Let's Make an Example of Bill Donohue

If you haven't heard of Bill Donohue, he is the head of the Catholic League who demanded that Senator Edwards fire two of his staffers, Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, for posting anti-Catholic statements on their personal blogs. The only problem is that these statements were not anti-Catholic in the intolerance sense. They were simply critical of the Catholic Church's stance against women's rights. Donohue is also a habitual anti-Semite and is the last person who should even consider pointing the intolerance finger.

Sadly, Amanda Marcotte resigned on her own (she was not fired as Donohue demanded) to protect Edwards' campaign (read about it on her blog here).

Now, where this gets interesting is the fact that the Catholic League is a non-profit organization and, by law, cannot influence politics, and Donohue using the Catholic League to demand that a political candidate fired some of his employees is definitely influencing politics. This is a perfect opportunity to make an example of the political preachers who tell their congregations how to vote while enjoying the benefits of tax-exempt status. It's time we show them that they are breaking the law through their actions and we will no longer stand for it. Daily Kos has more. I'll try to get more information as I find it.

As an aside, Amanda Marcotte has recieved some downright disturbing emails from supposed Christians, and several of them deal with sexual violence. You can see Marcotte's post on the subject here. It just goes to show how low of an opinion many Christians have of women. It's disgusting and immoral and we decent people should not tolerate it.

James Dobson is Still a Dirty Liar

Last month, I wrote a short post discussing James Dobson's distortion of the research of Dr. Carol Gilligan. Well, another PhD, Dr. Kyle Pruitt, has also come forward with the same complaints. In the video below, he talks about how Dobson has lied about Pruitt's findings in an attempt to further his theological goals. Check it out:



Just another example of evangelicals being selective with science. They use it when it helps then and ignore it when it refutes their claims.

Evangelicals Get One Gay Freebie

I missed this on my last post dealing with this subject, but it turns out the Inquisition--I mean the four ministers reviewing Ted Haggard's "immoral conduct" feel that Haggard is "completely heterosexual" because he only had homosexual relations with one man. From CNN:

Haggard also said his sexual contact with men was limited to the former male prostitute who came forward with sexual allegations, the Rev. Tim Ralph of Larkspur told The Denver Post for a story in Tuesday's edition.

"He is completely heterosexual," Ralph said. "That is something he discovered. It was the acting-out situations where things took place. It wasn't a constant thing."

Ralph said the board spoke with people close to Haggard while investigating his claim that his only extramarital sexual contact happened with Mike Jones. The board found no evidence to the contrary.

So, this sends a great message for homosexual evangelicals still in the closet: it's okay to have gay sex as long as it's only with one person. You're only gay when you have gay sex with a second man. What a load of crap.

Undoubtedly, they're trying to save face while ignoring Haggard's truly immoral actions. What about the bold faced lies he told to his wife and his congregation? Shouldn't that be the more important issue here? I guess integrity and isn't nearly as important to evangelicals as sexual orientation, which people cannot help. I hold this as further evidence that fundamental Christianity is morally bankrupt.

He's Cured!

After an intensive three weeks of treatment, Ted Haggard has been officially cured of his gayness. The Denver Post reported the following:

The Rev. Ted Haggard emerged from three weeks of intensive counseling convinced he is "completely heterosexual" and told an oversight board that his sexual contact with men was limited to his accuser.

Wow, that's enough to convince me that homosexuality is a choice. Despite the copious scientific evidence proving otherwise, I can't argue with this. But, come to think of it, I'm sure I would agree to just about anything after three weeks of intensive guilt tripping from a group of overbearing fundamentalists. It's really sad that Haggard can't admit who he actually is. He has to keep living a lie.

Then in a move suggesting that the New Life Church leadership doesn't believe their own bullshit, the Denver Post had this to say:

In the message, Haggard revealed that he and his wife, Gayle, intend to leave Colorado Springs and pursue master's degrees through online courses.

Haggard mentioned Missouri and Iowa as possible destinations. Another oversight board member, the Rev. Mike Ware of Westminster, said the group recommended the move out of town, and the Haggards agreed.

