Terrorist Plot to Attack Fort Dix

Recently the FBI announced the arrest of six men and accused them of plotting to attack Fort Dix, in New Jersey.  After the initial shock of the arrests, a closer look at the “plot” reveals a pattern now becoming the rule in these kinds of arrests: the pattern is one of utter stupidity and incompetence on the part of the purported “terrorists”.  There is another pattern as well.

In January 2006, a store clerk for a company that transfers video tape to DVDs in Mount Laurel saw something odd.  A group of men had brought him a video showing them firing weapons and chanting "God is Great!" in Arabic for transferring.  The clerk contacted the authorities.  The authorities then infiltrated the group which eventually led to the arrests.

Reactions to the arrests were interesting.  Predictably, the Administration fanned the flames of fear and implied that only they could protect us from “terrorists” such as these.

On the other end of the political spectrum, the terrorist threat was pooh-poohed as overblown and a case of possible entrapment.

What is the truth?

Once again the truth is pretty much obvious, which makes it invisible to most pundits: although these particular men were probably terrorist-wannabees and incompetent, there is no reason why such a group couldn’t have at least one competent planner within it.  It probably is only a matter of time before such an independent terror cell not only fantasizes about committing a terrorist act, but also has the capacity to pull it off.

It is also clear, though, that the government was handed this case on a silver platter by an alert citizen.  The FBI should not dislocate its collective shoulder patting itself on the back.

And finally, what could be done to prevent such groups from coming into existence in the future?

This is truly the ultimate question which, of course, has gone completely unaddressed by all politicians, military planners and analysts.  Please note the following quote made by one of the suspects as captured on the video tape that led to their arrest:

"In the end, when it comes to defending your religion, when someone is trying attacks (sic) your religion, your way of life, then you go jihad."

So, were these men the product of an extremist Islamic background?  Were they oppressed?

Absolutely not; they were relatively successful in business in this country, and free to practice their beliefs; this may be the most frightening aspect of the whole affair.

Officials said four of the men were born in the former Yugoslavia, in the Kosovo region, one in Jordan and one in Turkey.  All had lived in the United States for years.  Three were in the United States illegally; two had green cards allowing them to stay in this country permanently, and the sixth is a U.S. citizen.

Newsday reported that Kosovo Prime Minister Agim Ceku wrote a letter to the U.S. mission in Pristina on Wednesday expressing the "extraordinary feeling that Kosovo's people have for the U.S."  Ceku also denounced what he called "the disgusting idea" that Albanians could be involved in an attack "against a nation that has been very generous so far."

"We have lost brethren in the World Trade Center in the 9/11 tragedy and fought willingly beside U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq," said Avni Mustafaj, executive director of the Washington-based National Albanian American Council.

"As Albanians, we remain the most pro-American people in the world," he said.

Newdsay also wrote that the Duka brothers' grandmother, Naze Duka, was visibly upset as word of their arrests spread through the modest two-story brick houses in Debar, about 180 kilometers (110 miles) southwest of the Macedonian capital of Skopje.

"America is good _ you work, you earn money there," the 88-year-old said. "I have no idea where this all came from.  How did this happen?"

Elez Duka, the brothers' cousin, said their father took the family to the U.S. via Italy in 1986 or 1987.

Over the past two years, Elez Duka said his cousins told him they had grown long beards and had become more devoted to Islam, but he insisted they were incapable of involvement in a terrorist plot.

Even those overseas in Debar who described themselves as devout Muslims denounced the Fort Dix plot.

"They must have been crazy.  They shouldn't dare throw a stone at America," said Rrahmi Duka, 70, a distant relative of the brothers, selling beads and Muslim books in Debar's main square as a loudspeaker blared prayers.

"Who saved us (in Kosovo)? America," he said.  "We are in America's hands."

Truly, hearing this from a Muslim, living in a foreign country is encouraging, and is proof that one cannot judge others based on their religious preference alone.

But the fact remains that there is but one explanation for the apparent goals of the alleged terrorists, and if one is honest, one explanation for nearly all terrorist acts: "In the end, when it comes to defending your religion, when someone is trying attacks your religion, your way of life, then you go jihad."

Even though these six men lived within a community grateful to the US for preventing ethnic cleansing, religious zealotry caused them to turn on their former protectors.

