"What's So Great About Blaming The Democrats For September 11th?"

[Note: The post title is basically a spoiler happy alternate title for book D'Souza's book "The Enemy at Home." Which (gasp) he shamelessly plugs by reiterating! ]

This little blog post by Dinesh is a frantic, grasping attempt to try to justify his opinion that exposure to liberal Western media and values is what caused those terrorists to get so angry at us a few years back. He uses the book "Who Speaks for Islam?" to lend credence to this idea of his, although, the ultimate conclusion of the book is that our foreign policy and perceived disrespect of their religion is the key reason for anger, rather than perceived immorality. But the facts have never stopped Dinesh before....

In the seven years since 9/11, we have been subjected to all kinds of ignorant pontification--much of it from the left, but some also from the right--on "why they hate us."

Quoted for irony.

Esposito and Mogahed argue that traditional Muslims, who make up the bulk of Muslims in every Muslim country, strongly identify with the Western principles of rule of law, self-government, and religious toleration. In fact, their main critique of America is that, as they see it, America backs secular dictators in the Muslim world who deny to Muslims the rights that are taken for granted by Americans.

Yes. Their main critique of America has to do with foreign policy. You see that clearly in this book. You are acknowledging it in this very paragraph. And yet...

They reject the shamelessness and frequent depravity of American popular culture. They reject the type of feminism that relinquishes the home in favor of careers. They are resolutely anti-abortion. They consider homosexual marriage to be an abomination.

Oh noes! They are arch-conservative prudes on top of that! Obviously, this must mean one, and only one thing: they hate us for our freedoms!!!1!!1!

But when conservative and religious Europeans and Americans are polled, it turns out that the percentage of people who are fine with homosexuality is about the same as that of the traditional Muslims.

Yes. This is true. Dinesh will be engaging in "push under the rug" mode in three...two....

First, that the values of the cultural left are an important source in alienating Muslims worldwide. Second, that Muslims don't reject modernity or the West: rather, they embrace what may be termed "1950s America" while rejecting the libertine values of the 1960s. Third, America can build alliances with traditional Muslims by showing them the face of traditional America, so that they see that Hollywood values aren't necessarily American values. Finally, left-wing groups like International Planned Parenthod and Amnesty International should stop pushing feminism, gay marriage and libertine values in the Muslim world.

Holy f@#%$&*@$#burger! What a change! The entire article up to this point was basically "here are some facts and conclusions. Neat, I know. But, look away for a minute, because this is what is really going on". I sincerely do not know why Dinesh thinks that the "values of the cultural left", which are basically equal rights for gays, women, and people of all races and religions should be so offensive as to be the only reason that Muslims are pissed off. You'd think, you know, the violence thing would be a bigger factor. Especially when the book you are citing to support your own reaches that conclusion. I also cannot begin to fathom how we could abandon those values, I do not know why we would want to do so just to appease some people who are willing to kill us over being free and equal, and I cannot believe that Dinesh is making an appeal to "the good ol' days" as the assumed perspective of over one billion people (who are hopefully not as naive.)
And I seriously doubt that we are pushing for gay marriage in Islamic countries. "Feminism" maybe. Gay marriage...well...they have other problems to address before that (you know...like not executing people for being gay...).
Also: "Parenthod"?

Pundits like Chalmers Johnson love to say that American intervention in Iraq and
elsewhere has produced a "blowback" of terrorism from the House of Islam. Wrong!
It is in Iraq that America is allowing an elected Muslim government to rule
according to Muslim interests and Muslim values. Iraq is the only country in the
Middle East where the Muslim population actually chose its own rulers. Iraq is
not the problem. Rather, it is the values of the cultural left, and the cultural
imperialism that seeks to impose those values on reluctant Muslims, that is the
real source of Muslim rage, and the best recruiting tool of the radical Muslims

And now I can conclude, after months of reading Dinesh's articles and suspecting it all along, that Dinesh D'Souza is a certifiable moron. Either his head so far up his own ass that he is currently engaged in a boxing match with his own brain, or he is just functionally braindead, and merely types messages on his computer when a precisely applied electric shock causes him to spasm and slam his face on the keybard. He just doesn't have any idea how we noble Americans went about giving that democracy to those appreciative Iraqi Muslims, does he? Doesn't think that terrorists could possibly be perturbed by our toppling governments on false pretenses and insisting that we impose a new one on them? Everyone in Iraq and the entire world is hunky-dory because we gave them a nice, sparkly democratic government, built on the corpses of over 100,000 civilians. Hell of a world you live in, Dinesh.
Here's just one tiny bit of advice: it doesn't matter if you can decide who your leaders are, if there is nothing to lead or if the leadership is crappy. We are making strides, but their democracy is still fledgling, and I doubt that everyone is of the impression that it is the best thing since sliced bread yet. It is disgusting that you are trying to blame terrorism on short-skirts and gay rights. It is even more disgusting that you do so in such an underhanded, yet gleefully confident fashion.
The idea that anyone refers to you as an intellectual, a scholar, or as anything but the right-wing tabloid writer you really are amuses me greatly. I honestly hope that people will wake up and smell the bullshit real soon. Until then, I offer a toast to the arrival of your latest truckload of fail.

Of Protest and Bigotry

Okay...Wafergate is resurging a bit lately, thanks to Dinesh. And, we have a nice little comment which sympathizes with the crux of D'Souza's argument, as well as dragging up the rotten corpse of an argument that has been worn thin over the course of the past 2 months or so. Behold:

"Destroying a cracker is not bigotry."
Neither is burning a couple of
pieces of wood shaped like a 't'.
However, cross burning (which is to be
distinguished *in terms of what it signifies* from burning two pieces of wood
shaped like a 't') is at least evidence of bigotry.
Destroying a cracker
isn't bigotry.
However, Eucharist desecration (which is to be distinguished
*in terms of what it signifies* from destroying a cracker) is at least evidence
of bigotry.

There are so many things wrong with this kind of sentiment, I don't know where to begin. But, here goes.
1. There is a history violence behind a burning cross. There is no such comparable history for host desecration (except, on the Catholic side of the fence...).
2. Burning a cross is not evidence of bigotry in contexts in which it is not intended to be a threat, or directed at anyone (i.e. it is accidental). Eucharist desecration is not considered to be a threat in of itself, in any context.
3. Even getting beyond the symbols, there is a greater history of violence directed towards African Americans in general, independent of cross-burning, relative to that directed at Catholics (some, but not much recently) for the sole reason of their bearing those respective traits.
4. Related to points 1-3 is the fact that the cross burning is offensive because it is a tacit threat, whereas Eucharist desecration is only offensive because Catholics believe it hurts God (or something) and are not personally affected or threatened by it.
5. There is a difference between bigotry (mindless hatred of another group) and criticism. Questioning the worth of symbols, rituals, and ideas, without threatening the group who holds them as relevant is criticism. Calling people out for their own actions and unfounded beliefs is criticism. Dismissing, hating or threatening individuals for being the group that holds them as relevant is bigotry.
6. It could hardly be considered significant bigotry (i.e. indicative of oppression or persecution) when the people that are being protested are of a larger presence (in both influence and population) than the person or group criticizing them.
7. Similarly, it could hardly be considered bigotry against a specific group (i.e. anti-Catholic bigotry) when the person or group offering the critique would do the same to any group with similar actions and ideas. This is clearly the case here (see the involvement of the Koran in the ordeal for details).
8. And, it could hardly be considered bigotry at all if the use of the offensive symbol is done as a protest to a fierce overreaction to a relatively young and naive man's accidental incorrect usage of it, and the protest does nothing to suggest any form of hatred or a precursor to violent activity.

It is very convenient how much context these people are able to strip from both the symbols they want to compare the Eucharist to, and from the actual events of the desecration as well. Honestly, though...how could I be surprised?

Wafergate: Aftermath

Bill Donahue is still crying over PZ Myers desecrating a communion in protest to the treatment of Webster Cook, wafer smuggler. And, about a month and half after the fact, it is even more hilarious.

When I spoke to a reporter from Providence about a play that mocked the
Eucharist, I unloaded. Fortunately, he listened to me explain the source of my
anger. “Because this is the fourth incident this summer of someone playing fast
and loose with the Eucharist,” I told him.

I believe that I hear the sound of the world's violin playing. Poor wittle Bill, those meanies are making him cwy.

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

Boo-friggety-hoo. The idea that you have to be "Catholic" in order to take Communion seems kind of arbitrary, doesn't it? Oh wait...I am talking about transubstantiation. Some bizarre and arbitrary criteria for participation is far from the most ludicrous aspect I assume...

The second incident was worse: a brazen student from the University of Central
Florida walked out of Mass with the Eucharist to protest some innocuous school
policy.

1. He ran out after someone tried to strong-arm him into eating it.

2. That "innocuous school policy" was an unconstitutional financial support, by a state school, of a religious organization. It is only "innocuous" to you, because it helps out Catholics.

The third was obscene: University of Minnesota Professor Paul Z. Myers
desecrated a consecrated Host to protest my criticism of the Florida student.

It wasn't just about you (though you helped put things into motion). It was all the good Catholics who sent death threats to Mr.Cook that spurred him into action. And the death threats directed at him afterwards pushed him over the edge into actually going through with it. Which he performed rather tastefully, all and all.

So when the reporter called to ask why I was unhappy with some woman who decided to mock the Eucharist in a play, he touched a raw nerve.

Cue violin again.

For fifteen years I have been president of the Catholic League, and never have I
seen such a series of assaults on the Eucharist. What’s going on?

One was an accident. The Webster Cook thing was also an accident (debatably). And Myers was reacting to incident 2. So, I think that you are overreacting [gasp].