"This is a good place for Ted," Ware said. "It's hard to heal in Colorado Springs right now. It's like an open wound. He needs to get somewhere he can get the wound healed

I see. Haggard is "cured," but he still needs to be banished. If he was really cured, what would be the problem? I guess the church doesn't want Haggard tainting the entire congregation with his suppressed gay thoughts. What happened to the Christian ideal of being forgiving? I guess that doesn't apply to things people have no control over. It's really quite disgusting and helps highlight the moral bankruptcy of fundamental Christianity. They're on the same level of morality as the segregationists of the 20th century (unsurprisingly, it was fundamentalist Christians then too). If Americans really want to be seen as a caring, moral people, then we need to throw off this unethical mentality and embrace the idea that all people are equal.

The Use of Fear by Answers in Genesis

Ken Ham, president of the Creationist organization Answers in Genesis, recently posted an essay on his website warning Christians of the “new atheists.” It’s nothing more than the same old tactic of trying to scare people in supporting him, but I wanted to discuss it briefly. Ham starts by saying:

We’ve warned you about them before on our website—but now they’re on a much more aggressive march all across America. No longer are they just staying in their classrooms or writing books and articles in the comfort of their offices. They are “the new atheists,” and they are aggressively going after your children, your liberties, and your faith!

Right. So we’re supposed to stay out of sight and out of mind while Christians get to say whatever they want in the public arena. Ken Ham smells like a freedom hater to me. As for atheists trying to go after Christians’ children, liberties, and faith…well, if educating children how to think for themselves is what all that means, then sure. Is it wrong for children to learn how to make choices for themselves and how to look beyond the Bible to gain knowledge about the world around them? Obviously, Ham would think it’s wrong after seeing him in the documentary Friends of God brainwashing children with the line: “God said it, I believe it, that settles it!” Ham knows that religion loses too many true believers once people start thinking rationally.

Ham then goes into a long elaboration on how terrible it is that atheists dare express their opinions, particularly Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. To me, it just looks like Ham’s scared of Christians having to share the spotlight, but of course he uses fear to rile up his supporters:

Evolutionary indoctrination has produced generations (even in the church) who doubt the Bible. Barna Research discovered that of teenagers today who call themselves born-again Christians, only 9% believe there is such a thing as absolute truth. These young people are ripe for “secular evangelists” like Dawkins and Harris.

I automatically question how accurate that 9% figure is (it seems like it should be much higher), but it’s all nothing more than Orwellian scare tactics to keep people from learning something on their own. When Ham paints atheism as something to be feared, people close themselves off to understanding it. It works all the time. Just look at the US after 9/11 and the lead up to war with Iraq. A majority of Americans closed themselves off from rational thought out of fear right when we most needed to be reasonable. Ham’s trying to achieve the same thing.

Finally, how else could a religious leader finish except to ask for money?

As we begin this new year, I ask you to consider what you might do to partner with us. The website and future museum are wonderful ways we can counter the atheists’ message of meaninglessness and hopelessness—and offer the precious gospel instead.

Once again, painting atheism as something it’s not. *Sigh*

To sum it all up, I wanted to share this letter because it displays one of my major problems with organized religion. Almost all are based on fear and use fear to maintain power. The only reason this tactic perseveres is because fear is the best way to keep people in line. No free, civilized society should stand for it. Now, I'm sure Ken Ham is sincere about his beliefs, and I have no problem with that, but that doesn't mean should be allowed to scare people into believing the same thing. It's coercive and ethically wrong.

God Said it, I Believe it, that Settles it!

Crooks and Liars has a short clip from Alexandra Pelosi's film, Friends of God, dealing with evangelical views towards evolution. I recommend you check it out.

From watching it, one can easily see why Creationism endures in America. As the woman early in the clip said, "Creationism is easy." Most people don't want to take time to understand science, and then they believe in liars like Ken Ham just because he speaks from the pulpit.

Then you have adults doing everything they can to prevent children from thinking for themselves with the line "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." There's few things worse than willingly supressing a child's ability to learn and forever closing his or her mind to inquiry.

ID Organization Begs for Money

The Foundation for Thought and Ethics, the organization that published the intelligent design textbook Of Pandas and People, is getting ready to publish their new ID textbook the Design of Life. There's only one problem: they need $200,000 and they want YOU to donate the money. Why should you support this cause? Well, Jon Buell provides a number of laughable reasons in his fundraising letter. First off, Buell says points to the desperate state of "Darwinists" and their supporters:

The Darwinists believe they are losing. Why else would they politicize an academic debate, take it into courts, and punish skeptics?

