In case you were worried:
That appeared in the Lexington Dispatch, in Lexington, North Carolina. Wish they had that paper at my newsstand.
Kansas voters are angry; they elected Sam Brownback governor on his promises that slashing state budgets and slashing taxes for the wealthy would make Kansas prosperous.
Now the roads are bad, schools are suffering, and many other state services can’t be done. Kansas is crumbling, and the state government is too broke to do anything about it.
Which explains this picture, in Mother Jones:
I do love that illustration. It tells an important story.
That the RGA had been forced to mobilize reinforcements in Kansas spoke to just how imperiled Brownback had become. After representing Kansas for nearly two decades in Congress, he had won the governorship in 2010 by a 30-point margin. Once in office, Brownback wasted no time implementing a radical agenda that blended his trademark social conservatism with the libertarian-tinged economic agenda favored by one of his most famous constituents, Charles Koch, whose family company is headquartered in Wichita and employs more than 3,500 people in the state. Other GOP governors elected in the tea party wave, such as Wisconsin’s Scott Walker, garnered more ink for their brash policy maneuvers, but in many ways Brownback had presided over the most sweeping transformation.
Early in his tenure, he said he wanted to turn Kansas into a “real, live experiment” for right-wing policies. In some cases relying on proposals promoted by the Kansas Policy Institute—a conservative think tank that belongs to the Koch-backed State Policy Network and is chaired by a former top aide to Charles Koch—Brownback led the charge to privatize Medicaid, curb the power of teachers’ unions, and cull thousands from the welfare rolls.“[Brownback] said, ‘I’ll be glad to campaign for you coming up, but I want all of my guns pointed in the same direction,’ meaning there’s no room for difference of opinion. From there on it was chilling.”
But his boldest move was a massive income tax cut. Brownback flew in Reagan tax cut guru Arthur Laffer to help sell the plan to lawmakers, with the state paying the father of supply-side economics $75,000 for three days of work. Brownback and his legislative allies ultimately wiped out the top rate of 6.45 percent, slashed the middle rate from 6.25 to 4.9 percent, and dropped the bottom tier from 3.5 to 3 percent. A subsequent bill set in motion future cuts, with the top rate declining to 3.9 percent by 2018 and falling incrementally from there. Brownback’s tax plan also absolved nearly 200,000 small business owners of their state income tax burdens. Among the “small” businesses that qualified were more than 20 Koch Industries LLCs. “Without question they’re the biggest beneficiaries of the tax cuts,” says University of Kansas political scientist Burdett Loomis.
Laffer told me that “what Sam Brownback has done is and will be extraordinarily beneficial for the state of Kansas,” but many Kansans beg to differ. Brownback had said that his tax cut plan would provide “a shot of adrenaline into the heart of the Kansas economy.” Instead, the state has gone into cardiac arrest. “The revenue projections were just horrendous once the tax cuts were put into place,” Loomis says. The state’s $700 million budget surplus is projected to dwindle into a $238 million deficit. Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s downgraded the state’s bond rating earlier this year as a result. “The state’s on a crisis course,” says H. Edward Flentje, a professor emeritus of political science at Wichita State University who served alongside Brownback in the cabinet of Kansas Gov. Mike Hayden in the 1980s. “He has literally put us in a ditch.”
Conservatives once celebrated Brownback’s grand tax experiment as a prototype worthy of replication in other states and lauded Brownback himself as a model conservative reformer (“phenomenal,” Grover Norquist has said). “My focus,” Brownback said in one 2013 interview, “is to create a red-state model that allows the Republican ticket to say, ‘See, we’ve got a different way, and it works.'” By this fall it was hard to imagine anyone touting the Brownback model, especially with the Kansas governor at risk of going down in defeat—in the Koch brothers’ backyard, no less—and dragging the entire state ticket down with him. The Wall Street Journal recently dubbed Brownback’s approach “more of a warning than a beacon.”
Income inequality, failure of trickle down economics, dramatic tax cut disasters, all come home to roost at some point. Kansans, it appears, are ready to change things.
How about the rest of the nation?
I keep forgetting.
Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub was born in 2006. That was three years after my first great forays into education policy in Texas, working to make sure science stayed in the science books — and probably about a decade after I started explaining evolution to creationists, patiently at first, and then with a great deal of snark, on the internet. A lot of that discussion, and some good posts, died when AOL pulled the plug on archiving discussion threads (the schmucks!).
