I want my MTV!" (MTV ad)

  • "I’m Larry, this is my brother Darryl …" (Larry, "Newhart")

  • "I’m not a crook …" (Richard Nixon)

  • "I’m not a doctor, but I play one on TV" (Vicks Formula 44 ad)

  • "I’m Rick James, bitch!" (Dave Chappelle as Rick James, "Chappelle’s Show")

  • "If it weren’t for you meddling kids!" (Various villains, "Scooby Doo, Where Are You?")

  • "Is that your final answer?" (Regis Philbin, "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire")

  • "It keeps going and going and going …" (Energizer Batteries ad)

  • "It takes a licking …" (Timex ad)

  • "Jane, you ignorant slut" (Dan Akyroyd to Jane Curtain, "Saturday Night Live")

  • "Just one more thing …" (Columbo, "Columbo")

  • "Let’s be careful out there" (Sgt. Esterhaus, "Hill Street Blues")

  • "Let’s get ready to rumble!" (Michael Buffer, various sports events)

  • "Live long and prosper" (Spock, "Star Trek")

  • "Makin’ whoopie" (Bob Eubanks, "The Newlywed Game")

  • "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia! (Jan Brady, "The Brady Bunch")

  • "Mom always liked you best" (Tommy Smothers, "The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour")

  • "Never assume …" (Felix Unger, "The Odd Couple")

  • "Nip it!" (Barney Fife, "The Andy Griffith Show")

  • "No soup for you!" (The Soup Nazi, "Seinfeld")

  • "Norm!" ("Cheers")

  • "Now cut that out!" (Jack Benny, "The Jack Benny Program")

  • "Oh, my God! They killed Kenny!" (Stan and Kyle, "South Park")

  • "Oh, my nose!" (Marcia Brady, "The Brady Bunch")

  • "One small step for man …" (Neil Armstrong)

  • "Pardon me, would you have any Grey Poupon?" (Grey Poupon ad)

  • "Read my lips: No new taxes!" (George H.W. Bush)

  • "Resistance is futile" (Picard as Borg, "Star Trek: The Next Generation")

  • "Say good night, Gracie" (George Burns, "The Burns & Allen Show")

  • "Schwing!" (Mike Myers and Dana Carvey as Wayne and Garth, "Saturday Night Live")

  • "Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy" (Lloyd Bentsen to Dan Quayle)

  • "Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids" (Trix cereal ad)

  • "Smile, you’re on `Candid Camera’" ("Candid Camera")

  • "Sock it to me" ("Rowan & Martin’s Laugh-In")

  • "Space, the final frontier …" (Capt. Kirk, "Star Trek")

  • "Stifle!" (Archie Bunker, "All in the Family")

  • "Suit up!" (Barney Stinson, "How I Met Your Mother")

  • "Tastes great! Less filling!" (Miller Lite beer ad)

  • "Tell me what you don’t like about yourself" (Dr. McNamara and Dr. Troy, "Nip/Tuck")

  • "That’s hot" (Paris Hilton, "The Simple Life")

  • "The thrill of victory, the agony of defeat" (Jim McKay, "ABC’s Wide World of Sports")

  • "The tribe has spoken" (Jeff Probst, "Survivor")

  • "The truth is out there" (Fox Mulder, "The X-Files")

  • "This is the city …" (Sgt. Joe Friday, "Dragnet")

  • "Time to make the donuts" ("Dunkin’ Donuts" ad)

  • "Two thumbs up" (Siskel & Ebert, "Siskel & Ebert")

  • "Up your nose with a rubber hose" (Vinnie Barbarino, "Welcome Back, Kotter")

  • "We are two wild and crazy guys!" (Steve Martin and Dan Aykroyd as Czech playboys, "Saturday Night Live")

  • "Welcome to the O.C., bitch" (Luke, "The O.C.")

