Calling all Knoxvillian peeps! Come to the Preservation Pub and see Stewart, Spencer and Knathan at 6 PM tomorrow night!
http://stewartpack.com/

Sean Hannity and John Kasich - Liars for Jesus

I made the mistake of turning to Fox News while Sean Hannity was getting his knickers in a twist about President Obama's "not a Christian nation" comment in Turkey. I should have seen this coming but it always amazes me. It had all the fallacies you normally expect, with one little twist this time. Hannity started by referencing Easter as part of his diatribe then pulled out the standard founding father deist quotes that they somehow think equals bible believing Christianity. Then Kasich slipped up. He screwed up the narrative by mentioning Jefferson's rewriting of the bible. I wonder how many fundagelicals squirmed uncomfortably in their chairs with those words. He doubled his error by mentioning that Jefferson "took some things out". And what was one of these things he removed? You got it. The EASTER STORY!

The upshot? We know at least John Kasich is knowing lying about the beliefs and intents of the founding fathers. I'm pretty sure Hannity knows he's lying too. But he does it to ruffle the feathers of the Christian base. Once again we see there are no depths of dishonesty the faithful will not sink too to promote their little history rewrite.

Edit: Jason Seahorn, former NFL footballer, just referenced the "In God We Trust" on our money as proof not of a generically monotheistic nation but of an explicitly Christian nation. The arrogance of the majority can be truly stunning.

Maddening incoherent babble

Watch this video of Don McLeroy stumble and fumble with exasperation as he tries to save his "strengths and weaknesses" resolution. It is a maddening descent into blathering inanity.



This is a textbook example of creationist talking points. It's all there. Problems with the fossil record? check. Using Darwin quotes out of context? Yup. Repeating the word scientific approximately 32 times? OK even I thought this was a little weird. At one point he says something about how "all of these phyla immediately appear". Apparently 10 million years counts as "immediately all of a sudden". This is not a problem in the fossil record at all and it's unfortunate that it is described as the "Cambrian Explosion" because it gives the layman the wrong impression. By the way he gets the word itself wrong. At one point he says "the phylas are still with us today". Phyla is the plural of phylum. Of course he then proceeds to reference a Time magazine cover. Sheesh.

He then goes on to appropriate Stephen Gould who isn't with us anymore to correct this tool. If you want a clear cut example of the language and dishonestly of the Discovery Institute crowd, this 6 minutes is as good as any.

Donahue needs some additional press

Well little Billie just can't take it and decides to unleash on "Militant Atheism". First of all, let's just address the deceptive use of the term militant, because it deserves an answer. Words matter and the use of the term is intended to connect two boogeymen in the minds of his flock. Obviously militant can mean:

vigorously active and aggressive, esp. in support of a cause: militant reformers.

Now being vigorously active and aggressive in support of a cause is not always a negative. Surely a less militant Martin Luther King would not have been desirable. You could say the same about a militant peace activist. And yet that combination of words in today's context seem like an oxymoron. In a very strict language sense it, of course, is not contradictory. But in the hear and now, and particularly in the last 7 years militant translates to Islamic militant. Donahue is keenly aware of this. Which brings us to the second definition of the word:

engaged in warfare; fighting.

The atheist authors and thinkers Donahue mentions in his screed probably don't even own a single firearm between them. And they are certainly not engaged in an armed conflict. They are simply making arguments and speaking out. But Donahue knows that using the word militant will create a correlation between the pictures of the Islamic militants that your average Catholic sees on TV and a handful of atheist authors. The fact that these authors ideas and philosophies are as far from that of an Islamic militant as conceivably possible is of no consequence. Donahue has to know this and yet he uses the term dishonestly anyway. Now on to the substance (or lack thereof) of "From the President's Desk".