Another sign of AOL’s doom, perhaps.
From time to time I run into an earnest creationist, and rather than re-explain, I start looking for my old explanations here at this blog . . . and then I remember. The explanations largely do not exist here.
We saw an uptick in creationist activity recently, in 2012, continuing into 2013. We’ve seen eruptions of ignorance, blind faith and malice, sometimes, that warrant having explanations of evolution around. So, even though it’s repeating stuff from elsewhere, even though this discussion should have been over by 50 years ago, here we are trying to establish a trail of information explaining why evolution is hard science, and needs to be taught in public schools (and all other schools, too), and why creationism and its mutant clone “intelligent design” are not science, but are instead religious beliefs that have no place in school science classes (nor any classes, IMHO).
There are good sites living in the tubes of the ‘net these days that didn’t exist even nine years ago — but creationists won’t find them quickly or willingly, and they will dismiss them if they do find them at all. You can find good stuff there, and I highly recommend writings on evolution at these sites:
Recently I provided a brief correction to a post I fell across in some search or other, at a blog by a guy named Daniel Lovett. He urged that we reject science with regard to evolution. I responded, and he responded at a greater length. I had hoped to point him quickly so something I’d written here, and found I hadn’t written it here.
These issues are simmering even in Texas again; I want to create a record. Here’s a step.
Three points need to be made to the neo-creationists:
With those preliminaries out of the way, I can answer Mr. Lovett’s arguments specifically, I think. I stumbled into his blog, and I provided a very brief response to a post of his that makes several erroneous claims about science, about evolution and Christianity, and concludes that creationism is superior to evolution, scientifically. Mr. Lovett responded, and called me “friend.”
Dear Friend Daniel, you wrote:
I am of the opinion that the Bible is true and accurate in every respect, scientific and otherwise. It can be trusted because Jesus can be trusted. Though I don’t pretend to know “how” God accomplished the creation in 6 days, I know that he did because he revealed that to us (see my other blog post: http://daniellovett.wordpress.com/2011/10/11/creation-science-oxymoron/).
Let’s be clear that the credibility of Jesus is not on the line here. Jesus didn’t write any of the books we know as “the Bible” today. So far as we know, Jesus wrote nothing that survives, no text at all. Could Jesus write? We don’t know.
So, for all of those reasons which tell us Jesus had nothing to do with the authoring of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, but also the New Testament, putting trust in Jesus has nothing to do with scientific accuracy in the Bible. If you’re trusting the Bible because you trust Jesus, you’re projecting where projection is not logically required, and where the faith doesn’t ask it.
While you say “I don’t pretend to know ‘how’ God accomplished the creation in 6 days,” you assume God worked in a fast slap-dash fashion, and your entire post is dedicated to denying that God could have used natural processes of chemistry, physics and biology. So you do pretend to know how God did it; and you make pretense to knowing that all of science is in error, for theological reasons that escape me. For Jesus to be right about philosophy, or sin, or any other topic expounded on in Christian scripture, it is not necessary that science be in error.
As with Jesus not being the author of scripture, so we know — in Christian tradition — that God is not the author of scripture, either. The earliest books we know were written by Jews; the first five books of the modern canon, in both Judaism and most sects of Christianity, we attribute to Moses by tradition, but by the words of the books themselves not to God. In those books we find the clear command from God to Moses and the Jews to ‘write it down’ with regard to their history and laws. Nowhere, according to scripture, does God say, “This is what to write down.” Nowhere does God say, “Here is what I have written.” The Old Testament was not written by God, was not dictated by God, nor is it the biography of God.
In a few places in those texts is there a claim that God revealed the when and why of creation. In no place is there a claim God revealed the how of creation. There are several places where various, different and frequently conflicting creation stories are told, however. We get the history of creation, though, perhaps like Billy Pilgrim it is “unstuck in time.” Creation occurred sometime before each story is told — but how long before is never a topic of scripture. Depending on the version of the Bible one chooses, especially Catholic versus Protestant, there are four to eight different creation stories in scripture. In Genesis 1 and 2, we find two different, often contradictory creation stories. In Job, we find a story that is wholly different from both of the Genesis stories — and this is the one that is said by the author to be from God’s lips, explaining to Job what happened at the beginning when God wrestled a dragon to see who would have control of the Earth — no six day creation at all, no day of rest, no Eden, no Adam and Eve.