And what accounts for the total failure of the University of Minnesota to hold
Myers accountable?

Here's my guess: because he didn't do anything wrong legally, and what he did was not done in the role of a professor at the university, but as a citizen, so...free speech...

What’s going on is that militant atheism is all the rage....Hatred of religion
in general, and Christianity in particular. The bulls-eye, of course, is Roman
Catholicism. I’ll give them this much: At least the religion bashers are smart
enough to know who’s on top.

Please. We are hardly "militant", you could hardly call what we have "hatred", and the only reason why we pick on Christianity so much is because it is the world's largest religion, and it is also the one that is adhered to by 80% of our neighbors.

As for your remarks about Catholicism, aside from having the longest history, and being the largest individual Christian institution, atheists could care less about your Church. You're an easy target, and many in mainstream Christianity (hell, even in some Catholic churches) don't even believe that you are a Christian denomination. You receive friendly fire from not only other denominations, but from your own disaffected members. Your Church and traditions are just ripe for satire, even after being plucked and pulped so many times before. You're not a bulls-eye, nor the top. You are a formerly influential corner that currently contributes very much to the population of shooters, and could be broken off and be completely disregarded by the rest of Christendom.

What these authors do is embolden their base. To be specific, they energize
atheists to be more in-your-face about their convictions, the result of which is
an agenda to attack Catholicism.

More or less correct until you get to "whaaa, why are the evil atheists picking on the cafolixx!" part. Again, we do not care about Catholicism any more than other Christian denominations that are comparably intrusive and abusive.

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

What did you honestly expect? You can't punish a person for being mean to ideas. Especially when he has not doing so as a representative of his place of employment.

Does anyone believe that the University of Minnesota would do absolutely nothing
about a white professor who packed them in at a local comedy club on weekends
doing his racist rendition of “Little Black Sambo”?

I would honestly hope that "being a racist" isn't a fireable offense if it doesn't extend into his role as teacher or his grading methods. Also, I find it rather hilarious to liken a harsh critique of unfounded ideas to racism. You tend to rant a lot about anti-Catholic bigotry, Bill. It is funny. Anti-Catholic sentiment does exist. It is just nowhere near as bad, currently or historically, as racism. Criticizing your beliefs isn't bigotry, though. Especially when it is coming from atheists (because we give the same kind of criticism to EVERY religion's unfounded beliefs). You should really look to your fellow Christians for that. You know, the ones who don't think that you are Christian, call you Mary-worshippers, and will go on and on about how you don't worship Jesus correctly and are going to Hell for it. Those people. Not the people who are protesting against a bunch of overreacting death-threat lobbers who happen to be Catholic.

Would the very same administrators plead helplessness about a professor who
spoke to community groups off-campus about the mythology of the Holocaust?

Holocaust Envy, huh? You really are trying to stretch here, aren't you? Honestly, once again, as long as Holocaust-denier bizarro-Myers was not using his role as professor to further such an argument, it would, ideally, be ignored.

Lest anyone not be convinced, need I remind you that Larry Summers was driven
out of his job as president of Harvard University for remarks that radical
feminists found objectionable.

And that was an overreaction. Just like your's in this situation. But, slight distinction: Summers' statement was made within his role at the University, not on a personal blog.

It cannot go unsaid that Summers’ comments were made off-campus.

At an academic conference. It is not like he was just talking with his buddies over a cup of coffee.

Moreover, when Summers spoke, it was made explicitly clear that he was not
speaking as president, but as an academic.

Well...sucks for him, then.

Academic freedom was instituted to protect contrarian professors from being
hounded out of the academy for challenging the conventional wisdom on a
particular academic subject.

There you go. Now your on the right page.

It was not instituted to protect hate speech.

Fecking moron. That didn't take long. How is "the Catholic Church has done bad things in the past, Catholics are overreacting to the Cook fiasco, and a human life is worth more than tradition ", verifiably true statements that do not reflect any hatred for individuals on the mere basis of their being Catholic, hate speech? You are chasing phantoms of something that never was, Donahue. Calling out a religious institution is not hate speech. Nor is bringing up the past deeds of that institution. Nor is bringing up the behavior of a small section of those people and responding to it. Nor is nabbing something with a price of $.02 which is handed out freely and throwing it away as your response.

Myers is free to say whatever he wants about his specialty, which is zebrafish,
but he has no moral right to assault the sensibilities of any religious group.

Myers is an American citizen first, biology professor second. The responsibilities of the second should never deprive him of the rights of the first, especially when not in the role of professor. And, considering what tiny things count as an "assault" of your "sensibilities", I am going to call bullshit. You have no right to that level of protection from opposing ideas.

At the very least, the president should have convened an assembly, with members
of the press invited, to unequivocally condemn what Myers did. Even if what
Myers did was outside the purview of the president’s authority, there was
nothing stopping him from holding such a forum.

That's just franky bizarre. Do you really think that the president of the University really wanted to drag PZ, and the entire school through the mud, just to appease the few angry cafolixx like yourself who even cared? Do you even think that this obscure thought even occurred to the president, assuming that he himself even gave a damn about it? Grasping at straws...

Over the summer, Myers’ personnel file ballooned: everything that happened
regarding this issue is in it. Which means that he’d better be careful about
bringing his religious bigotry to bear in the classroom.

The only "religious bigotry" I am aware of is in between folks who, you know, are PART OF A RELIGION THEMSELVES! Myers doesn't get a hard-on for dishing out the hurtie to Catholics, all right? That is very specific, peculiar fetish that only religious nuts have a particular enjoyment of.

If just one Catholic student complains that he is being treated unfairly because
of his religion, Myers will have to answer.

I doubt it. I doubt that Myers teaches classes that are small and intimate enough for him to be aware of a student's religion, let alone be able to discriminate against them for it.

Because of the hate-filled milieu that Myers and his ilk have created, all
kinds of copy-cats have come forth. Some have put videos of themselves up on the
Internet. They all go after me big time, and that is as it should be. They know
who the enemy is, and for that I am eternally grateful.

And thus Bill ends his tale of woe and whining, and cries for vengeance, with a brief allusion to his persecution complex and his wish to self-flagellate himself until he can finally get his Viagra to kick in. And we are, understandably, left perturbed and exasperated.

Voting: The S & M way

(Inspired by the idea of PUMA, and by people wondering why African Americans are so disproportionately Democrats...)

It is a remarkable problem that has become increasingly obvious over the last few years. Closeted gay politicians pass anti-gay legislation. Post-equal rights women speak publicly about the evils of feminism. Pundits from a minority group rant about how we should do away with the overcompensatory measures of affirmative action. And those in bottom quintile for yearly salary speak out against welfare and "socialism". These are a vast and varied group of people who, for whatever reason, fight valiantly on behalf of a group that is against their own best interests. They are the Stockholm Republicans.

They may see it as a noble sacrifice, or they may simply focus on aspects of neo-conservative policy that doesn't pertain to stripping them of their rights. But, for whatever reason, they find themselves supporting the people who hate them and want to limit their existence as much as possible. They are racial minorities who ally themselves with racists (e.g. D'Souza). They are women who are willing to sacrifice their rights to choice (in regards to womb and work) in the name of tradition (e.g. Schafly). They are non-Christians supporting the claim that they live in a Christian country and that the legislature should feel free to impose fundamentalist views on the general populace. They are gays who support the party that is bastion of hope for homophobes across the country. Their motives are unknown, but, whether or not they are consciously aware of the fact that they are adamantly supporting their own oppression, or if they merely see it as a necessary evil in favoring an otherwise agreeable platform (from their perspective) is up for debate on a case by case basis.

Nevertheless, I think it safe to assume that they have a masochistic streak (especially in light of seeing how well Republicans do on the economic and military fronts, and not just the social one). Whether they should be pitied as victims of two-party circumstance, hailed as martyrs for an indeterminate cause, or hauled off to a mental facility, their existence is a striking blow to our political system. Under circumstances without such a group, the Republicans couldn't afford to remain as the "rich Christian white straight male's party" and let the Democratic party be the "everybody else's party". They would lose every election. But, the group of Stockholm Republicans (be they "followers of the status-quo", those who hear the party platform and say"one out of five ain't bad", or the "optimistic ear-pluggers") effectively innoculate the party from such a threat, and assure that they never have to abandon their lack of concern about society beyond the original core "panderees".

I have my fingers crossed that they are too small of a fringe to matter in this election (where the past administration should have thoroughly dismissed any illusions of conservative fiscal responsibility, moral superiority, and military expertise). But, then again, you will be surprised how many people are willing to take up the brutal four more years of the self-flagellation they know, than the black, inexperienced secret Muslim that they don't.

On Palin, pregnancy, and PUMA

Point one: McCain deciding to choose Palin as his Vice Presidential candidate was bold, risky, brilliant, but probably an incredible sacrifice. By choosing Palin, he can now claim a historic ticket just like Obama, and gain some leverage with jilted Hillary supporters who were leaning towards the Republican side and now may be willing to make that leap. And, with Palin having a big, wholesome family and being strongly religious, she can help to give a little more balance to McCain, who is still mistrusted by evangelicals for speaking out against them in his maverick days (though they aren't as skeptical of him as they should be, predictably). Of course, this comes at the risk of being too transparent of a ploy to get women voters on to the Republican side, chasing them away, while simultaneously chasing away the "barefoot and pregnant" brand of misogynists on the far right. At the same time, she may seem to be immune to being challenged for inexperience due to Obama having the same problem, her presence effectively makes it so that challenging Obama's inexperience is a moot point now. The tickets are balanced both in regards to experience and their historical nature.