Wait a minute. Wasn't it ID supporters who lobbied school boards to change the curriculum of several public school districts? Wasn't it ID supporters who hoped to force the issue in court to overrrule Edwards v. Aguillard? Now, who actually politicized this? As for the punishing skeptics part, the major example IDists push, the whole Sternburg saga, is a situation where the guy deserved to be fired (read more here).

And fascinating facts are surfacing. Careful analysis reveals that 90.9% of Judge John E. Jones's verdict was lifted, almost verbatim, including the errors, from the ACLU's submitted "Findings of Fact." The opinion is not his own analysis at all.

Despite the fact that this claim has long since been dealt with, I'll address it again here for the sake of education. When a judge agrees with one side's findings of fact, then he or she will use it. That is how they regularly operate. They're not writing literature, a historical essay, or a scientific paper, so it's not a matter of plagurism (read more here).

Meanwhile, Interest in Intelligent Design is Exploding!

Biochemist Franklin Harold said, ". . .but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."

In an MIT Press book, Origination of Organismal Form, the authors admit, "neo-Darwinism has no theory of the generative."

Google reported over 24 million hits on the term intelligent design during most of the trial.

Two movies are in the works on ID, one from each perspective.

Over 4.000 gathered in the Univ. of So. Florida Sun Dome Sports Arena for an ID conference.

A Texas Voter's Guide published in the fall reached 6 .4 million, reporting the views of candidates on various issues of public interest. Those favoring the inclusion of ID in biology courses outnumbered opponents by a three-to-one margin.

Franklin Harold's quote is a push to remove excessive speculation and focus more on observation when using the theory of evolution. It has nothing to do with ID. Origination of Organismal Form is meant to stimulate research to produce a more comprehensive theory of evolution, which is simply science doing what it's supposed to do: explore the unknown. Once again, it has nothing to do with ID. Google hits? Please. I've Googled Intelligent Design. That doesn't mean I support it. As for the ID conference, if you Google it, you'll get hits from a bunch of ID websites. It seems like it's only a big deal in the minds of the IDists. The actual scientific community didn't even notice. Finally, Buell doesn't provide the source for his "three-to-one margin" data, so that's extremely suspect.

So we have a couple of lies and overblown or misleading claims. But it gets better:

The stage is set for The Design of Life:

The manuscript is complete. The book itself is a phenomenon.

It is scheduled to be released on March 1st, 2007, provided we can secure the funding for this exciting project.

We've got a start on booking Dembski to speak at universities with this book.

We have hired a marketing and PR firm to work with us and a comprehensive plan for marketing the book is in the works.

It has the explosive potential to reach young people, as the recent gathering of young people at the University of South Florida's Sun Dome attests.

Christianity Today calls Dembski "Johnson's successor as the informal leader of the intelligent design community." Dembski authored the first ID book by a major university press (Cambridge University Press, 1998). He edited Darwin's Nemesis (IVP), a Festschrift in honor of Prof. Phillip Johnson. His work has been featured on the front page of the New York Times, he has debated top Darwinists at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, and has appeared on ABC's Nightline. He lectures around the globe (the Niels Bohr Institute in Denmark, Cambridge and Oxford, U.C. Berkeley, UCLA, Princeton, Yale, MIT) on ID.

Wow. A phenomenon. Well, I can't wait. It's also interesting that the "informal leader of the intelligent design community" is a mathematician, not a biologist. Enough said there.

Buell then goes into a lengthy allegory about "Darwinists" unknowingly flying upside down, which results in materialism, immorality, etc. Then he finishes by saying, "Darwinism is the most effective engine of atheism ever invented!" Right. Because as an atheist, I really base my morality on the theory of evolution. Like I've always said. Evolution is not a basis of morality, nor should it be. It simply describes an observed natural phenomenon. As an atheist, I base my morality on the principle of empathy, not a scientific theory. Clearly, Buell's diatribe reveals the underlying fundamentalist Christian motives of the ID movement (not like there was any doubt, anyway).

Next, we have this gem:

Friends, the time is ripe for the next step-leap, really-in this movement. We can bring what has seemed like a dream to full reality. I urge you to embrace and adopt this vital and noble vision as your own! Are you giving what you can to bring a big and noble vision to fruition? Whether for the sake of the school children you see out romping over the Christmas vacation, or for the future of America, the West, and of civilization, there could be no greater reason to reach out, seize a great vision, and embrace it as the cause that you will fight for, bleed for, deny yourself for, take risks for, and champion among your friends.