How can you “know” God revealed something when scripture doesn’t support that claim? Do you claim to be a prophet?
Wholly apart from what you don’t know about science, I fear you’re unfamiliar with scripture, or you’re hiding those parts that simply do not support your own beliefs. If the Bible is “true in every respect,” one should respect it; I don’t think you do. How can you be said to respect scripture, when you ignore all the other creation stories, and the actual instructions of scripture as you do?
Daniel Lovett wrote:
So why do we believe Jesus or the word of God? Short answer: Because Jesus has been proven to be the Son of God and the Messiah, having fulfilled over 300 prophecies, lived a sinless life, worked miracles (all of which went unquestioned – people could have verified the facts by interviewing eyewitnesses), and finally the clincher – he rose from the dead.
I see. You believe that you are correct, not for any rational reason, but because you believe what you believe. Faith is a powerful quality; its exercise can be a bold act of tenacity, or a foolish act of stubbornness. We need to take care when resting on faith, that which can be fact checked, lest we become the poster child of the Dunning Kruger Effect.
We don’t need to contradict your claim that the Bible is correct, but instead we might observe that at no place does the Bible claim to provide a literal and scientifically accurate story of creation. Your trust in the Bible may be well placed. Your claim that it presents a creation story in scientific accuracy, however, is not correct on the Bible’s own terms.
You have stretched the Bible to cover material it does not claim to cover, to make claims it does not claim to make. At no point does the Bible, read as a complete collection, deny evolution, nor an old Earth, nor physics, nor chemistry.
For example, at no place does the Bible claim that the Earth is young. That conclusion was misapprehended through a misreading of the work of an Irish bishop, in the 17th century. Bishop James Ussher, who passed for a geologist in his day. Studying nature was believed to be a rather divine calling for people who claimed faith in God in that time. Learning about nature was learning about God’s creation from a testament unsullied by mistranslation, church politics, or language difficulties. Nature provided a solid, irrefutably correct second testament of God, and direct from God with God’s fingerprints on it. In short, Ussher, and Darwin 200 years later, studied nature because of their belief that God was the creating force behind it.
Isn’t it ironic that, today, you reject the traditional Christian view of nature and its study, and instead adopt a more Pharisaic stance, that scripture written by men trumps God’s own creation?
Jesus believed in creation:
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’” Matthew 19:4
Now I grow concerned. You say you put your faith in the Bible, but then you cite this passage as somehow evidence that Jesus disputed Darwin and geology and cosmology and biology.
Jesus was talking about divorce. How in the world could you have missed the plain meaning of that passage, and how could you have confused it to say anything about science, and the science of creation of the planet? In context, it’s clear Jesus was rebuking the Pharisees for their clinging too strongly to scripture and not paying attention to reality; but at no point does Jesus pause and say, “By the way, the Earth was created in 6 days just a few thousand years ago.” Jesus mentions a shorthand version of biological observation (I say shorthand because he ignores species with no gender, species with gender other that male and female, transgender, misgender, and species with more than two genders — if he’s relying on biology being accurate here, this passage would nullify all Abramic faith-based questioning of homosexual rights, since God also made them Adam and Steve, and Alice and Eve; but by now I’m digressing). Jesus says mating is from God, and men shouldn’t create laws to undo it.
Jesus talks about divorce, and how it’s not part of the plan. He says nothing against Darwin, and in fact appears to be relying on Darwin-style science, what we actually see in nature, to ground his argument against divorce.
I find it interesting that Jesus does not appeal solely to scripture here, but instead to nature. If we stick to the words recorded, and the events, we get Jesus denying the religious laws of the day and saying, ‘Hey, Pharisees, haven’t you noticed that in nature things pair off; in humans, people naturally pair off in opposite-gender couples most of the time? That’s an indication of God’s plan. Divorce isn’t a key value of God’s scheme of marriage. Don’t muck it up with a misinterpretation of scripture.’ You appeal to scripture, as the Pharisees did, to deny nature, where Jesus based his argument. Plus, you do that on a topic that was nowhere mentioned in those 12 verses.
