Agnosticum

Enlightening an increasingly ignorant world.

Last build:
Language:
en-US
Feed URL:
http://www.psicop-zone.com/agnosticum/rss.php

RSS FEED IDEMS: Agnosticum

  • Killing Airtime With Noah's Ark
    The proliferation of channels on American television has led to the inevitable ... channels full of crap meant to fill airtime. It’s much easier on Hollywood to just regurgitate bilge than to make the effort to produce quality stuff.

    Case in point: Tonight, the National Geographic Channel is broadcasting a “documentary” about the search for Noah’s Ark. This issue was put to rest a long time ago, but not even a company like National Geographic, it seems, is immune to trotting out such vomit now and again.

    All previous attempts to document a surviving Noah’s Ark have proven false, and all reports of it having been found, either wrong, or outright frauds (such as CBS’s 1993 special). One would think that media outlets would shy away from “Noah’s Ark” specials ... but not in America! People still eat it up, apparently, even if such searches are the exclusive realm of frauds and pseudoscientists. That doesn’t matter ... this Noah’s Ark crap just keeps coming back up repeatedly.

    As we move into the 21st century, instead of learning to do without such primitive mythology, Americans are now shoving new technology (such as global satellite imaging) at the problem of finding it. The yearning for confirmation of irrational and groundless beliefs is still very strong — unfortunately.

    Just think what the mass media could accomplish, if it didn’t waste time on ancient mythology. Just think what new technologies could do, if they weren’t twisted into “confirming” baseless metaphysics. But Americans are too primitive to let that happen.
    Mon, 02 Jul 2007 01:03:32 GMT

  • Facing Facts
    By now you all know about the attempted car-bombings in London and the successful (albeit without casualties) one at Glasgow Airport this weekend. You may also know — as the vast majority of the occidental world does — that Islamist terrorists were responsible.

    But if you listen to the British government, you get a different story; pleas, essentially, not to “leap to conclusions.” For example, we have London’s mayor, Ken Livingstone:
    London's Mayor Ken Livingstone today urged people not to demonise Muslims in the wake of the failed car bombs in the capital....

    “All I am interested in as mayor is that we try to prevent all acts of violence whether it is by a disaffected young member of the BNP or whether it is by an Islamist or a Wahhabist supporter,” he said.

    While the mayor is definitely correct that the Islamist terrorists are only a minority of Muslims, the fact remains that it’s only the Muslim community who can filter them out. They’re the ones in the best position to know who the terrorists are and either deconvert them from terrorist thinking, or turn them over to the authorities.

    Telling everyone not to leap to conclusions about Muslims doesn’t help, because it lets Muslims as a whole “off the hook” and provides an excuse for them to act as if nothing is wrong. But the fact is that there is something very wrong. There really are Islamist terrorists embedded in Muslim communities around the world. They do exist. It may not be fair, but it’s other Muslims who are the only ones capable of doing something about them. We do not live in a “fair” world (last I knew).

    Muslims who don’t want to be associated with the terrorist minority in their community, can do something about it ... shut the terrorists down! Deconvert them. Ostracize them. Watch them. Turn them in to the authorities. Do whatever it takes. As I said, I fully admit this is not fair to the “good” Muslims, however, that’s just the way the world is. (If they don’t like having to live in an unfair world, they should take that up with al-Lah.
    Sun, 01 Jul 2007 16:05:08 GMT

  • Scriptural Campaigning
    The 2008 presidential race may set a new record in Bible-quoting by candidates. They’re climbing all over each other in an effort to appear Biblically-attuned.

    It’s normal, of course, to hear Biblical pontification from Republican candidates; it may as well be a requirement for them. But this time around, Democrats are going at it, too. Barack Obama, Senator from IL, is becoming well-known for it.

    Why are they doing this? Probably for several reasons. One of the reasons may be the increasing religiosity of public discourse in the country. Over the last decade or so the Religious Right has worked to divide the country along religious lines (of course, as they see them). They’ve painted themselves as loyal supporters of everything good and Godly, and their opponents as secularists who are “anti-God.” The phrase “secular humanist” carries a rather sinister connotation, in the minds of many (nearly as sinister as “Nazi”).

    Polls confirm that Americans do not trust the “secular” and “godless”; a Gallup poll earlier this year showed that a whopping 53% of Americans would not vote for an atheist — of their own party! This particular poll found that voters were more likely to accept a Mormon and a 72-year-old candidate, than an atheist.