The future of Western Civilization depends on the success of ID? Riiiiight. Too bad it's science that has made the West such a great place to live. What did a completely Christian society bring us? Oh that's right. The Middle Ages and Puritan New England, just to name a couple of examples.

Then the letter begs for $200,000 with the promise that The Design of Life will triumph over the repressive government. What, was Of Pandas and People not sneaky enough? Did it not sound "sciency" enough. Did you not make a profit of of Pandas? Considering the lies Buell told above to try and convince people to give him money, I seriously doubt this "phenomenon" of a textbook will have an honest representation of evolution. Pandas certainly did not.

Finally, just in case we weren't sure ID was religiously-motivated movement, the letter ends with:

Would you prayerfully consider what you are able to do to help? And please also pray for us in this exciting adventure! God bless you!

You know, if ID could stand on its scientific merit, then it wouldn't need prayer. At any rate, it's good to see that a leading ID organization is strapped for cash.

An Actual Attempt to Suggest that Wolves are the Same as Tasmanian Wolves

A few days ago I wrote a response to a post on Shelley the Republican that claimed the thylacine (Tasmanian wolf) was no different than an actual wolf despite the significant reproductive differences, amongst other things (you can see my post here). As it turns out, Shelley the Republican is probably a satire, and I wrote off the whole comparison as an effectively absurd joke.

However, an actual ID "scientist" has been trying to do the same thing for real. The forum antievolution.org had this statement from the comments of Uncommon Descent where Wesley R. Elsberry said:

Then there was the ID conference in San Francisco where Dr. Cornelius G. Hunter, the "expert" involved in the antievolution shenanigans in Roseville, CA, presented the wolf and thylacine as identical twins separated at birth argument. His visual aid, handily printed in the proceedings, consisted of two images side-by-side. On one side, you had the usual painting of two thylacines in color. On the other, you had the same painting, mirrored horizontally, and desaturated. Yep, you just could not tell the difference between the wolves on one side and the thylacines on the other. Uncanny, even.

At least, none of the ID attendees cottoned on. It wasn't until I pointed out the problem to Paul Nelson that the ID community had notice of it.

Later, Cornelius Hunter posted his response:

It is strange that evolutionists never get around to addressing the scientific issue. Wesley Elsberry appears to be denying convergence, but that can't be true. If he has an explanation for convergence then let's hear it. If not, then admit it. Here is the question for evolutionists: How is it that similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence for evolution, in light of equala and greater levels of similarity in distant species, such as dsplayed in the marsupial and placental mouse?

Despite the fact that a distant common ancestor can explain the later convergence since they probably started with the same or a similar form and evolved to adapt to the same problem, the part that really angers me is how Cornelius Hunter tired to deceive the audience by altering pictures of the thylacines. This complete lack of intellectual honesty is why I can never take ID advocates seriously (besides the fact that ID doesn't follow the conventions of science).

Check out PZ Myers' thoughts on the matter at Pharyngula.

The Christian Culture of Deception

The Atheist Ethicist has an excellent essay on the accepted practice of lying and deception within the current culture of Conservative, American Christians. The points brought up in the essay are one of the major reasons, if not the reason, I detest Conservative Christians. They label themselves as the moral and ethical standard bearers of the nation, but then show a complete lack of integrity and intellellectual honesty. If that's what it means to be moral and ethical, then I don't want anything to do with it. Again, I encourage you to read the essay.

Kent Hovind Doesn't Check His "Facts"

This is the last post about Kent Hovind, I swear. After doing a bit more research on the guy, I've found a little something I just had to share about how severely this man distorts science and uses unsubstantiated claims for evidence.

In late 1999, New Mexicans for Science and Reason (NMSR) pulled a hilarious April Fool's prank. They created a fake fossil of a hominid being eaten by an Allosaurus (pictured below). They then photographed the "discovery" of the fossils and posted them on a website calling it "Onyate Man" along with a fictional story about the discoverer's attempt to reveal the find to the public while avoiding a world-wide consipiracy involving scientists and several governments determined to cover it all up. (You can see the original prank here and NMSR's explanation here)


A month later, Kent Hovind told an audience in Philadelphia, PA "to study convincing new evidence of humans living with dinosaurs. Hovind's evidence, a web site at http://www.darwindisproved.com/Archive.html [no longer valid. It has been moved to here], turned out to be the annual NMSR April Fool's prank" (Source).