Donahue begins by recounting the four incidents of Eucharist no-nos over the summer that got him so riled up. He first related a Sally Quinn article in which she related that she would take communion in order to honor Tim Russert. This is how he described it:

The first incident occurred when Washington Post religion editor Sally Quinn decided she would show how much she cared about the late Tim Russert by doing something she hated to do—receive Communion; Quinn is not Catholic.

Of course Quinn never said in her article she "hated" taking communion. In fact here is the relevant passage:

Last Wednesday at Tim's funeral mass at Trinity Church in Georgetown (Jack Kennedy's church), communion was offered. I had only taken communion once in my life, at an evangelical church. It was soon after I had started "On Faith" and I wanted to see what it was like. Oddly I had a slightly nauseated sensation after I took it, knowing that in some way it represented the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Last Wednesday I was determined to take it for Tim, transubstantiation notwithstanding. I'm so glad I did. It made me feel closer to him. And it was worth it just to imagine how he would have loved it. After I began "On Faith," Tim started calling me "Sister Sal" instead of "Miss Sal."

Notice no mention of hate. It clearly provided some comfort to her over the loss of a good friend and respected colleague. Also notice Donahue's last notation "Quinn is not Catholic". In this we see the tribal nature of religion. Quinn is not a part of Donahue's tribe. Thus, even respectfully partaking of their custom becomes an offense. It is unlikely that Quinn was even aware that she would be offending the likes of Donahue and his ilk. Ignorance of weird ritualistic hangups provide no excuse for her crime.

Donahue goes on to the militant atheist authors:

What’s going on is that militant atheism is all the rage. Books by Richard Dawkins (a personal friend of Myers who lies about me the same way Myers does), Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens have all sold well, and what they are selling is hate. Hatred of religion in general, and Christianity in particular. The bulls-eye, of course, is Roman Catholicism. I’ll give them this much: At least the religion bashers are smart enough to know who’s on top.

It is almost amazing to count the number of fallacies contained in that paragraph. Unsupported assertions, demagoguery, selective reading all make the list with a heaping dollop of smug arrogance adorning the top of it all. All of the books by these men spend copious amounts of time on religions outside Christianity. Dawkins, who understandably spends more time on evolution than the other authors, spends less time on the generally pro-evolution Catholic church than the more evangelical creationist sects. Donahue can't help but once again puff out his tribal feathers by declaring that Roman Catholicism is "on top". Isn't there a deadly sin associated with such declarations?

Donahue goes on to play the victim card alongside the tribal appeals already made by declaring:

The sick climate that these zealots have created could not have succeeded without a little help from their friends. In the case of Myers, that means the administrators at the University. They had several options available to them, and they passed on every one of them. Predictably, they hid behind academic freedom, claiming they were impotent to do anything about Myers’ off-campus behavior.

This is utter nonsense, and I will prove it right now: Does anyone believe that the University of Minnesota would do absolutely nothing about a white professor who packed them in at a local comedy club on weekends doing his racist rendition of “Little Black Sambo”? Would the very same administrators plead helplessness about a professor who spoke to community groups off-campus about the mythology of the Holocaust?

Academic freedom is not something to hide behind. It's a guiding principle of Western thought that traces back to the Enlightenment. Donahue's "proof" is of course nonsense but displays perfectly the obvious failures of Catholic philosophy and logic that strech back to the unfortunate and undue respect given to Aristotlian logic. He makes an informal syllogistic comparison between criticism of religion and overt racism. This is a gross category error but it is not uncommon in religious thought. There is of course no "proof" of the supposed nonsense of UMN's position. The hypothetic situations Donahue pulls from thin air aren't even of the same category as Dr. Myers actions not to mention the fact that he is claiming something he cannot know. Indeed, the administration of UMN may be powerless to remove a tenured professor in the situations he gives. But such thoughts don't entertain his mind as he is so focued on the travails and offenses to the tribe. Donahue goes on to cite Larry Summers exit from Harvard. But of course summer was a University President (category error #1) who wasn't fired by a superior (category error #2). He resigned his position after the controversy after a vote of no confidence from his own staff. Logic. Fail.