Will anyone ever notice it always all about religion?

Tags: Fort Dix, terrorists.

Romney, Sharpton & Hitchens

At a recent campaign stop, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, a Mormon, was told by a heckler that he was a non-Christian and that Christians should not vote for him.  (You can see this @ http://blip.tv/skin/blipnew/cache/drudge/151254.html#comment_form. )  The audience was not amused by the heckler and Romney replied that in this diverse country, “We need to have a person of faith lead the country.”  Of course, the crowd erupted in applause.  Few persons outside of the community of reason took notice that Mr. Romney had bigotedly ruled out persons of no faith from leading the country.  In other words, according to Romney, atheists need not apply for elected office.

Fast forward a couple of weeks later to a public debate between Al Sharpton and non-believer Christopher Hitchens on the topic of religion where, according to Newsday, Rev. Sharpton said, "As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don't worry about that; that's a temporary situation." The most sensible understanding of this quote is that Mormons don't "really" believe in God; why this would refer to Mr. Hitchens, who makes no bones about his unbelief, is hard to understand.  Of course, Romney's campaign took exception to this "insult".

To Romney and Sharpton: both should just shut up, and to the American public; is it any wonder why non-believers are finally speaking up?

Tags: Romney, Sharpton, Hitchens, atheists.

Miscellaneous

Item: Naomi Ragen, a 57 year old grandmother and author, was accosted on a public Jerusalem bus in Israel by a man who demanded her seat.  (Go to http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1167467807683&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull .)

This took place last summer in Jerusalem on a bus route that is the only service available not only to the Jewish Haredi sect, but also secular bus riders as well.  Yes, as a concession to this fundamentalist sect, the state of Israel has sanctioned segregation and second class citizenship for women on 30 bus lines!  Ms. Ragen has decided to take the laws allowing this humiliating treatment to court.

Comment: Now this kind of discrimination is not uncommon in that part of the world, but Israel was supposed to be an exception.  Unfortunately fundamentalism of any stripe often leads to this kind of degrading of humanity in favor of honoring primitive dogmas that have long outlived any usefulness or justification.

Liberal believers are little help in matters such as this unless they are in denial.  Clearly most scripture seems to endorse a paternalistic society – after all, men wrote most scripture as far as anyone can tell, with just a few possible exceptions such as the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles.  And what they did write seems to give men a favored position – what a shock!

To deny the overall intent and in fact, the overall acceptance of this intent for many believers through the centuries is to be in denial about what the religion meant to those who created and first practiced the religion.  The writers of scripture generally were not feminists, or supporters of equal rights for women, and indeed the women of those times did not have equal rights with men.  For a liberal believer to read some kind of feminism into scripture now is less honest than the interpretation by an admitted sexist fundamentalist.

So what are the choices available to a liberal believer?  The one reasonable choice is the one they refuse to make; that is the rejection of any divine authorship.  By refusing to reject the divinity of scripture, they thereby cede the remaining intellectual argument to fundamentalists who then interpret scripture in the literal manner as it had been interpreted through the centuries.

And what are the political implications for the US?  In exchange for the aid we give Israel, and the grief we receive because of our support, the US should categorically demand equal rights for all Israeli citizens, including women, period and non-Jews and non-Orthodox Jews; and as for those non-citizens under the military thumb of Israel, either equal rights or self-determination.  Just as we would not tolerate suspension of the US Bill of Rights even in times of war, we should make excuses anymore for the same unacceptable situation elsewhere, such as in Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Item: (Times Online) The NBA season entered its All Star weekend in Las Vegas with the recent revelation by retired British player John Amaechi that he is gay still resonating around the league.

Just as the issue seemed to be dissipating, former All Star guard Tim Hardaway came out with the most vitriolic anti-gay statements yet made on the topic, bringing Amaechi and the subject of gay players in professional sports, very much back to the fore.

"You know, I hate gay people, so I let it be known.  I don't like gay people and I don't like to be around gay people," Hardaway said in a radio interview.  "I'm homophobic.  I don't like it.  It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States.

"First of all, I wouldn't want him on my team.  And second of all, if he was on my team, I would, you know, really distance myself from him because, uh, I don't think that is right.  I don't think he should be in the locker room while we are in the locker room.