Point two: Palin's daughter is pregnant apparently. And there is much conflict amongst the Democrats (surprise) about whether or not this issue should be addressed. I am a big supporter of not bringing up the sex lives of candidates, or about bringing up the candidates' families at all. We are not electing their family, after all. But, I am conflicted on this, since I am in favor of mentioning something that illustrates failures in a candidate's policies or outright hypocrisy. I am not sure if it applies here, but there is a definitely a double standard. I do think that unless we have a relevant reason for dragging the issue into the public eye further, that we should do as Obama suggests and take the high road. Most arguments I have heard for why Palin's views could be relevant to her daughter's teenage pregnancy have to do with assuming that abstinence only education was at fault and the fact that she applauded her daughter for making a choice (keeping the child) that she wishes to deprive others from making. Other than that, which are kind of weak as it is, there is really no good reason to bring it up and we should leave it alone.

Point three: Former Hillary supporters (alluded to in point one) who are willing to either forfeit votes or vote for McCain to spite Obama seem to be rather vocal on the net. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are any more relevant to the electoral process overall than the equally net-frenzied Ron Paul supporters of yestermonth, but they still seem to have a lot of presence. Some seem to be dwelling on some perceived misogyny in some of the remarks made in media coverage (the only one I can think of us is the idiotic manner that they covered her crying spell after winning one of the early primaries, but I am sure there were other instances, as there usually is). Or they may be reacting to particularly abrasive Obama supporters online (I know, someone said something rude and inconsiderate online!) or in real life. [Side note: they are also dismissed as some form of cultist if they are not able to give a good reason for why they are voting for Obama. Just FYI.] Others seem to still just be peeved about Hillary not being allowed to get votes from the two states that were discounted at the very beginning of the primary season, according to rules that were agreed to beforehand. And still more just plain don't like Obama (claiming that he is sexist, though I am not sure why, to be honest).
I honestly don't know whether these people are actually sincere Democrats, or just cross-overs who are crossing back now that Hillary has fallen out. But still, the ones that claim to be pissed off Democrats seem to be put into a state where they think it is detestable that people would expect them to vote for Obama instead of Hillary now that he was won the nomination, due to the fact that he is the one who shares the most in common with their former "messiah" (turnabout is fair play, no?). They deplore the idea of "party unity" because they argue that it is commanding them to vote a certain way, feel as if they are victimized due to Hillary losing, etc. etc.
I sincerely hope that there are not many of these people. This is a very important election, and we do not need to have the Democrats lose once again, and due to a bunch of disgruntled voters who are willing to vote for someone they disagree with on almost every issue out of pure spite. I send out a prayer that this will not occur. As an atheist....that should serve as a testament to my desperation.

America's Not Racist Anymore! Spread The Word!

After talking about Kenyan success in running events at the Olympics and immediately afterwards trying to draw the most broad conclusions he could from it, Dinesh D'Souza continues to ramble incoherently on the subject of race.

Who could not be moved at the sight of a major political party naming
Barack Obama, an African American, as its presidential candidate? To me, there
could not be a better sign that America has left behind its racist past.

Yeah, no. Considering that you are only talking about slightly more than half of a political party that makes up roughtly half of the country showing their support of Obama up to this point, it only shows that most Democrats are tolerant enough to support a black man instead of Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately, there is plenty of room for these people to still have a level of racism in them that they are either trying to suppress or that is slightly less than their hatred of women and/or Republicans. And of course, we still have half of the country who will refuse to support Obama, squarely within the Republican party tent, whose ranks leave plenty of room for America's racism to dwell within it at full strength, under the veil of whatever misguided justifications they can concoct for such a refusal.

If we appreciate the significance of our current moment, we are driven to
an ironic but rational conclusion: perhaps the best way to recognize Obama's
historic achievement is to vote for John McCain this November.

Yes. Voting McCain will definitely prove that racism doesn't exist. Willing to vote in a continuation of an almost universally despised president in order to avoid plopping a black man into the Oval Office. Acknowledge a historic achievment by making it completely irrelevant and telling them "oh, so close but yet so far. Better luck in 2012, but America has spoken, and they want another old white warmonger". The fact that you use the word "rational" for this idea is disgusting.

for the past several years we have been hearing liberal Democrats emphasize how
racism still defines America, how things haven't really changed all that much,
how racism has gone underground and is now more covert and more dangerous than
ever.

It has. In lieu of obvious vehemence, hatred, and violence directed towards another race, there is now just a casual fear, distaste, and racial favortism that simmers, hidden as much as possible but still everpresent. And, due to this subtler, less visible, less obvious form that racism has taken, it is almost impossible to counteract, and impossible to overcome.

It may seem strange that a racist country would adopt legal policies that
discriminate against the majority and in favor of minorities.

Completely missed the point! Do you know why those policies to exist? To circumvent existing racist discrimination against those minorities, enacted by people who knew that it existed, and that it was having negative effects on them. And guess who these people were? If you said: the liberals who were fighting for civil rights from the outset and who have voted Obama to be their presidential candidate, than you would be correct.

Well, I don't know how many people have been drinking the liberal Kool-Aid, but
these people must be utterly shocked at the success of Barack Obama. Here is a
guy who could not possibly have made it as far as he has with only black votes.
He has attracted not only white votes but the votes of some of the most affluent
and successful segments of the white community.

Yes. White liberals. White people who are either plagued enough by white guilt, empathetic enough to not become hung up in regards to skin color, or just plain don't like Hillary enough to support Obama. And, guess what? They do not make up the majority of white people in our country! Hurrah, hooray! You've got to love the attempt to make it seem like racism doesn't exist by using the people who oppose the racist elements of society as evidence.

Obama's public message is that race doesn't matter and that transracial
alliances should be built on shared political and cultural values. It's a good
message, and how it must dismay professional civil rights activists to hear it.

That is some kind of epic retardation, right there. Civil rights activists fully support transracial alliance and wholeheartedly believe that race SHOULDN'T matter, you twit. The only problem, is that for a good segment of society (and a powerful one at that), it still DOES matter. Does it matter universally? No. Does it matter objectively? Should it matter to anyone? No. Does it matter to people? YES. And that's what civil rights activists are active against.

Clearly there are many in the liberal Democratic camp who are made profoundly
uncomfortable by the recognition that racism is no more a defining feature of
American life or even African American life.

No. Not really. Not uncomfortable at all. I am made "profoundly uncomfortable" by people who are both ignorant and overly optimistic enough to believe that this is true to an incredibly large degree. It may not be a "defining feature", but it sure is a significant influence, even if it is below the surface. There is still is racial tension, and there still is a segment of people who are as hateful towards different races as they were decades ago. The idea that this wouldn't have an effect on the recipients of this closeted hatred is leaves me simply flabbergasted. It may not be "defining", but it sure as hell isn't negligible.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that racism does not exist. This is a big
country, and surely one can find several examples of it. But racism, which used
to be systematic, is now only episodic

Racism still is systematic. It's just that the system has been made less focused on segregation and violence, and more on exclusion and avoidance. If you define racism as only those actions which were defined by the old paradigms, before there were laws to prevent them or weed them out, then obviously there will be rare instances of it. But, unfortunately, racism is in intent, not in action, and the racism that once manifested itself before in certain ways has found new venues now that the old methods are no longer permissible. Instead of lynching black people and giving them separate water fountains, we simply have cops pull them over a little more often than their white counterparts, and have some white flight when they dare to move into our neighborhoods.
It exists still, it occurs reguarly still (though less dramatically and less often). The only difference now is that the government doesn't tacitly condone it anymore. So...that's something.

In fact, when I ask young blacks on the campus today whether America is racist,
many say yes. But if I ask them to give me examples of how that racism affects
their lives, they are hard pressed to give a single one. The best they can do is
to mention "Rodney King" or provide some well-known, recycled horror story.

OMG! Young people who don't have evidence from their own personal experiences to support their beliefs! The horror!

Recently someone told me that McCain is still winning the white vote by a
substantial majority and that shows "we have a long way to go" in overcoming
white bigotry. By this logic, blacks are have even longer way to go in
overcoming their bigotry since Obama is winning almost 98 percent of the black
vote.

Except, you know, for the fact that white people along with black people have been voting white for every election since their respective rights to vote where granted to them. Are you telling me that it would be bigotry to support a candidate from a never before elected minority group that you happen to be part of and who is not only supportive of the rights of your group, but of all other minorities as well? As compared to the alternative candidate, who is not only not part of your group, part of a group that has been elected 43 times consecutively in the past, but also represents a party that is composed of people that hate you? Yeah. A reaction against bigotry is not bigotry.

Even though Obama's candidacy signals that America is overcoming its racial
past, neither Obama nor his wife recognize that. Their personal statements, as
seen for example in Obama's books, are suffused with race-consciousness,
race-obsession and even racial resentment. The more privileges they have
received on the basis of race, the more embittered they seem to become

Just because you are fortunately in a position of privilege doesn't mean that you cannot sympathize with the plight of your less fortunate brothers, and it doesn't mean that you forget the past you had when you were not in such a position. They are "race-obsessed" because of all of the times they have most likely been subjected to questions, and criticisms based upon that very trait. A person in a society that doesn't care about race (i.e. one that isn't racist) would not become "race-obsessed". One that is responding to a society that has focused on such a trait unduly, however, would become one.

The source of these pathologies is the very liberalism that the Obamas have
embraced: a liberalism that declares them equal while treating them as inferiors
who need preferential treatment.

No. That is a strawman of affirmative action, which is intended to counteract institutional racial favoritism in regards to hiring policy, rather than to give them compensatory handicap. The "pathologies" are due to a hostile and racist climate that, surprise surprise, didn't just fade away into nothingness in the 40 years after the Civil Rights Act (in much the same way that it hadn't faded in the century or so since slavery had been abolished up to that point).