Upon learning of their success, NMSR awarded Hovind with the 2000 P.T. Barnum "One Born Every Minute" Award at their Best and Worst of 1999 Awards. In response to NMSR's announcement letter, Hovind challenged NMSR scientists to a public debate. The NMSR made a counter-proposal offering to take part in a written debate with 750-word essays for each point and counter-point. Hovind repeatedly refused with the lame excuse of not having enough time and kept pushing for an oral debate. (You can see the dialogue here)

What's the matter Hovind? Afraid to make an argument in writing that people have time to research and refute? It's a lot easier to lie when people don't have ready access to information, isn't it? This is not the first time Hovind has shown a dislike for writing out his "theories." He's even prevented his thesis from being publicly available. (Find out why this is a problem here)

All in all, this just shows how unscientific Hovind's methods are. He finds any scrap of evidence, no matter how dubious it is or how much he has to distort it, and presents it as evidence for the Bible, which he never validates in the first place. Of course, silly things like "rules" don't apply to Hovind, and that's why he didn't pay his taxes.

On a final note, I kind of worry whether or not NMSR did a disservice by creating this prank, since it has shown up as "evidence" from Creationist groups as late as 2004.

More Lies from the White House

The Center for American Progress has a revealing analysis of "Advancing Stem Cell Science Without Destroying Human Life," a document recently published by the White House. The CAP points out the wild distortions of science throughout the document, particualrly concerning the usefulness of adult stem cells and amneotic stem cells (here's the scientist who discovered amneotic stem cells saying they are not an alternative to embryonic stem cells).

Despite the fact it's theology (and, therefore, unconstitutional) to believe that a sphere of 100 undifferentiated cells is a human being, the sheer audacity of the science distortions are amazing. Even with the general consensus within science against these claims, the White House has no problem lying to satisfy its supporters. This sort of lying to the American public is downright criminal. I can't wait for January 2009 when we finally get a new administration. Hopefully they'll show a degree of decency, unlike the current one.

Just Who Is Kent Hovind and Why is He a Dirty Liar?

Despite his opinions of his own self importance, few people outside fundamentalist Christian circles knew of Kent "Dr. Dino" Hovind prior to his arrest and conviction of tax evasion. As an educational service, I've provided a few videos of Kent Hovind's lectures. To keep the ignorance from overpowering you, the videos are actually responses from ExtantDodo that feature clips of Hovind's major talking points followed by actual science refuting his claims. Prepare to be in awe of Hovind's stupidity and the ease at which his claims are debunked:










What amazes me is how Hovind goes against his own understanding of science right after explains it. He talks about how science is based on evidence from observation, but he never reconciles with the complete lack of observed evidence to make the theology of the Bible a valid starting assumption. He automatically assumes a Bronze and Iron Age document is flawless without any attempt to verify it and then bases all his "predictions" on that unvalidated assumption. It just shows how much his faith has hopelessly blinded him.

Of course, he recieved his "PhD" from a Patriot Bible College, a non-accredited Christian diploma mill and taught at a school he founded. It's no wonder he has a elementary school level of understanding of science.

Now, the man is going to prison, and I don't usually like kicking a man while he's down, but I don't like it when people try to distort reality for their own selfish ends.

Kent Hovind Gets Ten Years for Tax Evasion

Hardcore Young-Earth Creationist Kent Hovind and his wife were sentenced to ten years in jail for failing to pay almost one million dollars in taxes to the IRS. Get this: his defense was "he and his employees are workers of God and therefore exempt from paying taxes." I'm still laughing over that one.

Hovind does have hope, though. Shelley the Republican has instructed her readers to "Let us pray to Jesus that Kent and Jo will be allowed to continue their important ministry and continue teaching young scientists about the many flaws in Darwin’s theory of evolution." I'm sure God will pull some strings and bail Hovind out, right?

Once again notice the mention of Darwin's name. They really hate the guy.

Read the full story here.

Hitler Was NOT an Atheist

Today, I’d like to tackle one of the most frustrating arguments fundamentalist Christians use for “proof” of why atheism is evil: Adolf Hitler.

I received this amazingly ignorant response from a fundamentalist while having a debate in the comments section of DefCon’s blog:

“Hitler was an atheist too! Hitler believed in the theory of evolution! Hitler attempted to wipe out all of the Jews because he believed in theory of evolution.”