    Candidates of both parties must, therefore, make a conscious effort to let everyone know that they’re religious ... because if they don’t, over half of the country will not consider them for office — and no politician can ever become elected to anything if half of the voters are against him/her.

    What’s astonishing is that 53% figure. Somewhere around 25% of the country are evangelical Christians who quite obviously would never vote for an atheist ... but this means there are at least 25% more who are not as reactionary as the evangelicals, but still would not accept an atheist. Unfortunately this Gallup poll did not plumb the minds of these people to find out why they dislike or distrust atheists.

    Some have said that atheists are the last group in the country that it’s acceptable to discriminate against. These and other polls certainly bear this out, and the behavior of the 2008 candidates also supports this.

    And here I thought we’d entered the 21st century. Silly me.
    Sun, 01 Jul 2007 00:17:55 GMT

  • Faith-Based Initiatives Goes To Court
    This Monday the US Supreme Court made a ruling in the case involving the Bush administration’s “faith-based initiatives”:

    Court bars suit on faith-based plan


    A divided Supreme Court yesterday stopped an atheist group's lawsuit against President Bush's faith-based initiative, ruling that the plaintiffs do not have standing in the case and thus enabling Bush to continue a program he created by executive order without congressional approval.

    While many — even in the mainstream media, who should know better! — have reported this as a ruling by the Court “supporting” faith-based initiatives, this is not the case! As the paragraph above explains, what the Court decided was not that the faith-based initiatives are Constitutional; rather the Court decided that the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to bring suit in the matter. That is, merely being a taxpayer is not enough to bring suit over a government program.

    This is pretty much what the Court has been doing with these SOCAS (separation of church and state) cases over the past few years ... dodging a decision. They did the same thing with the Newdow “pledge of allegiance” case a couple years ago, ruling that Newdow didn’t have standing to sue on behalf of his daughter. (In many ways their ruling in his case will have a greater effect on lawsuits involving children and non-custodial parents, than it will over the SOCAS issue.)

    On Monday, then, the Court swerved out of the way of making a decision on the SOCAS issue.

    What’s remarkable here is that, while many liberals have painted the Bush Court as conservative reactionaries eager to upend SOCAS, they have in fact declined at least two recent opportunities to do precisely that. The idea of “activist” or reactionary Supreme Court justices who’re foaming at the mouth to make the US into a theocracy, is simply not borne out by the evidence. Historically, and as a body, the Supreme Court is a cautious institution, and even though it’s overwhelmingly conservative, we’re seeing that very caution in action.

    The real effect of this decision will have less to do with SOCAS than with the matter of standing. In fact, I find it more disturbing that taxpayers — simply by virtue of being taxpayers — cannot bring suit to halt or modify government practices. It is, as far as I can tell, a bad precedent; it reduces one means of redress of grievances (which the First Amendment provides for).
    Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:28:53 GMT

  • Sanity in the UK
    According to The Register, the UK has definitively kicked “intelligent design” out of science curricula:
    The government has announced that it will publish guidance for schools on how creationism and intelligent design relate to science teaching, and has reiterated that it sees no place for either on the science curriculum.

    It has also defined “Intelligent Design”, the idea that life is too complex to have arisen without the guiding hand of a greater intelligence, as a religion, along with “creationism”.

    Alas and alack, while the UK takes this courageous stand in favor of science and the future, the US continues sliding back into the Dark Ages of primitive metaphysical thought; it’s home, for example, to the newly-opened Creation Museum. Sigh.
    Tue, 26 Jun 2007 18:59:01 GMT

  • Law of Attraction, or Law of Selling Books and Movies?
    The last couple of years have seen a lot of New Age tripe being spewed over something called “the ‘Law’ of Attraction.” Essentially it’s Norman Vincent Peale repackaged for channelers, crystal-lovers, astrologers, and assorted other New Age gibberishians.

    The Skeptic’s Dictionary has a good article on this so-called “law.” Supposedly it’s “scientifically proven” (if The Secret and What the Bleep Do We Know? are to be believed). I’d like to know what peer-reviewed, credentialed scientific journal has published this “scientific proof”?

    {crickets chirping} {crickets chirping} {crickets chirping} X

    I thought so.

    I’d also like to know what legislative body or other law-giving person or agency passed this “law”? Have you heard about it? Does anyone have photos or video footage of the signing?

    {crickets chirping} {crickets chirping} {crickets chirping} X

    I thought so.