If you want to get rid of racial obsession, stop talking and thinking about race
so much. If you want to remove race as the basis of decision-making in America,
let's eliminate America's policies that make race the basis of decision-making.

Finally, something I can agree with. Almost. Racial obsession and racism will fade if people stop talking and thinking about it. The problem is that many people refuse to do so. Many people refuse to give up their blind, racially motivated hatred and cannot be forced to do so. But, as long as these people remain, and as long as they exist in a large quantity and have even a small amount of power and presence, racism will not die. In that sense, we must keep race in mind: not as something to judge people by, but as an indication of the potential prejudices that such people had to overcome. Hence, why we can't totally abandon race entirely as a basis of decision-making in regards to the protections provided affirmative action.

And if you want a party that stands for color-blindess and equal opportunity, you might consider voting for the Republicans.

Hilarious. They are "color-blind" in the sense of not being willing to defend people from those who adamantly hate a specific color. They are "equal opportunity" in the sense of giving people in a position of a power an equal opportunity to discriminate against people who are not part of one their arbitrarily defined groups, including race. They want a color blind government for a racially divided nation. Democrats want a color blind world, and will make sure that the laws protect the softer targets until then. Dinesh's futile attempt to spin that is both entertaining and depressing.

When Opinions Suck

How can you miss the point so thoroughly, and show your prejudices at the same time? Write an opinion column about a group of people you clearly don't like and most likely know nothing about!

He definitely starts out on the right foot:

A few atheists have their panties in a twist once again, this time fussing that an atheist leader wasn't invited to speak at an Aug. 24 interfaith service that's part of the Democratic National Convention.

The service will feature Christian, Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist speakers. The official reason for the interfaith services is "to honor the diverse faith traditions inside the Democratic Party," which could easily include atheists. If they aren't welcome, it's probably because they're rude

The irony of suggesting that a diverse group of people is universally "rude" while beginning the column on that subject with a phrase such as "have their panties in a twist" is just so incredibly delicious.

This column has advocated religious liberties for atheists, citing case law that defines atheism as just another religion - as in just another unproven and forever unprovable belief.

Le sigh. How is lack of belief in an unproven and unprovable assertion an unproven and unprovable belief? How is lack of religion a religion? Under what condition could a person be said to not have any religion at all?

Therefore a belief in creation - or an original intelligence, Jesus, Buddha, or the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" - is no more valid in the eyes of the law than the odd belief that nothing could possibly exist beyond what our embryonic state of scientific discovery has seen in our relatively primitive microscopes and telescopes.

Attacking materialism, are we? Well, I've got to say, seeing as how we can say absolutely nothing with certainty about those things beyond our current realm of scientific understanding, saying that such things are essentially irrelevant to us for now is perfectly valid. It is definitely foolish to say that there is nothing at all that exists beyond our current scientific understanding, but that is only a straw man. The point is that we can only work with the things that we know, and those things are physical. Anything outside of that is just speculation, especially when you claim detailed knowledge. Belief in a specific kind of creative intelligence is infinitely more specific and much more unfounded than such assertions.

To rational thinkers, atheism seems a sad and shallow belief. That's because great scientists understand that, metaphorically, they've discovered little more than the drawings on the walls of a cave. They don't know what's beyond the cave or how it began.

And once we discover more, we will be ready to accept that. But, the thing is, once again, anything positted at this point about such subjects is just speculation. If atheism is a sad and shallow belief, I cannot imagine how to describe those who state with utter conviction that they know how the world came to be, and that an unproven and unprovable entity is behind it, of which they have exact details of what his demands are. Even the boldest atheism is humble by comparison.

They pretend that atheist beliefs are proven true, while others are proven false.

Since atheism is lack of beliefs, and there is no proof either way, that is pretty much true. If not, please complain about the unfounded beliefs of a-fairyists, a-bigfootists, and a-UFOists as well.

Their approach to ministry is overbearing and rude. They engage in confrontation, with disregard for persuasion

Every challenge to your religion would be considered "overbearing and rude" no matter how polite the demeanor and tame the content. The mere act of questioning religious authority is deemed "rude" by most people. And, as for "confrontation", do you seriously think that you can call the attempts of those within your own religion to persuade other people to "see the light" only less confrontational than atheists? The only reason you see it as confrontation is because it is calling you on bullshit that you've place up on a pedestal and that is just not very polite, is it?

In other words, if I'm not invited to your party then you're bad.

Excellent straw man. She was not judging the character of the DNC, only saying that supporting faith is turning its back on those who do not have faith. No value judgments, just an attempt to show them that they are embracing one group at the expense of another in the name of unity.

You simply weren't invited to a private party for "believers.

It's not a private party for believers: it is an event sponsorred by the Democratic Party during their national convention in order to express their support of people of various faiths. But, the issue is not that we simply were not invited, it is that the event itself was designed specifically to exclude us, by, as you said, being "for 'believers'". It should be for EVERYONE, be they Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, or nothing at all. Because these are all the faiths and non-faiths that make up the Democratic party. By making it just about the religious people, they are excluding a segment of the Democrats as well as perturbing the religious moderates that make up a significant amount of the party base.

Boulder atheist Marvin Straus accused Democrats of "pandering" for the religious vote. How dare they reach out to people who believe in God? There oughta be a law!

Sigh. Did anyone suggest that they SHOULDN'T do it? No. Is anyone suggesting that they should make sure to include those who are not religious as well? I would assume so....

Hitler imagined a world without Jews. The Freedom From Religion Foundation rented a billboard near the Colorado Convention Center that says: "Imagine No Religion."

That Godwin came outta nowhere. Anyone aside from this putz think that the sign suggests genocide? Anyone? Anyone else think that Hitler killed the Jews out of hatred for religion, rather than just out of simple religiously supported antisemitism? Anyone? Bueller?

Imagine a world with no religion and one sees a world without the Golden Rule, devoid of most charities, hospitals and great universities.

Really? The "without religion, there is no morals" gambit? There is a reason why almost every religion on Earth has some variation on the Golden Rule. It is because it is a self-evident description of how basic human empathy forces us to behave. As for charities, hospitals, and universities having religious origins: that is merely because such a large portion of our population (and almost every person in a position of power) happen to be religious. One could hardly assert that their religion had anything to do with the existence of such institutions, however.

Imagine no religion and one sees a world ruled by atheist tyrants - Pol Pot, Albania's Enver Hoxha, Stalin and Mao, to name a few - who have murdered tens of millions in modern efforts to cleanse society of religion.

This crap will never die, will it?

American Muslims, Baptists, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Mormons, Quakers, Amish, etc., don't erect billboards saying "Imagine No Atheists."

First, "atheists" and "religion" are hardly comparable. Besides, they don't need to. They are able to advertise their religion in every form of media imaginable and use that as a platform to implicitly or explicitly rant about the evils of non-belief just like you are doing here. The bulk is a major issue. A single billboard erected by harmless minority talking about a general institution rather than a specific group is much different then people saying "get rid of this minority group".

They don't advocate theft and desecration of atheist property, even though an atheist hero in Minnesota stole and destroyed the Catholic Eucharist

And I didn't think that you thoroughly established your retardation enough in the former sentences. Thank you for sealing the deal. Deciding to not eat a wafer handed to you is hardly the same thing as "theft". And besides, he only destroyed property that was meant for destruction anyway. He just did it in a manner different than intended. The only comparable thing that they could advocate in retailation is for people to get invited to atheist's house for dinner, and secretly flush a single portion of the meal down the toilet at his own house afterwards instead of eating it.

Besides, do you even know the rabid response that PZ received in response to the very suggestion that he may do such a thing? Advocating theft pales in comparison...

It's likely they didn't invite atheists to their faith service because they didn't want embarrassing guests

Hahahaha...DIAF.

Atheists should fund universities and hospitals. They should feed and clothe starving kids.

Hear of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Are you aware that most atheists are not internet trolls? Your presumptions are sickening. I wish that rebutting you didn't play right into your hand, allowing you to point and say "look at how rude and intolerant they are!". But, whatever. I am not a representative of the atheist anymore than you are a representative of whatever idiotic religion turned you into the heavily blinded putz that you are. END.

Ding, dong, the ding-dong's dead

Looks like Edward Gordon abandoned his blog. A true shame. His fight against the evil atheistic influence will have to be taken up by someone else (preferrably someone who doesn't tie everything in society to the "atheistic influence").

Christian Cross Talk: 2007-2008. [Insert sappy montage here]

You will missed. Just not by me.

Bananaland, Ho!

Newsflash: Ray Comfort is making a fool of himself! I present, for your amusement, the worst strawman of atheists ever concocted, which Ray proudly presents in his sidebar, as an undying testament to his profound levels of idiocy.

1. Whenever you are presented with credible evidence for God's existence, call it a "straw man argument," or "circular reasoning." If something is quoted from somewhere, label it "quote mining."

Oh. Can't point out logical fallacies now, can we?
Well, anyway, let me posit that Ray Comfort believes wholeheartedly that everything that can be uttered from a human throat is undeniable truth if they do so with honesty, regardless of whether they know what they are talking about. Thus, Ray thinks that we shouldn't teach our children mathematics.
Also, unicorns must exist because they left behind a grocery list. That grocery list is a trustworthy code for which to design our own grocery lists because it was written by a unicorn.
And, finally: "Good people don’t go to Hell." -Ray Comfort.

Heretic.
(Got all three fallacies covered....)

2. When a Christian says that creation proves that there is a Creator, dismiss such common sense by saying "That's just the old watchmaker argument."