Let’s check the text.
In the King James version (so the fundies won’t squawk about mistranslations from Jesus’s English):
King James Version (KJV)
19 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;
2 And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.
3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Indirectly, Jesus bases his argument on creation; you stretch that to say He was putting his faith in creation, something that Jesus does not say there. Then you stretch that farther to suggest it means He also believed in creationism. We can fairly deduce a belief in the existence of creation and some natural order; but it’s adding much to the text, to claim that passage contradicts science. I find that an unfair and unholy twisting of scripture.
At no place is there anything close to “Darwin goofed.” At no place is there a testament from Jesus to the short slap-dash creation you insist.
He also believed in the flood:
‘Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man.People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the Ark. Then the Flood came and destroyed them all.’ Luke 17:26–27
Again, I think you ignore what Jesus intended, and instead try to stretch a small part to say something else.
During the time Christians believe that Jesus lived and ministered, one of the divisions in Judaism broke over the issue of whether there is an afterlife, and what will be the signs of the Messiah’s coming, and later, of the end of the Earth. Again, Pharisees try to hold Jesus to scripture, and again Jesus suggests different interpretations. Notice that, again, neither side is talking about how the Earth as we know it was created. That’s your add-on.
Again, from the King James Version, much of that chapter of Luke:
20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
22 And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it.
23 And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them.
24 For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day.
25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.
26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
32 Remember Lot’s wife.
33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.
34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
37 And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.
Jesus is reported to have referred to a flood here, the flood of Noah. As we noted earlier, Jesus is not the author of scripture, particularly not the author of the scriptures of the Pentateuch, in which the story of Noah is found.
But he’s not talking about whether a flood actually occurred. Jesus uses literary allusion here. Jews had their scriptures (not yet bound into the Torah), and observant and non-observant Jews, including especially the Pharisees, would have been familiar with the story of the flood of Noah. When challenged about which side of the dispute he was on with regard to afterlife, Jesus didn’t fall into the trap. He said, just like in the story of Noah when most people had no clue about the pending disaster, no one can know when “the Kingdom of God” will come (let alone exactly what that means).
So Jesus wasn’t saying, “By the way, the whole world was covered by a flood that can be pinpointed in time.” Jesus was saying, “You Pharisees know the story of Noah; here’s an analogy: The Kingdom of God will come when people don’t expect it, and they will be caught by surprise, as in the story of Noah people were caught by surprise by the flood.”
Critically, Jesus nowhere claims that the story is wholly, scientifically accurate.
Which is good, because that would make Jesus out to be a liar — and in your schema, where your faith seems to rest on whether Jesus is trustworthy in all things, that would destroy the basis of your faith, right?
I think perhaps you don’t understand what Christians mean by “faith.” That colors your reasoning, and it clouds your understanding of scripture, and it completely fogs your view of science. We call it faith because we don’t have the evidence to back it up.
If we did have the evidence, none of us could be anything more than agnostics — the agnostic position is that belief will come when the evidence is sufficient. Christians believe, despite that lack of evidence. We call the process a “leap of faith.” We call it “stepping out on the word of God.” It’s risky. It takes faith, which is why we call it that. (Jews and Muslims also make such leaps.)
It must be faith, because the evidence is not there — as the Bible occasionally acknowledges (see 2 Corinthians 4.18, or Hebrews 11.1; faith is in the things “unseen,” as they are eternal).
Built around the story of the flood of Noah, there is a trap a lot of people of faith fall into, a false dichotomy that, if divinely inspired, surely was intended by evil forces to turn otherwise faithful people away from knowledge and science. I fear you’ve fallen into it.
So to cling to a belief that Creation or the Flood is not true is to say that Jesus was a liar.
Quite to the contrary, to claim that Jesus said creationism is true, or that Jesus vouched for the historicity of Noah’s flood, is false. Jesus didn’t intend that, as we can see from the context, and stretching his meaning to topics way beyond what Jesus was discussing puts us in the uncomfortable and unholy position of adding words to scripture that are not there.
[Hmmm. There’s supposed to be a brief explanation of the science that disproves the idea of a worldwide flood as many creationists believe the Bible describes . . . pending. Maybe later.]