    The idea that our thoughts create our reality is patently absurd. If it were true, everyone on the planet would be deliriously happy and we wouldn’t even be thinking about this. Aside from that, there are many specific circumstances in which this principle doesn’t hold up. I’m sure, for instance, that many people dying of starvation in the Third World would “think themselves” food. But they can’t. No amount of thought is going to fill their stomachs, when there is no food to be had.

    Sorry to break it to New Age gibberish-lovers ... but unfortunately for us, our thoughts do not “create” reality. And no, I’m not holding my breath waiting for the putative “scientific proof” that it’s true.

    P.S. Even otherwise-smart people are stupid enough to believe that someone passed a “law” of attraction; for instance, Oprah Winfrey recently shilled for The Secret but had to backtrack a bit, according to Slate magazine. Then again, Oprah has been taken in by other scams (like the so-called “memoirs” of James Frey, which were demonstrated to be utter fiction); yet more evidence that success doesn’t make one smart — using one’s brain makes one smart.
    Sat, 23 Jun 2007 00:12:03 GMT

  • Misdirected Outrage, or the Integrity of Skepticism
    This story goes back to January of this year but it shows what it means to be skeptical ... i.e. skeptics should never take the word of anyone or anything, even if on the surface it fits in with our preconceptions.

    Here’s the story behind this story. I came across an entry on RichardDawkins.Net, which passed along a story by a group called PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility). My gut reaction was to think, “how typical, the Bush administration using the Park Service to promote creationism and undermine science.” Thankfully, at the top of the story on Dawkins’s site is a link to an update from eSkeptic correcting their own coverage of this story:

    Fact Checking 101
    How Skeptic magazine was Duped
    by an Environmental Activist Group


    Unfortunately, in our eagerness to find additional examples of the inappropriate intrusion of religion in American public life (as if we actually needed more), we accepted this claim by PEER without calling the National Park Service (NPS) or the Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) to check it. As a testimony to the quality of our readers, however, dozens immediately phoned both NPS and GCNP, only to discover that the claim is absolutely false.

    This eSkeptic correction story goes on to include testimony from its readers and Park interpreters, to confirm the falsity of PEER’s claim, and described eSkeptic’s own investigation into the matter. Along the way it reveals the duplicity by which PEER’s director, Jeff Ruch, attempted to evade eSkeptic’s questioning.

    I’d just like to point out that it appears eSkeptic and the Dawkins site both practiced the skepticism they preach; also they were not only willing to face up to having been duped, but eSkeptic actually related at length its attempts to verify the situation and attempt to get answers from the group that made the false claim.

    I’d also like to admit (again) that I too fell for it, at least at first, and only realized something was wrong when I gave the article on Dawkins’s site a second look-through and noticed the update. (Which on hindsight was rather prominent, being in bold type at the top of the story.) Note too that others were taken in by PEER ... e.g Garry Trudeau and his comic, Doonesbury.

    Now, I have no idea who or what PEER is, even after having visited their site. What I can say is that they certainly did misrepresent the Park Service policy, and when challenged by eSkeptic, provided false confirmation. Their credibility is limited.

    At any rate, the point here is: Question everything. Analyze, investigate, and don’t leap to conclusions. You may have heard the saying “Question authority”; I’d take that two steps farther: 1) question those who tell you to question authority; and 2) question the desire to question authority.
    Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:55:58 GMT

  • Relentless Compromise Into Religiosity
    The Chesterfield County (Virginia) school board recently faced the problem of “intelligent design” in its science classrooms. Initially they held the line against this religious movement, but under pressure, they adopted a compromise:

    Evolution vs. Intelligent Design


    In the end, members unanimously approved the proposed textbooks [which described evolution exclusively], but issued a formal statement saying, “It is the School Board’s belief that this topic, along with all other topics that raise differences of thought and opinion, should receive the thorough and unrestricted study as we have just articulated. Accordingly, we direct our superintendent to charge those of our professionals who support curriculum development and implementation with the responsibility to investigate and develop processes that encompass a comprehensive approach to the teaching and learning of these topics.”

    Injecting religion, even just mention of it, into public-school science classrooms is not “comprehensive,” as it has nothing to do with science. What’s unfortunate about this episode is that, while the Chesterfield school board had adopted a reasonable pro-science position, they somehow felt the need to compromise in such a way as to direct administrators and teachers to veer into religious territory by suggesting that evolution not be the only theory of human origins taught in science classes. This is bad, however, since there is no current scientific theory of human origins other than evolution. Nothing need be “added” in order to make science classes “comprehensive.”