If you are assuming that existence is "created" then of course there is going to be a creator...it is by your very choice of words that this conclusion must be made. But, unfortunately for you, we do not need to presume that the universe is a creation, so your conclusion of a Creator is equally weak.

3. When you hear that you have everything to gain and nothing to lose (the pleasures of Heaven, and the endurance of Hell) by obeying the Gospel, say "That's just the old 'Pascal wager.'"

That's because it is Pascal's Wager. And it is utterly uncompelling.

4. You can also deal with the "whoever looks on a woman to lust for her, has committed adultery with her already in his heart," by saying that there is no evidence that Jesus existed. None.

There is evidence that Jesus existed. Just not a very compelling amount. And not a large amount indicating that Jesus's existence is proof that the particulars of the Gospels are correct. Besides, that particular quote be taken one of two ways: 1. it is an honorable attempt to show that one's desires and thoughts can inhibit us as much as our actions or 2. that your particular deity punishes us for even thinking about a "sinful" activity in the flightiest manner, illustrating an inability to understand nuance.

I assume that you prefer the latter interpretation.

5. Believe that the Bible is full of mistakes, and actually says things like the world is flat. Do not read it for yourself. That is a big mistake. Instead, read, believe, and imitate Richard Dawkins. Learn and practice the use of big words. "Megalo-maniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully" is a good phrase to learn.

It is full of mistakes, believers in the Bible did believe the world was flat and some verses suggest that it is a valid perception, and most atheists have read and understand the Bible better than believers. Not to mention the fact that lack of religion (atheism) is not a cult of personality, and not all atheists even like Richard Dawkins, let alone want to emulate him. Also, the tacit suggestion that you are afraid of "big words" really tickles me.

6. Say that you were once a genuine Christian, and that you found it to be false. (The cool thing about being an atheist is that you can lie through your teeth, because you believe that are no moral absolutes.) Additionally, if a Christian points out that this is impossible (simply due to the very definition of Christianity as one who knows the Lord), just reply "That's the 'no true Scotsman fallacy.'"

Yeah, that's right, the atheists are the ones who lie. Atheists could not possibly be former Christians in a nation that is 80% Christian and attempts to indoctrinate children at the age of 8 onward. And, with your definition of Christianity, there are very few Christians in existence, and yet you could not prove their Christianity either way. Which is why it is the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Belief in Christian doctrine is sufficient enough, not unverifiable divine connections or whatever you are attempting to gerrymander the defintion to.

7. Believe that nothing is 100% certain, except the theory of Darwinian evolution. Do not question it. Believe with all of your heart that there is credible scientific evidence for species-to-species transitional forms. When you make any argument, pat yourself on the back by concluding with "Man, are you busted!" That will make you feel good about yourself.

Nothing is 100% certain, including evolution. But, it is our best evidenced explanation for differentiated life at the time, so that makes it good enough to be believed in. Why do I get the feeling that you are writing these after several tear-stained hours reading atheist comments that completely eviscerated your arguments, and you somehow managed to remain ignorant to that fact, but just felt like you were being unjustly persecuted by the mean evolutionists?

8. Deal with the threat of eternal punishment by saying that you don't believe in the existence of Hell. Then convince yourself that because you don't believe in something, it therefore doesn't exist. Don't follow that logic onto a railway line and an oncoming train.

You should really be wearing garlic necklaces, have silver bullets on you at all times, and wear a tinfoil hat. Just because you don't believe in vampires, werewolves, and telepathic aliens doesn't mean that aren't real.

9. Blame Christianity for the atrocities of the Roman Catholic church--when it tortured Christians through the Spanish Inquisition, imprisoned Galileo for his beliefs, or when it murdered Moslems in the Crusades.

Catholics are Christians, deal with it.

And, for irony's sake:

10. Finally, keep in fellowship with other like-minded atheists who believe as you believe, and encourage each other in your beliefs. Build up your faith. Never doubt for a moment. Remember, the key to atheism is to be unreasonable. Fall back on that when you feel threatened. Think shallow, and keep telling yourself that you are intelligent. Remember, an atheist is someone who pretends there is no God.

LOLZ must follow. Most atheists don't have many other atheist friends. However...the religious...

Correlation Does Not Imply Causation; Case One: Happiness vs. Religiosity

Guess who is at it again?
Go ahead.

Guess.

That's right! Dinesh is back! And this time, his arguments are weaker than ever!

In fact, his regurgitation of data that I have stumbled across before has inspired me to delve into matters of other people leaping to a conclusion regarding causation with only correlationary information. But first, let us deal with the task at hand: Dinesh D'Souza and the Blog of Utterfailure.

In mentioning a variety of studies regarding the happiness of different groups of people, D'Souza says:
"Brooks notes that 'faith is an incredible predictor, and cause, of happiness. Religious people of all faiths are much, much happier on average than secularists.' Specifically, 43 percent of those who attend church weekly or more call themselves "very happy," versus 23 percent who attend seldom or never. Observant Jews and Christians are by Brooks' measure the happiest people in America."

So, what is this? Being a regular church-goer means that you are twice as likely to be "very happy"? Somehow, I don't think so.

It could just be that happy people are more willing to go to chruch regularly, and people who are not happy are unwilling to do anything, with lack of church attendance being indicative of their level of depression rather than their lack of religiosity.

It could just be that people who go to church are exposed to an environment where there is social pressure for them to exhibit happiness, which results in them either being authentically happy, deceiving themselves into believing that they are happy, or feeling unable to express any doubts, sadness, or fears to others, and thus more liable to exaggerate their positive emotions (honestly, though, I don't lend much credence to this thought).

It could just be that attending religious services and happiness are both related to one another through a tertiary variable. In all seriousness, I think that this may be the case, because church attendance is a form of social interaction, and provides one with an extra social network beyond those who do not attend church. If church is used as a social network, to interact with other human beings and build relationships, this will increase happiness just like it would in any other context. Of course, other outside variables aside from extra social networks could be a reduced sense of responsibility due to faith, mitigated stress due to being confident in a second chance at existence, and the mere reassurance of having a controlled routine.

But, let's see what Dinesh thinks!

" So why are secular liberals in general so miserable? I offer two reasons. The first is that liberals are political utopians. They consider human nature to be wonderful, and they expect freedom to be used wonderfully well. So they are always bitterly disappointed when they discover that this is not the case. Conservatives, by contrast, have a dimmer view of human nature. So their expectations are more modest. When things don't turn out half-badly, conservatives are pleasantly surprised. They are happier because it takes less to make them happier."

Political utopians? Human nature is wonderful? And here I thought that I was the pessimist! Apparently, though, I am the idealist with his head in the clouds, and the conservatives are the ones who are deeply disillusioned with humanity. Of course, since he admits that liberal idealists are "always bitterly disappointed" when they see humans do as humans do, would that make both ends of the political spectrum deeply pessimistic, in effect? Or maybe the conservatives only have a "dimmer view" on certain subject matters, (like those involving criminal justice, government influence, and international affairs) but are naively optimistic about others (religion, economy, and environment). Not exactly cut and dried, is it?

"It's not too hard to figure out why religious people are happier. Belief in God gives people a powerful sense of higher purpose in life. It assures people that the universe is in the benign hands of a omnipotent, omniscient, and compassionate higher power. It offers people a code for how to live. It gives us a reason to hope in cosmic justice, which is better than the imperfect justice of our terrestrial world"

Belief in God may give people a sense of purpose, but it probably shouldn't. It is a sense of purpose derived from overconfidence, from unwarranted pride, from the belief that you hold a piece of information that no others hold, and that you are better than them for it. It is a sense of purpose that seems to have no basis in the actual obscure, demeaning purpose that the Bible suggests we have: to serve a tyrannical entity who will only accept us by his side if we happen to accept him first in some sort of celestial guessing game, and do so for the rest of our life. Our supposed purpose is entwined with God's, and God needs no purpose, since He just is; inevitably, our reason for life is lost in that process.

As for believing that an all-powerful, all-good entity is at the controls, and that you have all the rules regarding what you need to do in order to prevent raising his ire; that is reassuring. Unfortunately, as good as that is at relieving stress, it also is a thought process that leads to the development of an external locus of control, a sense that you have no influence over your life. The happiness that shows up in a secure believer could easily turn into a mental breakdown for that same believer who suddenly, despite following all the rules, begins to suffer unduly, and takes as the wrath of God which they can do nothing to fight against.

"By contrast, secular people have little to hope for. They are sure that they came from nowhere--the chance product of random mutation and natural selection--and are going nowhere. They know that terrible things happen, and they don't believe there is any purpose in this. No wonder that secular people have so few children: they have much less reason than religious people to believe in the future."

Does life itself need a divine origin in order to be meaningful to the living? Is an apple tree less beautiful if it came about through natural processes? Is there no reason to live for a young child if they are only allowed to live once? Does explaining away tragedy make it any less tragic?

The answer is no. We are not sure that we came from nowhere, but have no reason to believe that we came from somewhere that is not observably existent. We are the chance product of random mutation and natural selection, and allowing that to depress you is akin to being depressed that you were the chance product of one lucky sperm out of several million and a single egg that leeched itself into becoming a human being over the course of nine months. Knowing that terrible things happen and not positing a reason for it is intellectually honest. Positing a reason for catastrophes comes from and leads to the just world fallacy. And secular people have less children because they are not guilt tripped about using birth control, are not pressured into being fruitful and multiplying, and rationally consider the consequences of having too many children and too little time and/or money. Apparently, one or more of these checks are removed from the faithful, helping them contribute to overpopulation (despite a good portion of these people thinking of the world as corrupt on the verge of apocalypse), and you think that this is a good thing.