Sorry if I offended you by saying your religion has blinded you, but my position is that a Godless scientific world view is a religion. An unbiased look at science will always reveal the Designer. The scandal of the Gospel is that this Designer then became the man Jesus who died for your sin and rebellion and to restore you to your loving heavenly Father. I pray you find him.
your friend Daniel
Then what is a godful scientific position? As creationists are too often wrongly happy to remind us, many scientists of the past were faithful, often good Christians. Darwin, for example, studied for the clergy, and stuck with the church to his death.
Claiming that science is godless, or Godless, is a biased and inaccurate view of science, and as we have seen here, a biased and inaccurate view of Christian religion, too.
Scripture tells us that regardless how the universe, matter, stars, galaxies, planets and life were created, God is behind it. The scandal of creationism is the denying that God can be behind what the universe shows us to be true and accurate. Jesus died for your sin and rebellion, too, Daniel — even your rebellion against God’s creation and the science that explains how and why it works. You can’t find God if you refuse to look.
(Yeah, this one’s kicked around in the draft file for a long, long time.)
Ted Cruz, demonstrating that he is of the Not Ready For Honorable Service Club, posted this photo on his Facebook page, ridiculing the Endangered Species Act and the plight of tigers everywhere (I’m not a good enough Panthera tigris expert to identify which subspecies* this one is; they are all threatened, and trade in the skins of tigers is proscribed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)).
Shooting threatened and endangered species is not covered by the First Amendment. (YIAAL).
In discussions on my Facebook timeline, I wrote this to those taking offense at criticisms of these two yahoos:
We cannot hope to know the anguish in the hearts of Ted Cruz and Mike Lee that this majestic, endangered, animal was slaughtered.
But we can note that this photo was a genuine lapse in judgment, and we should question whether either of these men is fit to serve you coffee at Dunkin’ Donuts, let alone fit to sit in Congress and wreak destruction in our names.
Our national policy is to protect endangered species. Partly that’s done out of respect for creation and our inability to recreated such magnificent things once they are gone. Partly it is done out of the real understanding that as endangered species go, so go we. We do not know, cannot know, which species are the critical ones that make it possible for us to survive on this planet. We shouldn’t be in the business of experimenting with the wiping out of the human race the penalty paid if we goof.
Protecting endangered species produces huge benefits. Not only did we bring back from the brink of extinction the bald eagle, osprey, peregrine falcon and brown pelican when we banned DDT use on crops, we discovered that we’d endangered several species of bats that, now they’ve recovered from DDT, keep our cities free from disease carrying mosquitoes — much cheaper than even DDT at the acme of its cheapness.
And then there are the other benefits. Digitalis to treat heart disease came from a threatened species in tropical climes. Because we’d protected habitat for the spotted owl, when the National Institutes of Health put out the call for massive amounts of Pacific yew, from which to extract a chemical that had shown promise to cure cancers, we had enough of the trees to answer the call right away — and tamoxifen was tested and found very useful, and is today out there fighting cancers.
So what if these two clowns want to jab at environmentalists? Isn’t that allowed, even when they have to urinate on our national symbols to do it?
Sure, it’s allowed. But people who do that? They’re not qualified to be called leaders. Such a lapse in judgment is enough that, in a just world, they’d be asked to resign immediately.
Martin Luther King, Jr., promised that someday the words of the prophet Amos would come true, and justice will roll like a mighty river.
That day is not today. Today we have Mike Lee and Ted Cruz, proving true the words of the prophet Jagger: “Let’s think of the wavering millions// Who need leaders but get gamblers instead.”
Gambling like that does dishonor to this establishment we call the USA.
They make Anthony Weiner look chaste and noble.
If you’re on Facebook, perhaps you’d like to join in discussion there; I’d like to have your thoughts here.
Interesting update: Meanwhile, back in Sane America, which is far away from these two guys, The National Zoo/Smithsonian teamed up with Portugal. The Man to release a very rare piece of music, to raise money to help rescue the Sumatran tiger, of which only 400 remain alive.
The Smithsonian’s National Zoological Park and Conservation Biology Institute teamed with agency DDB New York to put the dwindling tiger population in perspective on Earth Day. They enlisted Portugal. The Man to record an exclusive song, then pressed 400 copies on degradable vinyl, so that with each play the record would diminish until the song disappeared, not unlike the dire situation facing our striped feline friends from Sumatra.