Hitler might have believed in evolution, but evolution is not a belief system or a basis for morality. It simply explains the natural phenomenon that can be seen in the fossil record. As far as Hitler’s use of evolution, Hitler created a German, National Socialist religion with himself as god and put forth the unscientific belief of “genetic hygiene.” I’m not even going to bother with the evolution part because it’s just like Tom DeLay saying that Columbine was a result of teaching children the theory of evolution. Sheer nonsense.

What I really want to focus on is the assertion that Hitler was an atheist. The evidence proving otherwise is so mind-numbingly easy to find, I’m amazed fundies continue to insist on Hitler’s atheism. The best way to refute this claim is to look at what Hitler actually wrote. Here’s a few poignant quotes from Mein Kampf:

“I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.” (pg. 46)

“What we have to fight for...is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator.” (pg. 125)

“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” (pg. 60)

“This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief.” (pg. 152)

“And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God.” (pg. 174)

Maybe I’m missing something, but Hitler’s own words sure don’t make him seem like an atheist to me. In the end, the whole “Hitler was an atheist” claim is clearly nothing more than a myth fundamentalist Christians use to feel good about themselves while persecuting nonbelievers.

Quote of the Week

"Here at Focus on the Family, we're not political."

- Dr. James Dobson still being a dirty liar (source). This would be hilarious if he didn't control so many people.

Teacher Caught Preaching Speaks Out

Last month I wrote a post about David A. Paszkiewicz, the teacher from Kearny, NJ who was called out for preaching in a classroom after telling his students that they would go to hell if they did not accept Jesus.

Well, Mr. Paszkiewicz recently send a letter to his local newpaper defending his actions. Unsurprisingly, he makes the "Christian Nation" defense and finds a few quotes from the founding fathers to support his claim that they never intended for there to be a separation of church and state. Paszkiewicz makes this oft-used argument: "the words 'separation of church and state”'cannot be found in our Constitution." Then he goes on to use a bunch of quotes from Thomas Jefferson to show that he never intended it, nevermind the fact that Jefferson coined the term in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Church in 1802.

The fact remains that "separation of church and state" is a layman's way of describing the esblaishment clause of the 1st Amendment, which says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Why do conservative Christians have such a hard time understanding this phrase?

In Paszkiewicz's case, his letter further plainly reveals how detached he is from reality and how much his religion controls his mind. He claims, "It is my firm conviction that there is an effort afoot to undermine the very underpinnings of our freedoms." Looking past his laughable "conviction" in a wide-ranging conspiracy (another oft-used fundamentalist claim), is he so brainwashed that he doesn't realize that preaching in a school undermines others' religious freedoms? Doesn't he realize that it doesn't really matter what the founding fathers believed? We should not elevate them to the status of gods. They were human like the rest of us. In the end, all that matters is what is written in the Constitution, and the fact remains that it says nothing about Jesus, God, etc.

The scariest part of this whole episode is that Paszkiewicz was preaching while teaching a course on the Constitution. How can someone teach about our governing document when he clearly knows nothing about it? When someone cultivates ignorance in children, it's nothing short of child abuse.

Update: I recommend reading Ed Brayton's article on the subject at Dispatches from the Culture Wars. It's good stuff.

Here's the letter in its entirety:

It is my firm conviction that there is an effort afoot to undermine the very underpinnings of our freedoms. Kearny has been characterized as a backward town inhabited by barbarians. This is unfortunate, because Kearny (the town I love, have chosen to live in and serve) is nothing of the sort. It is made up of intelligent, hard-working, benevolent, tolerant people and it pains me greatly to see it maligned. In light of the current controversy concerning church and state in Kearny, I would like to share some thoughts from our founders.

But first let me say this, the words “separation of church and state” cannot be found in our Constitution. The intent of the founders was to limit the government’s encroachment into matters of conscience and religion, not to exclude any discussion of religion from public life. The so called “wall of separation” is mentioned only in a letter to an organization of Baptists in Danbury Conn. in which Jefferson uses that phrase to assure them that he will not restrict their religious liberty. It is unfortunate that this is the only Jefferson quote on the subject that gets attention in the press. Allow me to share some more. The first group I’d like to share concern Jefferson’s beliefs.

“I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” (Letter to Benjamin Rush April 21, 1803).

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781).

These next quotes concern Jefferson’s thoughts on the courts. I’m sharing these because they seem to have been prophetic. Jefferson’s worst nightmare has come true! The courts have been used to strip us of our liberty!