And, he ends with "our temperaments are also the consequences of two very different worldviews, one producing the wholesome optimism of What's So Great About Christianity, the other the angry bitterness of The God Delusion. "

And this is the crux of his article: Christians are happy and optimistic due to their religious faith, atheists are bitter and depressed due to their lack of religious faith. And that, of course, despite being a common assumption, is not a logical conclusion from the information he has offered. It follows well enough from his baseless speculation regarding the data, but not from the data itself. Why is it inconsistent? Simply because faith is not necessarily the causal factor for an increased incidence of happiness in the faithful, especially in a culture dominated by the faithful, that attempts to appease their will at every turn, and that is oppressive towards those who are not. That is clear in the nature of the titles that D'Souza is touting. It is not that Dinesh is inherently happier than Dawkins. It is that Dinesh is in a position of being supported by the majority, and being able to appeal to them without fear of significant rebuke. And Dawkins, by contrast, is in a despised, minority position, trying to put an argument forward against a markedly larger group that will most likely ignore him unless he makes his position clear, distinct, and, unfortunately, extreme. Thus, Dinesh gets the privilege of a masturbatory, self-congratulatory title that will attract the proud eyes of believers, and Dawkins gets to help himself to a critical, accusatory title necessary to draw the attention of believers in a similar quantity, though in an incredibly different fashion. It has nothing to do with happiness directly, just as faith may have little to do with happiness as well.

He tries so hard...

Ever wonder what atheism and baby-killing have in common? Well, apparently our favorite man-child, Dinesh D'Souza, already knows the answer! It just so happen that the common thread is atheist philosopher Peter Singer. And, obviously, Dinesh cannot contain himself:

"Given the connection that Singer draws between atheism and child murder, using the former as his premise to recommend the latter, I wonder if our atheist friends are going to rush to embrace this guy as one of their heroes. Is Singer showing us where the road to complete secularism actually leads?"

Classy guy, that D'Souza.

Here is D'Souza's summary of Singer's most controversial points:

"[Singer] argues in favor of infanticide, euthanasia and (this is not a joke) animal rights! One of Singer's interesting proposals concerns what may be called "fourth trimester" abortions, i.e. the right to kill one's offspring even after birth!"

Of course, D'Souza is among the few who would actually see a contradiction here. If accounting for the potential for human (or animal) suffering were put into play, euthanasia would not be a bad thing, infanticide would not be a bad thing , and animal rights (protecting the animal from being abused) would be a good thing. It's all very simple, but D'Souza wants to see a contradiction so badly...

Some good points that Singer makes:
"The calf, the pig, and the much-derided chicken come out well ahead of the fetus at any stage of pregnancy, while if we make the comparison with a fetus of less than three months, a fish would show more signs of consciousness."

"Characteristics like rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness...make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings."

And D'Souza's attempts to dismiss them as too icky:
"So while Christianity introduced into Western civilization the concept of dignity of human life, Singer explicitly says we have to get rid of this outdated concept. He contends that God is dead and we should recognize ourselves as Darwinian primates who enjoy no special status compared to the other animals. In the animal kingdom, after all, parents sometimes kill and even devour their offpsring. Singer argues that the West can learn from the other cultures like the Kalahari where children are routinely killed when they are unwanted, even when they are several years old."

So, once again D'Souza argues that nobody cared about life, humans, society, morals, or even any form of restraint at all until Jesus moonwalked onto the scene. Oh, and of course, evil atheists are attacking the "dignity of human life" because it is a religious concept, or something.

A newsflash for D'Souza: humans are "Darwinian" primates, no matter how you slice it. Christianity wasn't the first religion to give "dignity" to human life, and religion is not necessary to see that it is a social imperative, in most arenas, for such "dignity" to remain. Oh, and, the thing about infanticide is that killing a human that young would not cause the child too much pain if done without malice, and would cause no duress to third parties or to social networks related to the child and its "journey" through life, which is all that Singer is arguing. And the thing about it is, he is basically right! There would be no social damages or mental anguish felt by any aside from the participants in the act, and the infant, ideally, would not suffer nearly as much pain as any other dying human being would. Needless to say, I emphatically do not support infanticide regardless, since going about a normal abortion gives you more than enough leeway in regards to bringing about the same result. Once a nervous system gets involved in the matter, it is too risky to attempt to justify beyond that, since doing so depends on a definition of humanity that is not just about cognitive function alone, but a certain level of cognitive capacity...which is a slippery slope into eugenics (which I do not feel like defending in the same breath as infanticide).

"He doesn't want state-sponsored killings. Rather, he wants the decision to kill to be made by you and me. Instead of government-conducted genocide, Singer favors free-market homicide."

Funny how you pretend to have a problem with this, when you could care less about death in the name of patriotism and religion. Government-conducted genocide, of course, is wrong to you, but not when it occurs within the confines of traditional warfare, or is directed against indigenous peoples. Free-market homicide is fine to you as well, as long as there aren't wittle babies or people on their death beds involved. As long as the homicide is in the form of an electric chair for people that we are fairly sure deserve it, it is A-Okay. As long as the homicide is in self-defense, it is justifiable. But don't touch our precious brain-dead coma patients, pain-wracked cancer patients, or infants whose mental capacity are on par with the chickens we so gleefully slaughter for our lunches, but are nonetheless afforded protections not afforded to other animals merely due to being a member of our species.

The issue isn't about being able to kill at whim. The issue is about having no logical basis by which we can deem it fit to let the dying suffer hopelessly, to bring harm to animals, and to afford protection to infants who are no more intelligent than the animals we devour. Our excuses for why we do these things are rooted in favoritism for our own species and for a natural tendency to try to preserve the lives of those in our in-group. It has an evolutionary basis, a psychological basis, a traditional basis, arguably a religious basis (beyond that encompassed by the first three), but no rational basis.

But, whatever. Secularism leads to legal murder! Everybody, run before zombie Thomas Jeferson re-establishes the wall of separation of church and state, and then eats your baby! No! Dr. Kevorkian, what hath your experiments wrought?!

How To be an Atheist: ZOMG more than one step!

On Ray "Jesus Banana" Comfort's blog, a brilliant man named "Ex-Atheist" decided to offer some insight into how one goes about being an atheist. Let us have a look into this profound masterpiece:

How to be an Atheist:

1) Refute everything in the Bible because men wrote it.

Or we could just refute the fact that it is infallible, divinely inspired, and God-approved due to the fact that was only written by men. But...that's the same thing to you, isn't it?

2) Believe and quote other writings of men to prove that the Bible is wrong.

Hey, if they actually have proof, they've got one up on the Bible. Besides, I'm not the one who has hang-ups about trusting the works of men instead of "works of God".

3) Completely ignore the inconsistency between steps 1 & 2.

It's inconsistent to trust what competent human beings with valid evidence say, but to distrust a book rife with mythology because people claim that it was written by a supernatural entity when that is clearly untrue? Well, forgive me. You can go back to believing your 2000 year old book, admittedly written by men, and thus no more credible than any other holy book or mythological text.

4) Call yourself a “freethinker” and “open minded” but don’t practice such virtues when it comes to Christianity.

Why would we have to be open-minded and freethinking in regards to Christianity when a majority of the population throughout the history of the Western world have given them such a leeway? Sure, it is the democratic thing to do and all, but, seriously, after spending much time, deliberation, and effort in trying to be open-minded about Christianity, I find that I really don't need to be, since the believers give themselves enough elbow room without me helping by trying to give them a level of consideration that I am not expected to give any other belief system or religion. Christians will not suffer if I show them the same level of closed-mindedness that they show to everyone else.

5) Try to laugh out loud every time a Christian makes a statement about what they believe even if you don’t think it’s really that funny. This helps avoid a “serious” conversation.

A serious conversation about theology? Trying not to laugh...but really...you bring it upon yourself!

6) Always bring up Zeus, Allah, and Santa Claus to prove that if you must believe in one God then you have to believe in all of them otherwise it’s just not fair.

Well...it isn't! There is no possible reason that you would believe Yahweh to be true over any other god that is logically defensible.

7) When referring to the Bible use the word “myth” as often as possible and call believers whatever names you want because the goal is to frustrate the Christian so that his sinful nature comes out and he gets angry and then you can call him a hypocrite

Pssst...they don't need our help! They are usually frustrated, angry, and ready to indulge in their sinful nature far before we even get to the table! Also: myth!

8) Set your own moral standards very very very low so that you’ll never look like a hypocrite yourself. The lower the better.

That is hilarious! Okay...so it is perfectly alright to have lofty, unattainable morals that you hold others to abide by, no matter how ridiculous. But having morals that are practical, more intuitive, and harder to break without going way off base...that's just cheating!

9) Never answer a question directly but quickly change the subject to make a completely different point. If you’re asked why you keep changing the subject just repeat this step as necessary.

....and that is why the Jews have a natural fear of panthers. Wait. What were you saying?

10) Be as argumentative, loud, sarcastic and verbal as possible – there is no need to make sense or use logic in your arguments – just keep arguing.

The irony. It burns!!11!1!on2!3!!

11) Use words like “strawman,” “ad hominem,” “fallacy,” “red herring” and non sequiturs” against every argument whether you understand those terms or not.

I'll make it a new years resolution of mine to not point out the fallacies in your argument. Which means I still I've got 7 months, motherfucker!! Strawman, implicit ad hominem, all wrapped up in a massive persecution complex. Nice job.

12) Claim that atheism is rooted in “common sense” even though less than 10% of the human population claim to be atheists.