Can you get a copy to listen to? Though there are only 400 copies, I’ll wager it’s easier to listen to this song than it is to get a straight answer about endangered tigers from the Senate offices of these two senators pictured above.
Update #2: Here’s an infographic that suggests why it’s important to keep tigers alive. They are canaries in our coal mine we call Earth. Lee and Cruz appear to be cheering on the destruction of all humanity.
* Thanks to Lars for pointing out that all tigers are one species, and the different populations are subspecies.
A friend, who happens to be a Muslim and politically active, sent me this:
Next time one of your RWNJ friends or relatives claims President Obama is a “closet Muslim” who is trying to spread Islamic law throughout the U.S., remind them of this:
In Muslim countries there are certain tendencies. Among them:
- They are anti-abortion.
- They are supportive of the death penalty.
- They are anti-gun control.
- They are anti-separation of church and state.
- They are supportive of teaching religious indoctrination in school.
- They believe women should have less rights than men.
- They oppose “multiculturalism.”
- They believe homosexuality is “evil” and do not allow same-sex marriage.
SO, if President Obama were REALLY trying to spread Islamic law in the U.S., he’d be a REPLUBLICAN!!
Most of the people who complain about Shariah law in the U.S. don’t know what it is, and also don’t know what is in the Republican platforms in the states and national party.
Then, sorta to drill it home, another friend commented:
Please don’t bother me with your bizarre claims that Barack Obama is Muslim. It immediately brands you, in my admittedly jaundiced eye, as one who either cannot tell nonsense from the truth, or one who is intent on spreading mistruths for nefarious, skullduggerous reasons.
[I apologize; the missive that came to me did not bear credit for the photographs; if you know who deserves credit for any or all of them, please tell us in comments.]
Tip of the old scrub brush to Eric and Jim. They know who they are.
You know what? The Stupid doesn’t burn, after all — if it did, this guy would have self-immolated long ago.
Utah Policy Daily is an online-newsletter of public policy stuff in the Beehive State — a very good one. It’s done by some top Utah political consultants from both parties, and former political writers, colleauges and friends from the University of Utah and the political and culture wars in the state.
Utah Policy Daily carried this story, this morning, which I present in full only because you wouldn’t believe it otherwise:
Constitutional Amendment Would Protect ‘Religious Liberty’
By Bryan Schott
Jonathan Johnson, Executive Vice-President of Overstock.com, is leaping into the political ring with a proposed constitutional amendment to protect religious liberty.
The Daily Caller reports Johnson wants his proposed amendment to exempt churches from being forced to perform same-sex marriages. Johnson says the amendment wouldn’t interfere with the Supreme Court rulings in favor of same-sex marriage, but it also protects groups opposed to the practice at the same time.
Johnson and some friends hatched an idea for states to pass a constitutional amendment saying: ”A religious organization, religious association, religious society or any person acting in a role connected with such organization, association or society and shall not be required to solemnize, officiate in, or recognize any particular marriage or religious rite of marriage in violation of its constitutional right of conscience or its free exercise of religion.”
(The wording is still being fleshed out, but that’s basically what it will say.)
In some ways, this shouldn’t be controversial. The proposed amendment “doesn’t get in the way of gay marriage,” Johnson notes — “but it [also] doesn’t have gay marriage encroach into areas of religious liberty.”
As I understand it, this amendment would be aimed at preventing the government from ordering preachers to marry people they don’t want to marry.
Maybe Johnson is so much a Mormon (I do not know his faith) that he does not know that this “right” is protected by the First Amendment, and has been practiced by far too many Catholic priests, Baptists ministers, and even Mormon Bishops, over the past 225 years. Preachers regularly refuse to allow their churches to be used by people for any fool reason whatever, and no preacher is forced to solemnize a marriage. In short, his proposed amendment is wholly superfluous, already covered by the First Amendment.
Unless his real purpose is to create some new way of bashing homosexuals, as I suspect. Bigot.