Donahue goes on to bellow:

Academic freedom was instituted to protect contrarian professors from being hounded out of the academy for challenging the conventional wisdom on a particular academic subject. It was not instituted to protect hate speech. Myers is free to say whatever he wants about his specialty, which is zebrafish, but he has no moral right to assault the sensibilities of any religious group. So what should the administrators have done?

Stick to zebrafish Dr. Myers! Notice the falback on the Orwellian "hate speech" crutch. Of course in Donahue's context this means "anything that criticizes Catholics or challenges Catholic dogma". This is a convenient refuge for the ridiculous to harbor in while trying to avoid scrutiny. The doctorine of transubstantiation lies quite clearly outside of objective material reality. A simple chemical analysis of the wafer and wine before and after the blessing would in all probability reveal them to be identical. So clearly the only way to defend it is to put the issue completely off limits. Any discussion of its validity is so offensive it is off limits.

Donahue finishes off his screed by issuing not so thinly veiled threats:

As I said to Ray Arroyo, this may not be over yet. Over the summer, Myers’ personnel file ballooned: everything that happened regarding this issue is in it. Which means that he’d better be careful about bringing his religious bigotry to bear in the classroom. If just one Catholic student complains that he is being treated unfairly because of his religion, Myers will have to answer.

Unfair treatement of a student because of his religion would clearly be inappropriate for any teacher. But what Donahue means by "unfair" belies his true intentions. Would it be unfair to give a student a poor grade solely on the account of his religious faith. Absolutely. Would it be unfair to give him a poor grade because the student uses his faith to improperly distort what is being taught in the classroom? Not at all. The trend for those that cry religious persecution in classrooms has been pretty evident in recent times. The strategy is to make wild claims about biology and claim persecution when the teacher hands out a giant F for not fulfilling the class requirements. This is Donahue's ham-handed, bullying way to plant a bad seed.

Donahue closes the post out with more self-centered puffery (his arrogance is even more striking in this letter than I have witnessed in him during other media appearances and written statements). You get the feeling that this is not so much about how Catholics feel as how he feels. Which I suppose is appropriate given that the Catholic League has no affiliation with the Catholic Church and anything relating to the Catholic League always seems to be about Bill Donahue.

Well this is a fine little dust up

Yesterday, PZ Myers, of pharyngula fame, pointed to a silly little story of alleged Eucharist desecration and the death threats (yes, that's right I said DEATH THREATS) that the wafer smuggler received after taking the cracker. PZ expressed a desire in his post to obtain the holy tasteless bread to perform some symbolic desecration. Well this got the ire of Captain Catholic himself, Bill Donahue, who now is, of course, calling for PZ Myers job as pennace for so foul an act as doing horrible things to a cracker.

Donahue is the epitome of a serial religious grievence monger. His organization is no different than CAIR, they just hold different myths sacred. Of course it is rank insanity to get huffy over a freakin cracker. Heck, the Catholic church let serial child molestation by its own clergy continue unabated for decades. A little inappropriate cracker touching would seem a minor offense. But irony has never been a strong suit for the relgious mind.

Well this little dust up has landed over at Nation Review Online's The Corner and the results are mixed. Katherine Lopez started it by merely reprinting Donahue's press release. But the response from the peanuts wasn't universal outrage. Andrew Stuttaford pointed out the obvious free speech issues while John Derbyshire reflected on PZ's discussion about piety and intelligence. But the most interesting passage was a letter reprinted by Jonah Goldberg from a reader. From the letter:

I understand that your heart is in the right place here, but the analogy is completely inadequate. We Christians are quite accustomed to have our _images_ treated scornfully, in a way that the Academy would never tolerate for images of politically correct heroes. But the Eucharist is not an image: it is, in the teaching of the Church, the Body of Christ itself. People have died rather than obey their captors' command to desecrate the Eucharist. To a believer, there is simply no analogy between the Eucharist and mere objects, any more than there is between a person and a photograph of a person.