"Something has to give.  If you have 12 other ballplayers in your locker room that's upset and can't concentrate and always worried about him in the locker room or on the court or whatever, it's going to be hard for your team-mates to win and accept him as a teammate."

Comment: The incredibly bigoted comments by Tim Hardaway needa closer examination, particularly the following: "You know, I hate gay people, so I let it be known.  I don't like gay people and I don't like to be around gay people… I'm homophobic.  I don't like it.  It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States.”

Exactly what does he want?  For all homosexuals to be imprisoned or exterminated?

The next thing that comes to mind is “What is the source of this hatred?”  At this time, there are no answers.

Item: (Gallup Org.) Though the vast majority of Kuwaitis undoubtedly despised Saddam's regime, 53% say they view the invasion of Iraq by U.S. and British forces as not morally justifiable, while only a third (33%) disagree with this assessment.  On this point, there is little difference between Kuwait's citizenry and its expatriate population -- majorities of both groups (55% and 51%, respectively) say they view the Coalition invasion as morally unjustifiable.  At the root of this sentiment is a deep aversion to Western military action against fellow Muslims -- a norm that Kuwaitisshare with others in the region who experienced a lengthy colonial past.

Comment: This would seem to be the definition of a no-win situation; even if the US were in the right (which it wasn’t in invading Iraq) the ultimate goal of winning hearts and minds in the area was doomed anyway by taking this particular military action.  Winning hearts and minds, by the way, is what “winning the war on terror” is all about - unless you intend to exterminate every last person whose heart and mind has not been won.  Don’t put such an extermination plan beyond the capabilities of the neocons to consider this.

Item: An F5 tornado, part of a weekend of violent storms across the Plains, claimed at least eight lives in Greensberg, KA, a town of 1,500, in May 2007, putting the statewide death toll from the storms at 10.

Officials estimate as much as 95 percent of the town was destroyed.

The tornado's wind was estimated to have reached 205 mph as it carved a track 1.7 miles wide and 22 miles long.

In Kansas, the governor said the state's response was limited by the shifting of emergency equipment, such as tents, trucks and semitrailers, to the war in Iraq.

"Not having the National Guard equipment, which used to be positioned in various parts of the state, to bring in immediately is really going to handicap this effort to rebuild," she said.

Comment: Another simple example of how the war in Iraq has made the citizens of the US less safe, period.  For the idiots in the audience, thisis not saying that the war caused the tornado; it is saying the Iraq war has compromised our ability to respond to national disasters.  Duh!

Tags: Ragen, Israel, Amaechi, Tim Hardaway, Alberto Gonzalez, Jessop, Iraq, Kuwait, National Guard.

Is the Don Imus Firing a Good Thing?

I’ve listened to Don Imus in the past and the pattern never varies: he’s often very listenable, a good interviewer with good guests, and then it happens – he says something that is simply inexcusable.  It never fails to happen, and then I find myself changing the station in search of something less depressing.

It’s depressing because it did not have to be that way.  Imus was perfectly capable of conducting a good radio and TV show without resorting to the worst kinds of stereotypes that targets women, ethnic minorities, personal enemies (that sometimes include non-celebrities such as his own vendors) and politicians that he has, randomly it would seem, chosen to destroy.

It is inarguable that he targets women; almost every women mentioned is judged by her appearance, and often is criticized over their appearance.  The regular cast and crew is overwhelmingly male and the few women who enter the Imus domain must be either thick-skinned or willing to play along in the role of “slut.”

Ethnic minorities do only a little better but are often targeted by Bernard McGuirk, the show’s producer.  Produced sketches often feature minority personalities voiced in the most stereotypical manner possible without regard to the way the actual person sounds in real life.

So it was no surprise that Imus and McGuirk picked on the Rutgers University Women’s Basketball Team that made the 2007 NCAA final four, since his aim is so scattershot: he pointlessly called them “nappy headed hoes.”

There is no defense, of course for this remark, and again, it fits in with a long pattern of bigoted and cruel statements in his past.

Why then is his firing not a 100% slam dunk good thing?

First of all, is the waste of the talent of Don Imus: he can be very good at what he does.  Secondly, he also has redeeming features in his character such as philanthropy involving charities for children, and the occasional truth seeking in the political realm.  These are not small things.