  • "Well, isn’t that special?" (Dana Carvey as the Church Lady, "Saturday Night Live")

  • "We’ve got a really big show!" (Ed Sullivan, "The Ed Sullivan Show")

  • "Whassup?" (Budweiser ad)

  • "What you see is what you get!" (Geraldine, "The Flip Wilson Show")

  • "Whatchoo talkin’ ’bout, Willis?" (Arnold Drummond, "Diff’rent Strokes")

  • "Where’s the beef?" (Wendy’s ad)

  • "Who loves you, baby?" (Kojak, "Kojak")

  • "Would you believe?" (Maxwell Smart, "Get Smart")

  • "Yabba dabba do!" (Fred Flintstone, "The Flintstones")

  • "Yada, yada, yada" ("Seinfeld")

  • "Yeah, that’s the ticket" (Jon Lovitz as the pathological liar, "Saturday Night Live")

  • "You eeeediot!" (Ren, "Ren & Stimpy")

  • "You look mahvelous!" (Billy Crystal as Fernando, "Saturday Night Live")

  • "You rang?" (Lurch, "The Addams Family")

  • "You’re fired!" (Donald Trump, "The Apprentice")

  • "You’ve got spunk …" (Lou Grant, "The Mary Tyler Moore Show")

I’m not sure you can "count" political/news phrases like "I am not a crook" or "That’s one small step for man…" or "Read my lips, no new taxes" as catchphrases.

And they forgot "You bet your sweet bippy" from "Laugh-In", and "Will the real [whoever], please stand up" from "To Tell The Truth", "One of these days, Alice, Bang, Zoom, right to the moon" from "The Honeymooners", and the more recent "Deal or no deal" from the show of the same name.

Yes, it’s rather sad that I know these.

The Bush Presidential Library

Ken AshfordBush & Co.Leave a Comment

The Bush Presidential Library?  The jokes write themselves.  But Arianna Huffington does a good job writing them too:

Comedy writers and lovers of the absurd all across America have a bounce in their step today, buoyed by news that President Bush is looking to raise half-a-billion dollars to build his legacy-burnishing presidential library.

The idea of Uncurious George building a $500 million shrine to his disastrous presidency is the political equivalent of a whoopee cushion; a veritable laff riot. The punchlines write themselves:

A George W. Bush Library? What’s it going to house, 100,000 copies of The Pet Goat — with some Shakespeares and a Camus thrown in for good measure?

Will there be a Heckuva Job Memorial Wing saluting W’s sterling political appointments? A Hurricane Katrina Photo Gallery, with each image housed in its own airplane window frame? An exact recreation of Dick Cheney’s secure undisclosed location (try to step inside and a recording of the Veep tells you to "Go fuck yourself!")?

Will visitors to the Iraq War Wing be handed rose-colored glasses before entering and having flowers thrown at their feet? Or will they don blinders as they stagger forward, sinking deeper into a man-made quagmire?

Will there be exhibits on waterboarding, illegal wiretapping, and the quaintness of the Geneva Conventions? A room devoted to the nobility and greatness of the Hanging Chad? A holographic image of Osama bin Laden (try and grab him and he slips right through your hands)? The Abu Gharib Game Room (must be over 18 to enter)?

At Bush 41’s Presidential Library, there is a twelve-foot piece of the Berlin Wall, which came down during his presidency. Will 43 try to recreate the finest moment of his presidency by bringing in a pile of Ground Zero rubble? This would be an interactive feature, allowing visitors to climb atop the pile, grab a megaphone, and take a crack at uttering the best unscripted line of his time in office: "I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!"

Confirmed, Part II

Ken AshfordWomen's IssuesLeave a Comment

No duh:

It is something one half of the population has long suspected – and the other half always vocally denied. Women really do talk more than men.

In fact, women talk almost three times as much as men, with the average woman chalking up 20,000 words in a day – 13,000 more than the average man.

Women also speak more quickly, devote more brainpower to chit-chat – and actually get a buzz out of hearing their own voices, a new book suggests.

The book – written by a female psychiatrist – says that inherent differences between the male and female brain explain why women are naturally more talkative than men.

In The Female Mind, Dr Luan Brizendine says women devote more brain cells to talking than men.