    While compromise is not always a bad thing, in this case, it is, because ultimately, there can be no compromise with religionists. Rebuked by the Supreme Court in the Edwards v. Aguilar decision (which declared creationism to be a religion which had no place in public schools), they didn’t miss a beat ... they just devised a new label for it (i.e. intelligent design) and kept right on going. If they don’t respect the Supreme Court and the U.S. Constitution, believing their mission to proselytize kids to be so sacred that they need not obey the rule of law or the Constitution, then no amount of compromise with them is possible. Their presumption of being above the law is irrational, and dealing with irrational people is a fool’s errand. Any compromise reached with them, then, is a concession rather than an agreement reached in good faith. As a rule, compromising with extremists and ideologues only fuels them.

    I hope the Chesterfield school board rethinks its concession to the religionists, and again asserts that evolution — being the only current scientific theory for human origins — is therefore the only theory which will be taught in its science classrooms. It’s not too late for them to change their concession into a defeat for the forces of ignorance.
    Sat, 16 Jun 2007 23:11:22 GMT

  • Christian Hypocrisy!
    Televangelist Patty Robertson is at it again, critiquing Islam but simultaneously (and unintentionally) exposing some of the faults of his own religion, Christianity:

    Robertson: “Islam is not a religion. It is a worldwide political movement meant on domination”


    [Robertson said] “Ladies and gentlemen, we have to recognize that Islam is not a religion. It is a worldwide political movement meant on domination of the world. And it is meant to subjugate all people under Islamic law.” ...

    He characterized the American Muslim community as “Islam light” and went on to say Muslims “want to take over and we want to impose Sharia on you. And before long, ladies are going to be dressed in burqas and whatever garments they would put on them, and next thing you know, men are going to be allowed to have wife-beating and you'll be beheading adulterers and so on and so forth.”

    What Patty boy doesn’t mention is that, in the US, there is a significant Christian-fundamentalist movement called dominion theology (or Christian reconstructionism). This movement wants to destroy the Constitution of the US and replace it with the Old Testament, establishing a Judges-era theocracy. “Crimes” such as blasphemy, homosexuality, heresy, etc. would not only be prosecuted, but the punishment would be death.

    I won’t argue with Robertson’s assessment of Islam, at least regard to some Muslims. That there are extremist Muslims is not at issue, and the fact that they’re willing to engage in drasting acts such as suicide-bombings — not found in other religions — makes it clear that Islam has more potential for danger, at this moment, than any other major religion.

    Although the Patster isn’t a dominionist (so far as I know), many of his sheep ... er, followers ... are. But even if they weren’t, the fact remains that he complains about an aspect of Islam which can also be true of Christianity. There’s a very real, palpable, and sinister push from Christian fundamentalists toward making the US in the direction of a theocracy just as dangerous as any proposed by any radical Islamist group. The Patster should complain about them as well ... but curiously (or perhaps not?), he doesn’t.
    Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:36:35 GMT

  • When In Doubt, Pander to the Ignorant
    The Republican candidates for president in the 2008 election are trying to differentiate themselves and get ahead of the front-runners, Senator John McCain (AZ) and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani. One way they’re doing this is by appealing to the ignorant religious core of the GOP, aka the Religious Right. This is understandable since the Religious Right have been the Republican “king-makers” since the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. No Republican has been elected since then without having a vast majority of Religious Right support.

    Last night they had a debate* in New Hampshire. (Alternative articles can be found here and also here.) Predictably, several of them appealed to religion, currying the favor of the Religious Right.

    First, let’s hear from Romney:
    “You could recognize that the values I have are the same values you'll find in faiths around the country,” former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said, responding to a question about whether his Mormon religion hurts his campaign. “I believe in God, believe in the Bible, believe Jesus Christ is my savior. I believe God created man in his image.”

    Romney, being a Mormon, is trying to assert that he’s a Christian too. The reason for this is that many of the Religious Right consider Mormonism to be an aberrant sect, and some even consider it not to be a form of Christianity at all. (This is, of course, incorrect; Mormonism is definitely a form of Christianity since its followers profess faith in Jesus Christ.)

    The Tribune article adds:
    And three of the candidates explained how they can believe in the Biblical story of creation while not explicitly rejecting the Darwinian theory of evolution.