There is also the problem of persons like Al Sharpton who took an active role in the campaign to fire Imus, and who, in the past, contributed to racial division themselves (e.g.: the Tawana Brawley hoax.)  Sharpton himself has come a long way over the years, to his credit; should an Imus receive the same slack for lesser misadventures?

There are other problems with this firing that have little to do with Imus himself, however.

With this firing, the standards of what is allowable and what is not allowable has been muddied: how is a person like Michael Savage STILL heard over the airwaves?

According to a Media Matters transcript Savage has said on his show: “But basically, if you're talking about a day like today, Martin Luther King Junior Day, and you're gonna understand what civil rights has become, the con it's become in this country.  It's a whole industry; it's a racket.  It's a racket that is used to exploit primarily heterosexual, Christian, white males' birthright and steal from them what is their birthright and give it to people who didn't qualify for it.

Take a guess out of whose hide all of these rights are coming.  They're not coming out of women's hides.  Are they?  No, there's only one group that's targeted, and that group are white, heterosexual males.  They are the new witches being hunted by the illiberal left using the guise of civil rights and fairness to women and whatnot.

Equality and fairness is a “guise” to rob white heterosexual males of their birthrights, which can only mean “privilege” in the world of Michael Savage.  Yes, people like Savage deserve these privileges and others do not.  If he is talking about “merit,” please keep in mind that in his spare time, he promotes homeopathy; he has a Ph.D. in “nutritional ethnomedicine” from U.C. Berkeley.

From another Media Matter transcript Savage said, “Only a devastating military blow against the hearts of Islamic terror coupled with an outright ban on Muslim immigration, laws making the dissemination of enemy propaganda illegal, and the uncoupling of the liberal ACLU can save the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />United States.  I would also make theconstruction of mosques illegal in America and the speaking of English only in the streets of the United States the law.”  (Go to http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/michaelsavage. )

There are over 200 radio stations carrying Michael Savage, and his listenership is considerably more than that of Imus, yet there is no equivalent uproar.

How is it that Imus gets canned when he must be no more than 20th on the list of most bigoted radio hosts, and in fact possesses a number of actual redeeming features?

And speaking of bigotry, how does anyone have the right to criticize Don Imus when the President of the United States can so openly declare without consequence and, in fact, congratulations that he would never nominate a non-believer to the nation’s courts?  (Go to http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/6/27/144852.shtml .)  If anyone thinks that all bigotry will be treated harshly post-Imus, think again!

In the zeal to clean up the airwaves, will criticism of religion, government, society, etc., be stifled in fear of possible retribution?  Unfortunately it is still usually ok to be bigoted against gays, Muslims and, of course, atheists.

The firing of Don Imus is almost too random to be useful and edifying; I have no idea what comes next, and I have no idea if it will be better than what came before.

Tags: Imus, Savage, atheists

Kurt Vonnegut Jr.

About thirty-six years ago, as a struggling young college student taking the wrong major at the wrong school while the country was fighting the wrong war in Vietnam, my English Professor, Dr. Winters, assigned his students to write a report on the following book: Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.  The book was, if you can excuse the term, a revelation.  The book answered none of the questions about life and death and meaning and purpose that probably pre-occupied many others in similar positions then (and now) but it did something better: it made me face those questions.

I did not understand, at the time, the point of view from which Kurt Vonnegut's Jr.'s novels were written.  It wasn't until many years later that I discovered humanism. I then quickly understood that a life stance based on reason and compassion as opposed to faith and obedience had a much better chance of making the world a better place and bringing happiness to oneself and to others.  Humanism also had the advantage of being reality-based.  When I found that Kurt Vonnegut Jr. was the honorary president of the American Humanist Society, I was surprised and not surprised at the same time.  It all made sense.

Listen: Kurt Vonnegut would say this:  “I am a humanist which means, in part, that I have tried to behave decently without expectations of rewards or punishments after I am dead.”  So it goes. 

Thank you Mr. Vonnegut.

Tags: Vonnegut, obituary

The Hidden and the Denialists

Representative Pete Stark, a California democrat, whose district is in the San Francisco Bay-area town of Fremont, confirmed his lack of belief in deities in a statement to The Associated Press.  Stark said he was "a Unitarian who does not believe in a supreme being."

Of course, we welcome and congratulate Rep. Stark for his honesty on this issue, while making no judgment on his political convictions.  In a year of stunning breakthroughs for non-believers, including bestselling books and a general climate of interest in non-theism, this is the latest and perhaps most significant event of all.