And, if that wasn’t enough, the simple act of talking triggers a flood of brain chemicals which give women a rush similar to that felt by heroin addicts when they get a high.

Dr Brizendine, a self-proclaimed feminist, says the differences can be traced back to the womb, where the sex hormone testosterone moulds the developing male brain.

The areas responsible for communication, emotion and memory are all pared back the unborn baby boy.

The result is that boys – and men – chat less than their female counterparts and struggle to express their emotions to the same extent.

"Women have an eight-lane superhighway for processing emotion, while men have a small country road," said Dr Brizendine, who runs a female "mood and hormone" clinic in San Francisco.

Confirmed

Ken AshfordBush & Co.Leave a Comment

I present without comment:

Lohse, a social work master’s student at Southern Connecticut State University, says he has proven what many progressives have probably suspected for years: a direct link between mental illness and support for President Bush.

Lohse says his study is no joke. The thesis draws on a survey of 69 psychiatric outpatients in three Connecticut locations during the 2004 presidential election. Lohse’s study, backed by SCSU Psychology professor Jaak Rakfeldt and statistician Misty Ginacola, found a correlation between the severity of a person’s psychosis and their preferences for president: The more psychotic the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Bush.

But before you go thinking all your conservative friends are psychotic, listen to Lohse’s explanation.

“Our study shows that psychotic patients prefer an authoritative leader,” Lohse says. “If your world is very mixed up, there’s something very comforting about someone telling you, ‘This is how it’s going to be.’”

The study was an advocacy project of sorts, designed to register mentally ill voters and encourage them to go to the polls, Lohse explains. The Bush trend was revealed later on.

The study used Modified General Assessment Functioning, or MGAF, a 100-point scale that measures the functioning of disabled patients. A second scale, developed by Rakfeldt, was also used. Knowledge of current issues, government and politics were assessed on a 12-item scale devised by the study authors.

Bush supporters had significantly less knowledge about current issues, government and politics than those who supported Kerry,” the study says.

Lohse says the trend isn’t unique to Bush: A 1977 study by Frumkin & Ibrahim found psychiatric patients preferred Nixon over McGovern in the 1972 election.

Rakfeldt says the study was legitimate, though not intended to show what it did.

From The Mind Of Barbara Stock

Ken AshfordRight Wing Punditry/IdiocyLeave a Comment

BstockWe haven’t checked in with conservative columnnist Barbara Stock in a while, so we decided to.  It’s nice to know that she’s still wetting her bloomers over olive-skinned people:

On their way back from a three-day meeting in Minneapolis of the North American Imams Federation, six Islamic imams were stunned to find out that suspicious behavior by Muslims on large jet planes makes non-Muslims nervous. Why they would be shocked is perhaps the mystery of the decade.

Before we continue, let’s get one thing clear.  These six imams were Americans.  Five were from Phoenix; one was from California.  And one of them was blind.

One imam asked for an extension for his seat-belt even though the seat belt he had fit without difficulty. Did he want it to use it to put around someone’s neck?

Another imam took a copy of the in-flight magazine from the seat pouch in front of him.  Did he want to give the other passengers paper cuts?

They asked to change seats once aboard.

Yeah, that is suspicious.  White people and Christians never ask to have their seats reassigned.

The imams were seen praying just prior to boarding. Anyone else seen praying would be met with a smile and the thought that the pray-ee must really be afraid of flying. But when a Muslim is seen praying prior to boarding a plane, the fear is that he may be getting ready to become a martyr.

Shorter Barbara Stock: "Because I am afraid of them, they must be up to no good."

Witnesses overheard the imams making anti-American remarks at the boarding gate and yet, these Muslim men were shocked when they were asked to leave the plane.

"Because in this country, if you don’t love America, you can’t fly"

They claimed that they were "humiliated" and their ejection only shows how "Islamaphobic" Americans are.

And Barbara is proving how right they were.

But perhaps it just showed that these six Muslim imams showed very poor judgment and were totally insensitive to the feelings of their fellow passengers.