    These three candidates previously asserted absolute belief in creation rather than evolution. Last night, then, they attempted to triangulate, trying to make themselves appear less ignorant (by not explicitly dismissing evolution) while maintaining their faith (thus maintaining their appeal to the Religious Right).

    What’s remarkable about this, of course, is these candidates’ continual use of religion in order to reach voters. Most or all of them are “strict constructionists” where the Constitution is concerned, and they frequently appeal to Religious Right beliefs about “the Founders’ intent.” Yet they fail to understand that strict-construction demands separation of church and state, and as for the Founders’ intent, they need look no further than the pen of James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights; addressing the matter of Congressional chaplains, he wrote (all spellings are Madison’s own):
    Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?

    In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.

    The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority.

    Madison’s position is that keeping religion out of politics is necessary in order to make all religions and sects equal and preventing state repression of any given faith. It’s hypocritical, then of the Religious Right to appeal to the Founders’ intent while also using the state to push their religion.

    At any rate, it’s disgusting to see candidates for the country’s highest office pandering to the ignorant, being hypocritical in the process.

    *Presidential “debates’ are never actually debates ... rather they’re side-by-side pontification sessions. I have no use for them myself, as they never tell me anything about a candidate I don’t already know. Candidates never actually present any genuine argumentation as would be found in a true debate, they just reiterate things they’ve been saying in their usual stump-speeches.
    Wed, 06 Jun 2007 14:11:33 GMT

  • Islam and Suicide Bombings
    Since the inception of suicide bombings in the Middle East, we’ve heard the steady refrain that Islam actually forbids suicide under any circumstances. While this is arguable, what isn’t, is what Muslims actually think about the issue.

    Some young U.S. Muslims approve suicide hits


    One in four younger U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings to defend their religion are acceptable at least in some circumstances, though most Muslim Americans overwhelmingly reject the tactic and are critical of Islamic extremism and al-Qaida, a poll says....

    While nearly 80 percent of U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings of civilians to defend Islam can not be justified, 13 percent say they can be, at least rarely.

    That sentiment is strongest among those younger than 30. Two percent of them say it can often be justified, 13 percent say sometimes and 11 percent say rarely.

    I don’t know about you, Gentle Reader, but I find even a minority of 13% to be far too large a number. It’s 13% too many. Of course, this article contains the requisite excuse-making and denial:
    “We have crazies just like other faiths have them,” said Eide Alawan, who directs interfaith outreach at the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn, Mich., one of the nation’s largest mosques. He said killing innocent people contradicts Islam.

    Sorry, Mr Alawan, but that other religions have “crazies” does not in any way justify doing nothing about them within Islam ... that would be “two wrongs make a right” thinking and is fallacious. Also, Mr Alawan, whatever Islam teaches — according to your own opinion — is much less important than what Muslims actually believe. That is, one can talk “theory” all one wishes to, but what matters is what real, live Muslims really believe, out in “the ‘real world’.”

    It’s time for the excuse-making, dodges and evasions to stop. What’s needed is for Muslims to start policing their own religion. They have to root out the “crazies,” and either correct them, or expel them (and perhaps turn them over to the authorities, depending on what they’ve done). Nothing else is going to cut it. And whining that other religions have their “crazies,” so Islam's own “crazies” are to be left alone, is not only fallacious (as I said above), but immoral ... and last I knew, Islam (being an Abrahamic faith) is strong on morality.

    Muslims have to put their morality where their mouths are. I understand it may be very hard for Muslims to expose other Muslims, but morality is rarely easy.
    Tue, 22 May 2007 21:52:21 GMT

  • Denial in the Extreme
    For those of you who don’t think religion is evil, have a look at this story. Then try to tell me there's nothing about religion which cannot be used to justify evil:

    Texas Woman Blames Devil After Husband Burns Baby Daughter in Microwave


    A woman blames the devil and not her husband for severely burning their infant daughter after the 2-month-old was put in a microwave, a Houston television station reported.

    Eva Marie Mauldin said Satan compelled her 19-year-old husband, Joshua Royce Mauldin, to microwave their daughter May 10 because the devil disapproved of Joshua's efforts to become a preacher.

    A Galveston County grand jury indicted Joshua Mauldin last week on child injury charges after hearing evidence that he placed his daughter in a motel microwave for 10 to 20 seconds.

    Eva Marie Mauldin, the girl's 20-year-old mother, told the television station that her husband is “not the monster people are making him out to be.” ...