Here’s the scary part: This guy has created a lobbying group to push for the amendment, and has already raised more than $100,000 to push it. According to the RWNJournal Daily Caller:
As conservatives work to create a firewall on the issue of religious liberty, don’t be surprised if this effort catches on nationwide. Johnson already has a Utah PAC (First Freedom PAC) and a 501 (c)(4) that he says has “raised low six digits — and we’re not really trying yet,” he says.
How many stupid people, people wholly unaware of the First Amendment, are out there with the checkbooks open willing to be suckered by confidence schemes like this? Enough to raise “low six digits.”
Hey: For just $10,000, I’ll come to your home and explain why the First Amendment already gives us religious freedom, and tell you why it shouldn’t be mucked with. I’ll bring PowerPoints and patriotic music, if you want, and give it all to you in less than an hour — or take a whole day if you want. I won’t even charge expenses.
Then you can put your remaining money into a group that really works to defend the Constitution, or the First Amendment specifically — and I’ll tell you who they are.
Next thing you know, this guy will “come up” with an idea for an amendment to recognize Jesus.
One point of light: My old colleague at the Daily Utah Chronicle, Bob Bernick, wrote a column detailing that Utah politicians generally are not so stupidly right-wing as many in the rest of the nation, “Utah, not as crazy as we could be.” Maybe some of those not-stupid people will take Mr. Johnson aside and explain the Constitution to him.
Update: Point of darkness: Johnson has a law degree from BYU. Seriously. I thought U.S. Sen. Mike Lee was an aberration,
You can’t make up this kind of crazy. This guy’s been Tweeting this to everyone he can find on Twitter:
Seriously? Hatcheries for children?
Isaac Asimov‘s great off-the-cuff essay one why 1984 wouldn’t be like 1984 is sort of a prototype of the sort of take-down of dystopias one finds in literary and historical circles. (Once I had a link to a version of the essay, but it’s buried in the bowels of the internet now.)
But it never makes the true crazies see the light. They can’t see contrary evidence.
Asimov’s essay noted Orwell’s lack of foresight in simple things, and human things. In Orwell’s Big Brother dystopia, Winston Smith couldn’t get razor blades or shoe laces, indicators of the economic failures of Big Brother. Asimov wrote that, in reality, he used an electric razor, and wore slip-on shoes. Blades and laces were foreign to his world, too, but not evidence of dystopia; instead, they were evidence of changing fashion and innovation. Orwell thought Big Brother would watch everyone with electronics. We learned that people as a mass, who use phones, especially cell phones, and the internet, put out too much information in total for a Big Brother to make sense of it, absent other indicators — and that even when hints of wrong-doing turn up, the bureaucracies tend to prevent quick action, or any action at all. (See the report of the 9/11 Commission.)
One wishes Asimov were alive to do a take-down of the Brave New World fears. One also suspects those living in fear of Huxley wouldn’t understand the takedown.
Huxley himself gave it away. Nothing in scientific discoveries has altered Huxley’s errors of prediction (if he was “predicting” and not simply fantasizing).
So, here are three reasons a rational human should not fear we are on the verge of Brave New World, as Huxley scared us all:
It’s difficult to imagine kids in high school reading Brave New World without giggling, and without noting the difficulties of the story now (try to get a high school kid to believe Superman used phone booths . . .).
Sam Thiessen is convinced civilization will collapse — he’s written books about it. I wonder about people who miss the ultimately fatal flaw of Huxley’s story, that humans love one another, and humans like to have sex. Those who fear Huxley’s book is a forecast, I think, either don’t get enough sex, or don’t know how.
The things are going with current witch hunts, Texas teachers who use Huxley’s book should look out — Thiessen and his fellow travelers will soon accuse them of indoctrinating students in the stuff, instead of warning them against it. After all, Thiessen seems to have missed the warnings himself.
I’d wager that in other rants, self-titled conservatives and libertarians like Thiessen rail at the usual-suspect decline in morals, including a lot of actions shocking to them, caused by the fact that most people find sex really fun. Does it not make sense that they’d take a step back, and see that the behavior they claim disgusts them, also makes possible the broken future they fear?
Oblivious to this odd balance of freedoms, they then campaign to end the immorality they see, never thinking that by doing so they advance the dystopia they claim to fear. What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to misperceive.
A note about the title of the book:
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world,
That has such people in’t.
♦ William Shakespeare, The Tempest, Act V, Scene I; spoken by Miranda