"After all, Muslim Americans must always show respect for everyone else; never the reverse."

Always the victims, these six Muslim imams seemed to forget that it was Muslims who flew planes into the World Trade Center buildings and the Pentagon, and were attempting to crash into the Capital. Did it slip their minds that 3000 citizens died on 9/11 at the hands of Muslims?

Good point.  Since Timothy McVeigh (a white Southerner) blew up the Murrah building in Oklahoma, I think we should take away the civil rights of all white Southerners.  What say you, Barbara?

Have they forgotten that Islamic leaders have declared war on the United States and vowed to make our "blood run in the streets?" Did these Muslims miss the announcement from the highest Islamic cleric in Saudi Arabia giving bin Laden permission to use nuclear weapons on our cities? Or that Islamics have told us there are "no innocent civilians in America, not even babies?"

And therefore that’s what these religious leaders want?

It is no secret that Islamics will hijack more planes given the opportunity.

It’s no secret that Christians will do that, too.  Just not all — or even most — of them.

If they can’t steal them to use as missiles, they will blow them up over a city for maximum killing and destruction. What is outrageous is that Muslims who seem to delight in partaking in activities they know will make the other passengers nervous are outraged when they are removed from a flight.

However, there is another possibility to this story. There have been many such incidents where Muslims have acted suspiciously and have been removed from flights. And on each occasion the Council for American-Islamic Relations has been Johnny-on-the-spot to howl accusations of discrimination and racial profiling.

And?  Isn’t it discrimination brought about by racial profiling?

Some Muslims have considered it a joke to talk about "bombs" on the plane or to split up once on the plane and signal to each other and make several trips to the bathroom. They have openly admitted that they find it amusing to see some passengers start to cry, thinking the plane is about to be hijacked.

Cite please.  What?  You have none?

No matter how intimidating the actions of Muslims —

By, you know, existing and stuff —

it is implied that non-Muslims are to just accept it or be called "Muslim haters." CAIR’s goal seems to be to force Americans to accept without question any behavior from Muslims, no matter how outlandish.

Outlandish behavior like, oh, being Muslims.  Why can’t Muslims be normal white Christians like everybody else?  If they can’t, they only bring their woes upon themselves.  Is that it, Barbara?

Could it be that some of these spontaneous "incidents" have been carefully planned as part of the "desensitization of America" to Muslim behavior?

Barbara’s right.  We must be vigilent in our paranoid fears of customs which differ from ours.  Never give in to rationalization — let rampant paranoia guide you!

Toss a suspicious Muslim off a plane and the airline is threatened with a lawsuit from CAIR. The complaining passengers are belittled and berated for being nervous over "nothing."

Who are the people we are dealing with? In Iraq, followers of this "religion of peace" set off suicide bombs that killed about 200 of their fellow Muslims. In retaliation, six Muslims were dragged into the street and doused with kerosene and set on fire and mosques were blown up.

In Russia, a school was invaded by Muslims and over three hundred innocent people including 186 children were murdered.

Because white Christians never support bloodshed and murder.

In the Palestinian territory, a 57-year-old grandmother decided to become a suicide bomber and leave her nine children and 30 grandchildren behind. Her family is probably bursting at the seams with pride over the matriarchs "martyrdom" even though she didn’t succeed in killing anyone but herself.

Probably.  We don’t know for sure what her family is thinking, but we’ll just assume we know, because it supports our position.

It is apparent when dealing with many Islamics, that logic and rational thought is not at the top of their thought processes.

In Barbara Stock world, paranoia, fear, and stereotyping individuals based on their religion is both "logical" and "rational".

While there are many quite normal Muslims in this world, how does one know which ones are normal and which dream nightly of being martyrs for Allah?

"I say we shoot them all and ask questions later."

The ones standing in line with the dream of entering paradise by killing large numbers of infidels do not wear a sign around their necks.

So we just have to assume that they all are dangerous.