“The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” (Letter to Spencer Roane Sept. 6, 1819).

“You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all Constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy ... The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal ... knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.” (Letter to William Jarvis Sept. 28, 1820).

It is abundantly clear to me that popular conceptions of our First Amendment freedoms have drifted far from what the founders intended. Jefferson is often quoted by the enemies of religious freedom who appeal to the decisions of tyrannical courts rather than the will of the people, the minds of the founders or the Constitution. Jefferson would be appalled if he were alive today!

George Washington, the venerated father of our beloved country, also had some interesting thoughts on the subject:“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.” (Washington’s speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779).

“It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits and humbly to implore his protection and favors.” (Washington’s Thanksgiving Proclamation Oct. 3, 1789).

I would be remiss to fail to include quotes from another icon of the anti-freedom of religion crowd, Benjamin Franklin:

“God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the sacred writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” (Constitutional Convention 1787).

“In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered … do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?” (Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787).

In 1749, Franklin put a plan together for public education in Pennsylvania and he insisted that schools teach “the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern.”

In 1787, he helped found Benjamin Franklin University. It was dedicated as “a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the cornerstone.”

This is a mere sampling of what was on the minds of our founders as they formed this great nation of ours. May we walk worthy of the great heritage they left us. Let us remember that it is in this context that we have preserved the freest nation on earth!

In closing, with regard to this town being made up of unintelligent barbarians … if that is true, it is only because they share the same thinking as Jefferson, Washington and Franklin!

David A. Paszkiewicz, Kearny

Ambiotic Stem Cells Not a Replacement for Embryonic Ones: Religious Right to Blame for the Deception?

Two days ago I posted information regarding a new source of stem cells that held the potential to make embryotic stem cells unnecessary. It looks like it was all one big lie.

Anthony Atala, the scientist from Wake University who discovered the amniotic stem cells told Congress today that they should not consider his work an alternative to embryotic stem cell research. "Some may be interpreting my research as a substitute for the need to pursue other forms of regenerative medicine therapies, such as those involving embryonic stem cells. I disagree with that assertion," Atala said (source: boston.com).

It seems the mainstream media was mislead by individuals and organization who distorted Atala's findings to try and prevent embryonic stem cell research. What organizations took part in this deception? You won't be surprised: Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council, both fundamentalist Christian organizations. Once again, fundamentalist Christians prove they are dirty liars when trying to get their way. How can so many adults put their support behind organizations that have the honor of a greedy child? It boggles my mind.

More Pat Robertson Fun

Since Pat Robertson provided my quote of the week and the fact that he's proven so accurate on his prophecies, I just had to include this, courtesy of the Associated Press:

In what has become an annual tradition of prognostications, religious broadcaster Pat Robertson predicted Tuesday that a terrorist attack on the United States would result in "mass killing" late in 2007.

"I'm not necessarily saying it's going to be nuclear," he said during his news-and-talk television show "The 700 Club" on the Christian Broadcasting Network. "The Lord didn't say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that."

Robertson said God told him during a recent prayer retreat that major cities and possibly millions of people will be affected by the attack, which should take place sometime after September.

Robertson said God also told him that the U.S. only feigns friendship with Israel and that U.S. policies are pushing Israel toward "national suicide."

Robertson suggested in January 2006 that God punished then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon with a stroke for ceding Israeli- controlled land to the Palestinians.

The broadcaster predicted in January 2004 that President Bush would easily win re-election. Bush won 51 percent of the vote that fall, beating Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. He also predicted Bush's victory for a second term in 2005.

"I have a relatively good track record," he said. "Sometimes I miss."

In May, Robertson said God told him that storms and possibly a tsunami were to crash into America's coastline in 2006. Even though the U.S. was not hit with a tsunami, Robertson on Tuesday cited last spring's heavy rains and flooding in New England as partly fulfilling the prediction.

No tsunamis in 2006? I'm shocked--just shocked. Certainly, God can do a little better to make good on Robertson's prophecies, otherwise Robertson might look foolish. Oh wait, he claimed he could leg press a ton (with this technique, anyone could). He already looks like a moron. I was a little worried there for a moment.

What I'm Optimistic About

I found an interesting feature over at edge.org where a number of scholars, scientists, etc. were asked what they are optimistic about and why. There’s some neat ideas expressed there, and I recommend you check it out here.