(Spillover warning) Ad populum! Since when has something being common sense or not been dictated by whether people actually realize it or not? Because, to be honest, the things that are typically deemed to common sense are logical, simplistically true, but still overlooked by a sizeable portion of people. Common sense: so obvious, that you decide it can't possibly be what you are looking for.

13) Reject all notions of faith even though you must put your faith in pilots, cars, food, doctors, evolution, and the next chair that you sit in.

Oh yes...the classic fundie word definition project (copyright 32 A.D.). The faith that I require for those people, objects, and ideas is not the same kind of faith you have for Jesus, your Lord and Savior. It is a faith that is marked by trust in thoroughly tested human beings, past observations of performance, concrete evidence and data from these things in the present world, and experience of all the things, with the exception of evolution. Your trust is in people you have never met or seen, your observations are unverifiable by anyone aside from yourself, your evidence is subjective, and your experience of anything that you are having faith in is non-existent (unless you consider the experience of having faith to be an experience providing for faith...which is dizzying). In short, the similarity between faith in the unfalsifiable and faith in the probable outcome is pretty much limited to semantics only.

14) Always ask for evidence for God but never accept anything presented to you. At the end of a discussion remind them that all you needed was some evidence for God.

Ugghh. Ever occur to you that your "evidence" is weak? That all of your evidence of God basically presumes that you already accept that he created existence, relies on faulty reasoning, or is simply anecdotal and could be easily dismissed solely as a psychological phenomenon? No? Yeah. Didn't think so...(sigh)...

15) Quote only the Bible verses that make God look mean and unfair.

You mean, quote the Bible verses that Christians like to pretend don't exist? You mean, basically, cherry-pick for quotes of the exact opposite nature that Christians try to cherry-pick? Because, I think it is patently dishonest for those verses to be left alone by Christians, in that it shows a patent refusal to accept the fact that God may not be exactly what your pastor told you he was. But whatever...obviously looking at the whole Bible is not what a good Christian is supposed to do. Sorry to expose you to the half of the Bible that you were supposed to disregard.

16) Talk about being a good person remembering that you are allowed to define good however you would like because there is no objective moral standard.

I am a good person by your purported objective moral standards, even if none really exist beyond your own suppositions. But that doesn't matter, because the moral standards of your religion are reprehensible.

17) Say that you have read the Bible and that you understand what it teaches whether this is true or not.

I have not read the entire Bible. I may not have understood what it supposedly teaches, but, in all honesty, I think that you take too rosy of a view of what it teaches, anyway. When it comes down to it, I am really hard pressed to find anyone who derives their morality directly from the Bible. What other lessons it teaches aside from that, I do not know. Personally, I think that Buddhism would be better at it anyway. Also, ad hominem in suggesting that atheists do not understand the Bible simply due to the fact that they do not share your boundless love for the text.

18) Only pick on Christians – you don’t want to get killed in a Jihad. However, be sure to say that there is no difference between Radical Muslims and Fundamentalist Christians.

We "only pick on Christians", because 1. Christians are the majority where we reside, and in the world, and are thus the biggest target 2. Muslims are a minority in the Western world, and thus not a comparable social evil and 3. Christians make sure to "pick on" Muslims enough as it is without us helping!

19) Always use the crusades to make the point above.

Hey, you can't deny the past, right?

20) Remember that you are looking for faults in other worldviews not trying to defend your own – do not try to prove atheism! Remember, it’s much easier to destroy than build up.

There is nothing in atheism to build up! Skeptics do not need to prove anything, since skepticism is simply not accepting the claims that others are making about a certain subject! Of course it is easier to destroy than to build up, but, you see...the problem is that you are building things up, but, unfortunately, the architecture is suspect at best and with little to no foundation. Our attempts to demolish the edifices of faith is merely so that we can prevent you from being crushed when it inevitably collapses in on you of its own accord. A house built on fairy dust and unicorns cannot stand!

21) Make the claim that you only have one life and don’t want to waste it on religion.

I have no problem wasting my life on religion. I just don't have any particular reason to pick one over the other. So, I spend my time delving into a variety of religions without adhering to any one of them. It's actually funny how easily atheism comes when you have been exposed to more than one religious worldview. Says something. About religion.

22) If your conscience begins to bother you because of moral guilt you can numb it with drugs, alcohol, sex, or pride. You can give up the first three but never give up your pride.

I've got plenty of guilt, but, then again, if you don't feel guilty, you probably should. Oh, and no drugs, no alcohol, no sex, and I may have some pride, but I hate myself just enough to make up for that infraction. To be honest, I thought that rampant sex, drug use, and alcoholism was more common amongst the Christian folks once they were free and let loose upon the world as adults. But, then again, maybe America really is a sitcom from the 1950's, and Christians are chaste, sober, humble, and friendly by default. Unfortunatley, I find that Ned Flanders is a rarity in our culture.

23) Everyday feel free to thank God that you’re an atheist – just in case.

I'll stick with Brahma, thanks.

So....I'm guessing that this guy just calls himself "Ex-Atheist" without actually being one. A lying for Jesus cherry on top of a fundie-licious sundae. That's it for this dip into the shallow depths of the absurd. Peace!

The Christocentric Definiton of Atheism

I am sure that you have heard this before: atheists are only atheists because they don't like the Christian God (for whatever variety of reasons). Atheism to people with such a mindset is fervently opposed to Christianity alone, and is simply a refusal of their own doctrine. To such people, no other world views have any factor on the decision to become an atheist, no other gods are being "opposed" or "denied". It is only the god that they believe in that needs to be actively despised or rejected in order for one not to believe in it.

It is hilariously egotistic, thoroughly entrenched in the presuppositions of their own doctrine, and so blatant in its disregard of how they, by the implications of their assertion of atheism being hatred of a deity, must have an incredible amount of spite towards every other god that others hold as being true.

So, yes, atheists are only atheists because they despise Jesus and Yahweh. Serves you right for how much resentment you bear towards Allah, Vishnu, and the entire Greek pantheon.

Atheism: As conceived by those who believe that atheism is inconceivable.

This, my friends, is a flow chart showing how one becomes addicted to atheism!
And here I thought that my daily PCP binges and delicious baby corpse supply were enough to be addicted to. But, apparently, I am also addicted to not believing in god(s). It's like crack to me, I just can't enough of "no God". But, don't take my word for it! Let's go through the process, so that I could admit to all my fellow snorters of the cocaine of naturalism, and finally accept my grievous ailment.

Okay, first symptom is "sin". I have a strong desire to do something morally wrong, that nice, ethically infallible religion would expressly forbid me from doing. I know that I explicitly said to myself, when learning about Judaism, that I would never join them because I have strong desire to eat non-kosher foods. I explicitly forbade myself from becoming a Muslim because I am not the kind of guy who likes to fast, and I really don't that whole pray five times a day thing. I have a schedule to keep, dammit, and I need myself a deity that can understand that! And, after years of searching, I finally came upon Christianity, and saw that they didn't allow people to have sex before marriage! Well, since obviously no Christian could ever break that moral code and still consider themselves sincerely to be amongst the ranks of the saved, I decided to shun Christianity in order to live a carefree of debauched sex that no Christian has ever lived in the course of known history.

The second symptom would be redundant, but I need to see how badly I am afflicted. So, I ask myself, "am I angry with God"? Well, obviously. I am an atheist; the only way that I could fall into such a wretched state is if something catastrophic happened in my past to drive me away from the default assumption which every human being should have crammed into their head: that there is a God, and it is the one described in the Bible, with no possible deviations at all. So, logically, if something bad happened to me, then God is not just, and therefore there cannot possibly be any gods at all. At least that is what my pastor told me before I ran him down with my tractor.

Third symptom is follower syndrome. Yep. Got a boatload of that. There are atheists swarming all around in my neck of the woods, we have congregations where we meet and make sure that we have identical beliefs, and every single idea I have in my head is directly taken from a Richard Dawkins book. I only do what I am told, make arguments that have been made a thousands times before, and refuse to change my position. At complete odds with the religious in that regard.

And now, for the product of those three initial drives: discarding of God. I guess, as an atheist, I have done that. If I hadn't, well...I guess I need a better dictionary.

Oh, and now for the results! First, there is a sense of freedom, where the world becomes topsy-turvy, where sin becomes acceptable, virtue becomes meaningless, and you are exempt from any possible consequences for indulging in your desire to spend hours sodomizing cats. There just is no morality without Jesus looking over your shoulder.

And, our second result is narcissism, where we become our own god when there is none to worship. This sounds about right, as I have yet to meet an arrogant, narcissitic, or prideful religious person in my entire life. There is absolutely no way that you can use your faith to vicariously elevate yourself over others...at all.

This all leads to the inevitable loss of purpose inherent in refusing to accept the undeniable reality that we are all Jesus's divine Chia Pet. Without using excessive theology to explain why we humans obviously have a purpose in the grand scheme things (no matter how crappy that purpose truly is.), we are left without value, and left in a dark depression that forces us to accept the Truth that is Jesus Christ! (Please disregard the fact that a similar depression supposedly leads away from religion...)

And, failing to do this, you are banished to a temporary eternity of hedonism and arguments against religion, since Christianity is the only surefire cure for your physical urges and your desire to tear down establishments through ranting and polemic! Accept Jesus today, and you too can be free from the endless cycle that has been brought upon you by your strong urge to kill, your tragic memory of your little sister drowning at summer camp, and the vile temptations that are the writings of Richard Dawkins. Fight your terrible, unspeakable desires, put your obvious hatred of God for tragedies of yesteryear behind you, and stop worshipping those atheistic authors, and you too can trick yourself into believing that you have the answers, and yet feel as if that is not an inherently egotistic way of thinking. Reclaim your life's purpose today, and get a free T-shirt! *

(Note: You already own the T-shirt, and you will be instructed to give it to yourself upon winning the contest. If you do not own a T-shirt already, you will be instructed to buy one yourself and the expenses will be put toward the contest entry fee, which will be exactly equal to the price of the T-shirt. Offer not valid in Utah, Ohio, or Wyoming, for reasons known only to me and the women who have restraining orders against me in those states. We will not be held legally responsible if your T-shirt happens to suck.)