As we and the British have learned, all the hopeful Islamic bombers are not in Iraq or the Middle East. The good people of Madrid and Bali have also learned that not all Muslims are peaceful.

Islamic suicide bombers have even been school teachers and grandmothers. They have been young and old. Muslim cartoons show children the glory of dying, and teach that killing non-Muslims pleases Allah.

Here in America, the Islamic Free Thinkers have declared that Islam will not rest until America is ruled by Sharia law under the domain of Islam.

With all of this known, Muslims are still shocked and "humiliated" when their bizarre behavior gets them singled out?

When six imams who claim to have just left a three-day meeting trying to find a way to "build a bridge between Islam and Americans," badmouth America just prior to boarding a plane, they should not be stunned when that bridge burns down in front of them. Neither the passengers nor the airline is at fault. The fault lies with Muslims who want their aggression to be accepted as a normal part of life.

By praying, they were aggressive.  By asking for seatbelt extensions, they were agressive.  By sitting apart on the plane, they were aggressive.  By using the rest rooms on the plane, they are aggressive.  By criticizing the very country that discriminates against them because of their religion, they are aggrressive.  You see how terrible they are?

Suing those that refuse to accept this behavior will not build any "bridges," it will only blow them up. But then explosions are commonplace these days wherever there are large groups of Muslims.

Or even six of them.

Light Blogging?

Ken AshfordBloggingLeave a Comment

Well, I’ve exceeded my bandwidth for the month. 

Or, more accurately, you’ve exceeded my bandwidth.

Not quite sure why, but I’m inching up to 50,000 "hits" to my main page, and I’m averaging over 150 per day — so I’m pretty sure it’s not just me.  Anyway, I’m only alotted a certain amount of transfer bandwidth per month here at Typepad, and I have exceeded that for November.  First time that’s happened.  Maybe I should start thinking about ad revenue (ummmm….. nah!).

Anyway, this means a couple of things:

(1)  I’m not sure how much posting I will be able to do (this is, in fact, a test post).  If I can continue to post for the next few days, I will, but I’ll keep this post "promoted" to the top.

(2)  I’ll be migrating off of Typepad soon and acting as my own host, which means that you will find me only at www.kenashford.com, and not at / (right now, they are one and the same).  When this will take place, I can only guess.

A God Debate

Ken AshfordGodstuffLeave a Comment

It’s too long to republish here, but this email debate between atheist Sam Harris and evangelical Dennis Prager is an interesting (if not demanding) read.  The topic is the Existence of A Judeo-Christian God (or lack thereof).

It’s hard to be objective, but the flaws in Prager’s arguments stand out. 

Prager first does the strawman bit, telling Harris what atheists think and believe.  Harris smacks that down rather quickly.  The easiest mistake in debating any subject is trying to speak about your opponent’s position (rather than your own), because you never can, and you’re almost always wrong.  (Harris, I think, does this a little bit too, although it is not as glaring as when Prager does it).

Prager also commits the appeal to authority fallacy, pointing to an eminent genome scientist who became a born again Christian.  Harris dismisses this as he should: this scientist did not come to believe in God through science, but through an epiphany while watching a waterfall.  There is, in Harris’ view, no inconsistency between being a scientist and being a believer, but the fact that some people are both does not mean that God exists.

Prager also makes an argument about the usefulness of believing in God — for society.  Harris sidesteps that issue (saying it would be an interesting debate in a different context), but points out that while society might benefit from believing in God, that does not mean that God exists.  Harris writes:

The fact that certain religious beliefs might be useful in no way suggests their legitimacy. I can guarantee, for instance, that the following religion, invented by me in the last ten seconds, would be extraordinarily useful. It is called "Scientismo." Here is its creed: Be kind to others; do not lie, steal, or murder; and oblige your children to master mathematics and science to the best of their abilities or 17 demons will torture you with hot tongs for eternity after death. If I could spread this faith to billions, I have little doubt that we would live in a better world than we do at present. Would this suggest that the 17 demons of Scientismo exist? Useful delusions are not the same thing as true beliefs.