Yet, as others have pointed out however, Rep. Stark is but one out of over 535 Congresspersons; he comprises less than .5% of the total of Congress yet non-believers represent at least 5% to 15% of the total electorate!  Isn’t it a certainty that there are others in Congress who are also non-theists, yet cannot admit it?

The recent search conducted by the American Humanist Society, which discovered Stark’s beliefs, uncovered no other elected openly non-theists aside from three (3) school board members.  Imagine that; one member of Congress, three school board members and almost no other elected official were openly non-theistic in the whole of the USA!  This certainly makes a liar out of those who blame atheism for, well, almost anything that plagues our society.  If we are harming society, the harm certainly isn’t being perpetrated by openly atheistic legislators!

Now we know there are others who are non-theistic but are afraid to admit it or make it evident to the public.  After all, only 45 percent of Americans said they would vote for a "generally well-qualified" atheist, according to a February Gallup Poll, ranking them lowest on a list that included Mormons (72 percent), candidates on their third marriage (67 percent) and homosexuals (55 percent).

I will put forward, however, that there are many others who, while presenting a publicly pious façade, have an absolutely incoherent belief system that they themselves cannot decipher or are in total denial of what they actually believe (note: this is not including those who consciously are hiding their self-admitted skepticism to the public.)  In addition, not only do the publicly pious persons not explicitly admit their non-theism or lack of theistic beliefs or contradictory beliefs, they then still promote religious fundamentalism.  This shilling separates them from the doubters merely in hiding.

In light of the recent "outing" of atheist Rep. Pete Stark, I therefore propose a new method of categorization of the religious sensibilities of elected officials (and everyone else I suppose.)  The categories would be 1) Theists 2) Non-theists 3) The Hidden Non-theists 4) Denialists.

Who could I be talking about?

For the theist category we have many candidates such as President Bush, Sen. Inhofe, former Sen. Santorum and many others who seem to sincerely believe in what they’re claiming.  Here is one key to determining who is in this category: their statements are so ridiculous that only a true believer would make them.

President Bush has told Mahmoud Abbas of Palestine that God told him (Pres. Bush) to attack bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.  He also told this to Pat Robertson, as Robertson admitted on the CNN show of Paula Zahn.

Sen. Inhofe, aside from denying man-made climate change, promotes Intelligent Design and has actually said on the floor of the Senate that “God gave Israel to the Jews” and concludes that foreign policy should be based on that belief.

Sen. Rick Santorum, in his religiously induced state of brain-deadness has likened homosexuality to bestiality.

Only true believers would bother to go out that far on an illogical and unreasonable limb for the sake of their beliefs.

Of course, there are other believers that we can be fairly confident are believers even though they appear sane: Jimmy Carter is as pious as any political figure ever and yet has led a sensible, ethical and productive life.  Martin Luther King Jr. is an even better example of exemplary public service in the form of a true believer.  Please note their lack of fundamentalism however.  This is a category for the honest, reasoned or not.

The category of non-theists, for now, consists of Pete Stark.  His simple admission is self-explanatory and pretty much completes the category!

The category of Hidden Non-Theists can only be speculated upon but may I suggest the following nominees for this category:

Rudy Giuliani: Considering that he is thrice divorced and as damned to Hell as anyone we know, how sincere could his piety be?  In addition to his sins of divorce and adultery, Rudy has been supportive of gay rights, abortion and gun control.  This is a sure prescription for Hell; unless one does not really believe, right?

Barack Obama: In an interview Sen. Obama said, "It's not 'faith' if you are absolutely certain," noting that he didn't believe his lack of "faith" would hurt him a national election.  He also offered, "Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels."  Considering thatObama’s mother was a humanist and both his father and stepfather gravitated towards atheism, the truth about Obama’s real beliefs may not be known until after his Presidential aspirations or eligibility are at an end.

I am sure that readers could suggest numerous other possible examples for the Hidden non-theist category.  Please keep in mind that these are persons who are probably self-aware of their beliefs but out of political necessity, are “in the closet.”

But now for the juiciest category: Denialists.