While reading the various entries, I started thinking of what I’m optimistic about. The following is my humble response to the same question:

In the last couple of years, I’ve found myself becoming more and more pessimistic about the direction this nation has taken. We’ve had Iraq, a subtle, continuing loss of civil rights, rising national debt, the growing influence of the Religious Right in the government, polarization of America, and so on. However, I have hope that things have finally gotten bad enough to jolt Americans out of their complacency.

With the voter apathy in this country it has been easy for the well-organized Religious Right (and that voter organization was partially achieved through illegal methods) to push their agenda in the federal and state governments. However, Karl Rove’s vaunted vote-getting machine failed in the 2006 elections. Enough Americans finally decided to do something and took Congress away from the Republicans.

Now, Congress will no longer operate as a rubber stamp for President Bush’s policies. It’s fair to hope he won’t get anything significant done in his last two years. He will actually have to interact and compromise with Congress, and not simply let Republican sycophants do his bidding. Perhaps now Bush will come out of the dream world of magic he’s been living in and face reality.

Furthermore, I’m optimistic that 2004 was the high tide of the Religious Right’s power. Despite their obvious failure this last November, other, more subtle signs have appeared. The legal death of Intelligent Design in September 2005 after the Kitzmiller v. Dover School Board ruling meant that creationists had to go back to the drawing board. Now they’re not even offering an alternative. Instead they’re trying to “teach the controversy” that doesn’t exist. It’s only a matter of time until Intelligent Design is just a bad memory. Unfortunately, the Creationist organization Answers in Genesis will open their new Creation Museum outside Cincinnati that supports the young-Earth theory. I'm optimistic it will face nothing but declining visitor numbers until it has to shut down due to lack of funding.

The Religious Right embarrassed itself this past year. Ted Haggard, mega-church pastor and president of the National Association of Evangelicals, turned out to be gay and a drug-user. Another mega-church pastor in Denver admitted to being gay shortly afterwards. Pat Robertson continued to show that he is an intolerant moron with no grasp on reality (he leg-pressed a ton you know. Too bad he didn't even come close to using the right technique).

Finally, people have begun to stand up and do what they can to oppose the Religious Right. Internet groups focused on the subject have grown enormously in just the last year, increasing awareness. The media (except Fox News, of course) and the publishing world have increasingly brought the Religious Right’s unconstitutional and intolerant activities to light. Bush looks increasingly single-minded and foolish, especially when it comes to Iraq and his refusal to accept that he cannot win. American Democracy is beginning to work the way it’s supposed to, because the American people have become concerned and started to participate.

In conclusion, I’m optimistic that America has come back from the brink of becoming a theocracy. Of course, we must remain vigilant and continue to participate. This is a battle that will never go away. However, the future is what we make it, and I think we can make this country the nation we dream of if we simply continue to resist the forces of intolerance and ignorance and do what we can to make this world a better place.

On a related note, PZ Meyers at Pharyngula shared his New Year's Dream with us, and I can say I agree exactly.

James Dobson is a Dirty Liar

Dr. James Dobson (pictured), founder of the fundamental Christian organization Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs, recently wrote an opinion piece in Time magazine concerning the news that Mary Cheney, Vice President Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter, is pregnant and intends to raise the child with her female partner. In the article, Dobson cites the research of Carol Gilligan, a profesor at NYU, for proof that children need a mother and a father. In it, he states that Prof. Gilligan found that "mothers tend to stress sympathy, grace and care to their children, while fathers accent justice, fairness and duty. Moms give a child a sense of hopefulness; dads provide a sense of right and wrong and its consequences. Other researchers have determined that boys are not born with an understanding of "maleness." They have to learn it, ideally from their fathers."

That seems like fair enough evidence I suppose. Except it's not what Prof. Gilligan's research said at all. She wrote an angry letter to Dobson demanding that he not cite her work anymore because he had severely distorted her findings. There's even a video on YouTube that features her disputing Dobson's article (you can see it here).

Regardless of where you stand on the issue of same-sex couples raising children (personally, I'm not even sure where I stand. I'd like to see more, unbiased studies on the matter), lying to prove a point is simply dispicable. Furthermore, it seems un-Christian to me. As a nonbeliever, I might not be the best authority on the subject, but isn't the 9th Commandment "Thou shalt not lie"? Dr. Dobson, you just committed a sin you hypocrite by distorting science for your own means (and it wouldn't be the first time).