In a brief discussion about burden-shifting, Harris brings in Bertrand Russell’s teapot example, which I had never heard:

This defense of religion is one that Bertrand Russell demolished a century ago with his famous "teapot argument." As I can’t improve on it, and you clearly have forgotten it amid the many challenges to piety you successfully parried "in high school," here it is again:

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense."

If a valid retort to Russell has ever seen the light of day, I’m not aware of it.

The faithful do resist the bogus certainties of religion—when they come from any religion but their own. Every Christian knows what it is like to find the claims of Muslims to be deeply suspect. Everyone who is not a Mormon knows at a glance that Mormonism is an obscenely stupid system of beliefs. Everyone has rejected an infinite number of spurious claims about God. The atheist simply rejects one more.

I thought that was interesting.

Prager ultimately admits that nothing can prove God’s existence (which I should think, is glaringly obvious to believers and non-believers alike), but fails to respond to the implicit follow-up question: then why does he believe in his God rather than the deities worshipped by other cultures, past and present? 

Anyway, both participants clearly went into the civil debate knowing full well that they wouldn’t change anyone’s mind.  But it made for interesting reading.

Oy

Ken AshfordGodstuffLeave a Comment

From Denver:

DENVER — A homeowners association in southwestern Colorado has threatened to fine a resident $25 a day until she removes a Christmas wreath with a peace sign that some say is an anti-Iraq war protest or a symbol of Satan.

Some residents who have complained have children serving in Iraq, said Bob Kearns, president of the Loma Linda Homeowners Association in Pagosa Springs. He said some residents have also believed it was a symbol of Satan. Three or four residents complained, he said.

I’m going to post a picture of the offending wreath below the fold.  CAUTION: Not safe for work.  Not safe for children.  Not safe for anyone susceptible to the influence of the Dark One.

Read More

Responding To Dobson

Ken AshfordConstitution, Godstuff, Sex/Morality/Family ValuesLeave a Comment

Via Daily Kos, we get some Dobson quotes from his interview with Larry King:

DOBSON: Those again on the liberal end of the spectrum are those who have no value system, or at least they say there is no moral and immoral. There’s no right or wrong. . . . But when a religious leader, or especially an evangelical, falls, guess who is the most judgmental of him and calling him a hypocrite? . . . Those that said there is no right and wrong in the first place. The truth of the matter is there is right and wrong. And we all within our midst have failures, and they do occur.

As for religious leaders like Haggard — you don’t need to have a foot in any political camp in order to recognize hypocrisy.  If a religious leader preaches against something in one setting, and practices that very thing in another setting, he is a the dictionary-definition (not to mention the biblical-definition) of a "hypocrite", and the fact that other people are liberal/conservative/moderate doesn’t enter into the equation.

M19immoralSecondly, what is the basis for Dobson’s assertion that liberals "say there is no moral and immoral"?  Liberals have a strong sense of morality — it is just at odds (sometimes) with what Dobson thinks is moral and immoral.  Just take a look at the picture on the right.  I’m guessing she’s a liberal, and it’s pretty clear what her moral views are.  There isn’t a dirth of moral viewpoints among liberals, and Dobson knows that.  This is a perfect example of building a straw man, and then tearing it down.

What evangelicals of Dobson’s stripe don’t "get" is that liberalism and Christianity are actually better bedpartners than conservatism and Christianity.  Jesus was, after all, a liberal.  And more and more Christians are embracing those moral liberal values esposed by Christ, or at least warming up to those who speak those values.  Witness, for example, the meeting of the minds between Rev. Rick Warren ("The Purpose Driven Life") and Barack Obama.

But Dobson of the Dark Ages doesn’t get it, since his theology is rooted in ignorance of truth.  Take his views on homosexuality:

KING: We discussed this before in the past, but not recently: Do you still believe that being gay is a choice rather than a given?

DOBSON: I never did believe that.

KING: Oh, you don’t believe it.

DOBSON: I don’t believe that. Neither do I believe it’s genetic. I said that…

KING: Then what is it?