From a Booklist review about a book on Karl Rove called “The Architect”: “Moore and Slater, authors of the best-selling Bush's Brain(2003)…  offer a portrait of a bright, cynical, and manipulative man bent on maintaining Republican political dominance for generations to come.  Himself an agnostic, Rove has masterminded a strategy that has helped to broaden the Republican base beyond its pro-business, anti-government heritage to appeal to devout evangelicals.”

Another review of this book, found in Raw Story, says, “There is much to digest in The Architect, but new details of Rove's family history, self-proclaimed agnosticism, and the political machine built by friends such as the scandalized lobbyist Jack Abramoff, are certain to raise the hackles of Rove's Republican base.

Citing on the record sources including close friends of the elder Rove, Moore and Slater reveal he (Karl Rove’s adoptive father, Louis Rove) lived openly as a gay man and remained close to his son throughout his life…

Rove spoke of his adoptive father in a tone of fierce admiration, love, and loyalty, for, as he put it, "how selfless his love had been," as shown by his willingness to play, persuasively, the part of a blood parent for two decades…

One might think that such a sensitive family situation might have kept Rove from using it as a political ace-in-the-hole.  Instead, Rove made sexual orientation -- specifically, gay marriage -- the centerpiece of a presidential campaign aimed at getting out conservative voters in states like Ohio.  (Go to http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/New_book_alleges_Rove_agnostic_stepfather_0902.html .)

My point could not be made clearer than this: Karl Rove, a.k.a. Bush’s Brain, though he has never said this explicitly, may have no theistic beliefs as claimed by these authors, and/or possesses a totally incoherent belief system that he himself cannot articulate; yet he constantly empowers religious fundamentalists politically and socially.

Rove apparently loved his gay father yet his “Denialism” allowed him to target gay persons for the goal of having re-elected George W. Bush.

Could anything be lower?  If this isn't being in denial, what is?

Perhaps another candidate for this category can approach Rove for duplicity: Presidential candidate John McCain.

McCain once famously said, "Unfortunately, Governor Bush is a Pat Robertson Republican who will lose to Al Gore.  I recognize and celebrate that our country is founded upon Judeo- Christian values, and I have pledged my life to defend America and all her values, the values that have made us the noblest experiment in history.  But political intolerance by any political party is neither a Judeo-Christian nor an American value.  The political tactics of division and slander are not our values.  They are corrupting influences on religion and politics, and those who practice them in the name of religion or in the name of the Republican Party or in the name of America shame our faith, our party and our country.  Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.

We are the party of Ronald Reagan, not Pat Robertson.  We are the party of Theodore Roosevelt, not the party of special interests.  We are the party of Abraham Lincoln, not Bob Jones.”  (Go to http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0002/28/se.01.html .)

Nowadays Sen. McCain is singing a different tune.

From a transcript from Tim Russert’s show:

RUSSERT: But, Senator, when you were on here in 2000, I asked you about Jerry Falwell, and this is what you said:

MCCAIN (clip, 3/5/00): Gov. Bush swung far to the right and sought out the base support of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.  Those aren’t the ideas that I think are good for the Republican Party. (End of clip.)

RUSSERT: Do you think that Jerry Falwell’s ideas are now good for the Republican Party?

MCCAIN: I believe that the “Christian Right” has a major role to play in the Republican Party.  One reason is because they’re so active and their followers are.  And I believe they have a right to be a part of our party.  I don’t have to agree with everything they stand for, nor do I have to agree with everything that’s on the liberal side of the Republican Party.  If we have to agree on every issue, we’re not a Republican Party.  I believe in open and honest debate.  Was I unhappy in the year 2000 that I lost the primary and there were some attacks on me that I thought was unfair?  Of course.  Should I get over it?  Should I serve — can I serve the people of Arizona best by looking back in anger or moving forward?

RUSSERT: Do you believe that Jerry Falwell is still an agent of intolerance?

MCCAIN: No, I don’t.  I think that Jerry Falwell can explain how his views on this program when you have him on.  (Go to http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/02/mccain-falwell/ .)

Former Gov. and current presidential candidate and self-professed Mormon Mitt Romney is another fellow one has to wonder about: when he was governing liberal Massachusetts he claimed to be a supporter of gay rights.  Now that he is running for president, he is their most bitter enemy!  Here is the amazing part: the Religious Right seems to be OK with persons who are two-faced as long as they prove that they are willing to cow-tow to them in the long run.  Hypocrisy is not a problem to the Religious Right if it is coupled with a flagrant lack of integrity!