Isn't this special.

This nice little Christofascist has decided to take it upon himself to speak for his God and point out who is going to hell (surprisingly, including entire websites on his list...can blogs burn for eternity?).

Honorable mentions:
"P.Z Myers : P.Z. Myers is not only a Atheist of the worst sort, he is a scientist who promotes the lies of man kind evolving from primate love. NSFA."

"Barack Obama Hussein Bin Laden: Muslim, Pro-Homosexual, Pro-Abortion, America hater. Carries the curse of Ham." (He damns Hillary too, but it is less hilariously wrong/racist).

"The Evil Atheist Conspiracy: Satan worship in 6 languages complete the mark of the beast. Their motto, “We’re after your children and pets.” NSFC"

"Landover Baptist: THE MINSITRY ISN’T HELLBOUND BUT THE FORUMS ARE!
WARNING: A real church web site but it is under constant attack by Liberals and Atheists making the forums there full of UN-Patriotic propganda. It is frequented by Liberal con artists and who spread lies and abominations. The Front page are articles are safe but the Forums are NSFW, NSFC, NSFA, NSFH."

"4Chan: Evil and Liberalism abound like the Black Plague. “4chan is a simple sinful image-based bulletin board where anyone can post comments and share images.” This vile site offers more pornography and free thinking than Playboy magazine. NSFW, NFFW, NSFC<21"

Well...I've got to agree with him on the last one...but his obliviousness in regards to Landover Baptist and Evil Atheist Conspiracy is just priceless!

Edit: Wow...guess this explains why he took Landover Baptist seriously! Place is a Poe site, just like Landover! Guess I'm a bit late to the game on this one....

Two People Who Will Not Shut Up

Oh Dinesh, you know that I could never quit you!

"Throughout his campaign Barack Obama has mocked his critics, noting that they just don't get what a novel figure and consistent unifier he has been for his whole life."


I've been hearing that Obama has supposedly been setting himself up as some sort of messianic figure for a long time, but, whenever I hear about him, hear him speak, it is normally not to brag about himself or set himself up as a god amongst men, immune to criticism. But if this your example:

"'They say: We don't know enough about him. His pastor once said something. He's got a funny name, sounds Muslim.'"

then you fail. These are all incredibly inane criticisms that, believe it or not, he has been subject to. They could have been significant if taken in the proper direction, but, unfortunately, the Jeremiah Wright ordeal and internet Muslimification myths clearly devolved from an actual attempt to explore Obama's character into an outright attempt to smear him through guilt-by-association, even when the grounds for the association, or, in the case of Wright, the guilt, happened to false to begin with. More on that in a bit...

"For the first time Obama has called the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's views "ridiculous" and even accused him of being a purveyor of "hate."
To which one might say: better late than never. Maybe Obama never really knew how radical this guy is. "

You do realize how bad it would have been if Obama just decided to bash his preacher of 20 years for little substantial reason at the drop of a hat, don't you? Just because a few conservative pundits are obsessing over Wright's alleged "racism" or "anti-Americanism" really doesn't justify that kind of politically motivated backstabbing that he pretty much has been forced into doing in order to end the incessant attempts to associate Wright and Obama. But, the problem with this whole artificial issue is that Wright is not really "radical"....

"He used to believe that the U.S. government manufactured the AIDS virus and deliberately spread it in the black community, and he still believes it."

I would chalk that up to just plain idiocy, and maybe a wee bit of conspiracy theorist paranoia, rather than as emblematic of being radical and hating America. It's not like typically begrudge preachers for believing in crazy crap....right...(wink wink nudge nudge).

"He thinks America may have conspired to bomb itself on 9/11, and he's never wavered in that conviction"

Is it really that inconceivable? I mean, sure, it goes right back into the conspiracy theory mindset, but, really....is it impossible that certain government officials pulled a Reichstag, or intentionally allowed for it to occur for political reasons, rather than simply being too criminally incompetent to prevent the attacks, despite the signs pointing in that direction.

Oh, wait....Wright ISN'T a 9/11 conspiracy theorist...he just said that America brought the attacks upon themselves through their foreign policy (and it is rather hypocritical of you to equivocate on Wright's position like that...since you have a book written specifically to argue that liberal policies domestic and abroad are actually at fault for bringing the attacks upon ourselves...nice job, Distort D'Newza...).

"Now, and before, he thinks that 'God Bless America' is better expressed as 'God Damn America!'"

Oh noez! He's criticizing the government too vocally! Somebody stop him! (I really don't see how this is much more radical than Pat Robertson, et. al., praying for openings in the Supreme Court [guess how that would happen] and blaming Hurricane Katrina on them sinners what lives in the New Orleans. But, yeah, Wright expressing his disdain for America's violent foreign policy and for its failure to assure equality for African Americans is a much higher crime...).

"Obama has been hearing such messages for more than two decades"

I don't know what possesses Dinesh, or the pundits on the picture tube, to believe that a few soundbytes from Wright (most likely the worst fodder they could dredge up against him) reflects upon the general character of all of his sermons. Eh...whatever....

"He said he could no more repudiate Wright than he could repudiate his own family. This by the way is the speech that many pundits hailed for its originality and brilliance. I think it will go down as one of the biggest blunders in American political history."

And we've all learned to trust your judgments as an accurate depiction of reality....oh...wait....

"What Obama should have said in that speech: "Once upon a time this man rescued my spiritual life. A long time ago when I was spiritually and emotionally at a low point, he was there for me and he helped me get over the hill. So I owe him big time. I know that he's said some crazy things, but I've overlooked them, because of what he did for me." Instead Obama tried to sound like W.E.B. Du Bois. He impressed the liberal intelligentsia, while shooting himself politically in the foot."

What's wrong with trying to W.E.B. Du Bois? His speech did no damage to him, and the Wright thing would've ended there if the media wasn't deliberately trying to preserve the faux scandal for the journalistic lolz. Also, somehow I think that your sample speech would've been a lie. I doubt Obama's "spiritual life" was any different after meeting Wright than it was before even being a Christian. I am of the impression that the very reason that you see the church as radical (because it spends its time addressing social and racial issues) is the very reason why Obama joined it: for the social networks, and for the time spend addressing the issues that African Americans face. Of course, if I am correct on this, that opens a whole 'nother can of worms...

"What has Wright said that has finally caused his disciple to end their relationship? While Wright has been pontificating a lot lately, he has not given us any new bombshells. But he did suggest that, in his beliefs like the one about the U.S. government and AIDS, Obama agrees with him."

Well, my first guess about why Obama wanted to end it was the pressure by the media to do so. My second guess may be that Wright will not simply shut up and step out of spotlight for Obama's sake, so he needs to go into damage control. My third guess is that, if Wright did suggest that Obama thinks that the AIDS thing is true, he ended to relationship abruptly and unequivocably in order to prevent the American public from thinking that Wright is correct about that issue. Because the last thing America needs is an idiotic President (again).

"So he has to say something different! Translation: what we see with Obama is not what we get. And Wright is in a position to know. He's nursed Obama intellectually and spiritually over the years."

You know...just because a person has hung around someone else on a few occasions over a long period time does not mean that the second person in question knows everything about the first with infallible detail. If I gathered up your three best friends, who met through three different venues, your wife, your parents, two of your cousins, two parents of casual acquaintances that you went through your school career with, your boss, two of your co-workers, and that guy you have bought a newpaper from every other day for the past 8 years, they will have very different impressions of you and disagree on some of the details. The point is that we put on different faces for different audiences. That doesn't mean that Obama is giving America a false impression of himself, so much as it means that he may have mislead Wright about how much he agreed with every little paranoid delusion he comforted himself with. It's called being polite...

"The more I examine the two, the more I think that it is Wright who is being consistent and calling it the way he sees it, and Obama who is hiding the part of himself that once embraced this man and maybe still agrees with many of his beliefs but now finds him a political liability. While Obama continues to portray himself as Mr. Straight Talk, at this point he is a candidate enveloped in shadows."

Wright may be consistent, but it does not mean that his assessment is correct (example: Christianity). Obama may be hiding his support for Wright and his ideas, but, unfortunately, he has to due to the fact that Wright has been so thoroughly demonized by the media, and any link between the two will be spun beyond all recognition into Obama wanting to bring about the white male holocaust, or something to that effect. (Also: a candidate enveloped in shadows sounds awesome...as long as it is not Cheney...).

So (hopefully) ends the long, drawn out saga of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, a man guilty of the high crime of saying that racism still exists in the 21st century, an obvious lie that one needs only to check youtube comments regarding any subject to disprove. It is a shame that Obama has been forced to repudiate Wright, his pastor and mentor, in order to preserve his political career, something that Obama was clearly reluctant to do, but if he did not, he would never hear the end of it. Perhaps we will be able to find a time, not too far from now, when we realize that Wright's comments were simply accurate criticisms of social ills, or uneducated conclusions based upon a paranoia that has been fostered by our hostile racial and political climate. Really nothing radical at all. No calls to arms, no criticisms of events that haven't been similarly critiqued before, both domestic and abroad. Maybe, someday, cooler heads will prevail, even in response to hotheads....but, I guess I may just be a dreamer...