    She is hoping to be reunited with her daughter, but Child Protective Services is working to have her and Joshua Mauldin's parental rights severed. A custody hearing for the infant is scheduled for later this week in a Galveston district court.

    I fervently hope that this religiously-whacked couple never lays eyes on the child again. Neither is competent to have children in their home, if one can nuke a baby and the other can excuse it as Satan’s actions. Then again, this is Texas, which one could call “the buckle of the Bible belt,” and there’s a chance this argumentum ad Luciferum (or “appeal to the devil”) might actually work.

    For what it’s worth, here’s a link to the Mauldins’ MySpace group.
    Mon, 21 May 2007 15:05:36 GMT

  • Papal Excommunication Threat
    Earlier this month, during an excursion to South America, Pope Benedict XVI issued a spiritual threat to Catholic politicians who support abortion rights:

    Pope warns Catholic politicians who back abortion


    Pope Benedict on Wednesday warned Catholic politicians they risked excommunication from the Church and should not receive communion if they support abortion....

    The Pope was asked whether he supported Mexican Church leaders threatening to excommunicate leftist parliamentarians who last month voted to legalize abortion in Mexico City.

    “Yes, this excommunication was not an arbitrary one but is allowed by Canon (church) law which says that the killing of an innocent child is incompatible with receiving communion, which is receiving the body of Christ,” he said....

    The Pope said parliamentarians who vote in favor of abortion have “doubts about the value of life and the beauty of life and even a doubt about the future.”

    “Selfishness and fear are at the root of (pro-abortion) legislation,” he said. “We in the Church have a great struggle to defend life...life is a gift not a threat.”

    How would the Pope know that “selfishness and fear” are on the minds of abortion-rights proponents? I wasn’t aware that he’s telepathic or has a crystal ball allowing him to scry this information. Perhaps he takes after his predecessor, Pope Sylvester II, who dabbled in the occult and had a reputation as a psychic.

    (Note: Sylvester II was a medieval scholastic, and many scholastics of his time dabbled in the occult. In fact, other well-known and respected scholastics such as Roger Bacon did the same ... so Sylvester’s activities should not be viewed anachronistically as an indication that popes support the occult or the activities of modern psychics.
    Sat, 19 May 2007 14:53:07 GMT

  • Dobbie Is Upset ... Boo Freakin' Hoo
    Poor Dobbie ... I mean, Jim Dobson of “Focus on the Family” (which really should be called “Focus on evangelizing the country or barring that, governing it like an evangelical Christian theocracy”). He doesn’t like the current front-runner for the Republican nomination for President, Rudy Giuliani:
    In a blistering online column, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson wrote that, should the former New York mayor become the nominee, “I will either cast my ballot for an also-ran — or if worse comes to worst — not vote in a presidential election for the first time in my adult life.” ...

    A conservative Christian evangelical based in Colorado Springs, Colo., Dobson said he was speaking as a private citizen. However, his words carry considerable weight with the some 7 million listeners of his conservative radio show.

    Earlier this year, Dobson said he won't back John McCain because of the Arizona senator's opposition to a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

    Dobbie has a problem with all the viable GOP candidates. He hasn’t said anything about Mitt Romney, but Romney is a Mormon and many evangelicals like Dobbie don’t care for Mormons or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The Dobster’s problem is that he no longer has any of the major GOP candidates under his Christian-fundamentalist thumb. The only candidates making overtures to Dobbie and the rest of the Religious Right, are strictly bottom-of-the-polls guys like Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, and Tom Tancredo (these are the unholy trinity of candidates about whose rejection of creation I blogged earlier).

    Poor, poor baby Dobbie. Wah wah wah. Go home and cry to your mommy, maybe she’ll wipe your nose for you and tuck you into bed.

    P.S. Apologies to the Dobby of “Harry Potter” fame. You’ll notice that although their names sound the same, they’re spelled differently.

    P.P.S. Who is the Dobster trying to fool by that “speaking as a private citizen” crap? As hard as he’s worked to make himself a very public person and head of a prominent organization which he has run with an iron fist since founding it, it’s literally not possible for Dobbie to “speak as a private citizen.” No one with half a brain would interpret his words as anything other than a clear statement of his organization’s thinking on the matter.
    Sat, 19 May 2007 00:15:30 GMT

Submit your RSS Feed

Subscribe to this RSS Feed

Copyright © 2006-2007 Listopica, Inc. RSS Feed Directory