The most duplicitous of this category could be Newt Gingrich, however.  While heading the impeachment charge against President Clinton for Clinton’s relationship with Monica Lewinsky, Gingrich was actually carrying on an affair with a young staffer as well, leading to his second divorce and, subsequently his third marriage!  That is bad enough, of course, but Gingrich added a huge layer of hypocrisy to his foundational hypocrisy by being a long-time stalwart supporter and proponent of the Religious Right while violating numerous values they supposedly espouse (but which they often fail to internalize.)  Now that he’s considering running for president, he recently professed his belief in a forgiving Lord and Savior in a particularly pathetic radio interview with James Dobson.  Once again you have to wonder about what Newt Gingrich really believes.  However it does confirm that the Religious Right values subservience above all other of its supposed values.

Those who automatically eliminate non-theists for consideration when voting should realize (but won’t) that they continually support monsters of their own making: they’ve created the Karl Roves, John McCains, Mitt Romneys and Newt Gingrich’s of the world who cannot admit even to themselves that they completely disagree with the very constituency that they hope to exploit in order to acquire power.  In a sense, when the Religious Right empowers Denialists, specifically, the cynical likes of Karl Rove, or in the future, a John McCain, Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich, they are knowingly accepting persons who do not respect them, probably do not believe in the sames things as them, but are acceptable anyway - because they are willing hypocrites.

 

Tags: Pete Start, atheist, Gingrich, Rove, Giuliani, Religious Right, Romney

How Cowardice by the Secular Helps the Religious Right

From the National Committee on Science Education:

   A creationist measure in the Tennessee state senate is raising eyebrows…
   Senate Resolution 17, introduced in the Tennessee state senate on February 21, 2007, by Raymond Finney (R-District 8), would, if enacted, "request the commissioner of education to provide answers to questions concerning creationism and public school curriculums in Tennessee," beginning with;

"Is the Universe and all that is within it, including human beings, created through purposeful, intelligent design by a Supreme Being, that is a Creator?"

If the answer is yes, then SJR 17 poses the further question;

"Since the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught in Tennessee public schools?"

If the commissioner declines to answer onthe grounds that it is impossible to prove or disprove any answer, then SJR 17 poses the further question;

"Since it cannot be determined whether the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught as an alternative concept, explanation, or theory, along with the theory of evolution in Tennessee public schools?"

And if the answer is no, then SJR 17 poses no further questions, remaining content to express admiration of the commissioner "for being able to decide conclusively a question that has long perplexed and occupied the attention of scientists, philosophers, theologians, educators, and others."

For the text of SR 17 (PDF), visit: http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/bills/currentga/BILL/SR0017.pdf .

For the whole story go to http://www.nashvillepost.com/news/2007/2/26/senate_resolution.

The intent of the resolution is obvious; if the Commissioner of Education answers as a theist, then the question may be sensible - why not teach Creationism since even the Commissioner believes Creationism is “truth.”  If the Commissioner waffles and says Creation cannot be proven or disproven, then the logic supports Creation as an “alternative” theory to the other “unprovable” theory.

Both answers are inappropriate.  The truth is that there is no scientific evidence of Creation or Design, and much evidence of evolution and Natural Selection, and that is what the Commissioner must say.

This latter answer MUST be the answer the Commissioner gives.  If there were any evidence for Creation or Design, there would be a scientific basis for those ideas – but there isn’t.

And at the risk of horrifying every theist in Tennessee, the only answer must be the truthful one given by the Commissioner: that since there is no scientific evidence for Design or Creation and abundant evidence for Natural Selection, only evolution may be taught in science class.

The escape hatch for the embattled Commissioner is this: although abundant evidence for Natural Selection and evolution exists and there is a total lack of evidence of Design and/or Creation, this does not constitute a “proof” of the non-existence of God.

Many theists will not be happy about these honest answers, but all other answers would be either be lies or outright cowardice.

Here’s a prediction: cowardice or ignorance will rear its ugly face.  No Commissioner in Tennessee will declare there is no evidence for Creation and keep his job.  If he/she’s brave he’s done; if he/she’s a coward, he/she stays.

Tags: Creationism, evolution, secularism, Intelligent Design