This I find most interesting. If this were indeed the body of a human being, then Catholics around the world are guilty of cannabalism. Whoa whoa whoa!! you say. That's just going too far! Is it really? People like Bill Donahue are demanding that we take their religious views and traditions with respect. He damands it to an extreme that he believes a public University should FIRE a professor for merely suggesting that he would like to"desecrate" a cracker. I'd say that's pretty serious. And as the emailer suggested, Catholics believe that that cracker is the LITERAL body of Christ. It would seem we have no choice but to start rounding up Catholics as they leave the sacrament line. The Catholic League would surely roundly denounce the authorities for, you guessed it, taking their religion seriously.

I don't know how much clearer the goal of an organization like the Catholic League could be. They pine for the warm wooden box of theocracy to bury individual liberty in. Donahue wants the University of Minnesota Morris to destroy the livelihood of an individual over his opinions of a stupid cracker. And make no mistake about it, if Donahue had his way and didn't live in a secular democracy, PZ would have to worry about much more than his job.

Hmmm wonder why none of the companies were named

Fromm CNN we get this lovely piece of uncritical woo. Her name is Laura Day and she's an "intuitionist". It's certainly not surprising that she has a long list of celebrity clients. We expect the Nicole Kidman's of the world to buy what sounds like, well it sounds like absolutely nothing. And she charges her corporate clients 10K a month for this "service". Obviously the story says nothing whatsoever about which companies these may be. I wonder exactly where you put an intuitionist's services on a corporate balance sheet. We've all had to deal with the occasional idiot "consultant" that ends up costing you more than he could ever be worth. Can you imagine working a a particularly vexing project only to have Ms Day come in and convice upper management that her little inner voice tells her that it's a bad idea? And I wonder what the typical stockholder think about the company spending their investment on a bunch of nothing.

It seems that not even corporate America is immune to uncritical irrationality. What amazes me to no end is that CNN runs a total non-story with absolutely no critical examination. Are there no critics of this? If this were a story on, say, stem cell research, we would have quotes from scientists along with some ridiculous, uneducated horse manure from some "family" group. What to we get here? Essentially, it's a glowing profile and advertisement for Day. It almost makes me wonder if one of her clients is a certain news media mogul.....

R.I.P. George Carlin

George Carlin died yesterday of heart failure at the age of 71. Carlin was one of the most eloquent spokesmen for free speech and skepicism by speaking plainly and truthfully about the nonsense of believing in things for which there is no evidence. When arrested for using "vulgarities" in Milwaukee during his 7 words bit, he was asked about if he considered the children in the audience and if he would have used more restraint if he had known there were kids there. Most of the milquetoast entertainers of today would have folded into a genuflect apologia in an attempt to assuage the PC nannies. Carlin was unfazed and basically said it was the kids that needed to hear these words the most before they had built silly prejudices. He was right. Later, a broadcast of his comedy show precipitated a complaint to the FCC that eventually went all the way to the Supreme Court. The case unfortunately ended in a 5-4 decision in favor of the FCC being able to regulate "profane" speech on the radio (which apparently doesn't cover Michael Savage or Mark Levin).

He also directed a considerable amount of ridicule toward the major icons of Christianity. He could mount a full frontal assault on the 10 commandments, the Catholic church and evangelicalism in front of an audience that surely contained a large number of at least nominal Christians and get uproarious laughs. I have to believe that after some of these people stopped laughing and let the reason sink in, they had a "road to Pesci" moment and realized that the religious dogma they had been fed were nothing more than fairy tales.

So in rememberance of George, I will be weaving Shit, Piss, Fuck, Cunt, Cocksucker, Motherfucker, and Tits into my language today. And if anyone is offended well they can just fuck off.