DOBSON: I said that on your program one time and both of us got a lot of mail for it. I don’t blame homosexuals for being angry when people say they’ve made a choice to be gay because they don’t.

It usually comes out of very, very early childhood, and this is very controversial, but this is what I believe and many other people believe, that is has to do with an identity crisis that occurs to early to remember it, where a boy is born with an attachment to his mother and she is everything to him for about 18 months, and between 18 months and five years, he needs to detach from her and to reattach to his father.

It’s a very important developmental task and if his dad is gone or abusive or disinterested or maybe there’s just not a good fit there. What’s he going to do? He remains bonded to his mother and…

KING: Is that clinically true or is that theory?

DOBSON: No, it’s clinically true, but it’s controversial. What homosexual activists, especially, would like everybody to believe is that it is genetic, that they don’t have any choice. If it were genetic, Larry — and before we went on this show, you and I were talking about twin studies — if it were genetic, identical twins would all have it. Identical twins, if you have a homosexuality in one twin, it would be there in the other.

Dobson’s logic is this: if homosexuality was caused by genetics, then in every case where you have one homosexual identical twin, then the other identical twin would be homosexual, too. 

Of course, is Dobson willing to apply that logic to his own theory?  Dobson argues that homosexuality is caused when kids have daddy issues at a certain stage in development.  But we have literally hundreds of thousands of children growing up without fathers or father figures, and certainly not all of those children become gay (in fact, I would venture to say that the majority of them don’t).  So since it doesn’t happen in every case, shouldn’t we discount Dobson’s theory as well?  Or does he set the bar lower for himself?

The facts are these: Studies show that this occurs 52% of the time with identical twins (i.e., if one identical twin was gay, the chances are 52% that the other one is gay.  In fraternal twins, this happens 22% of the time.  To an objective person, this suggests that genetics clearly play a role in homosexuality, although there are clearly other factors as well.

Dobson’s decision to reduce the causes of homosexuality to a "it’s-this-and-only-this" mentality is what makes him the most ignorant man on the planet.  Like so much in life, nothing — and I mean nothing — is black and white, even science.

Finally, Dobson esposes his views on church and state:

KING: But we have a separation of church and state.

DOBSON: Beg your pardon?

KING: We have a separation of church and state.

DOBSON: Who says?

KING: You don’t believe in separation of church and state?

DOBSON: Not the way you mean it. The separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. No, it’s not. That is not in the Constitution. That was…

KING: It’s in the Bill of Rights.

DOBSON: It’s not in the Bill of Rights. It’s not anywhere in a foundational document. The only place where the so-called "wall of separation" was mentioned was in a letter written by Jefferson to a friend. That’s the only place. It has been picked up and made to be something it was never intended to be.

What it has become is that the government is protected from the church, instead of the other way around, which is that church was designed to be protected from the government.

KING: I’m going to check my history.

Clash of the intellectual titans.  No Larry, "wall of separation between church and state" — those exact words — are not in the Constitution.  In fact, there are a lot of words that are NOT in the Constitution: "marriage", "privacy", "innocent until proven guilty", "democracy", "It’s a free country", and so on.  But that does not mean that the Constitution has nothing to say on those issues.

The Constitution says that the government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".  One of the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, tells us what that means.  In his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, then-President Jefferson said:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, [the people, in the 1st Amendment,] declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

And there you have it.  The operative word there is "thus".  The purpose of the First Amendment — and the reason it was written the way it was  — was to create the "wall of separation between church and state".  People like Dobson choose to overlook the intent of the Founders, because the Founder’s original intent makes it harder for people like Dobson to twist the words into an entirely different meaning and outcome.

Dobson believes that the First Amendment protects the church from government, but not the other way around.  But he doesn’t follow that line of thinking to its logical conclusion.  If, for example, his church was allowed to wield power through government, then doesn’t government diminish my church, or yours?  In Dobson’s make-believe world, walls are one way.  But take a look at the walls in your house — they’re two-way.

Thus endeth the lessons about Dobson.