I like the following quote from this essay:
–
God is not an element under the microscope. Rather, it is we who are under His microscope.
–
The rest of it is well worth a read, too (hat tip: Atheism Sucks).
Year: 2007
Calling All Bloggers! Slime Alert!
It’s no secret that sniveling amnesty thug Geraldo Rivera is a cheap demagogue, but now he’s reached a new low. In a recent Boston Globe profile, Rivera simply can’t control his hatred of the “vile” Michelle Malkin (pot, meet kettle): “It’s good she’s in DC and I’m in New York. I’d spit on her if I saw her.”
–
It’s kinda amusing to see Geraldo reduced to such childishness because he can’t handle someone who stands up to him, but there’s nothing funny about the fact that Bill O’Reilly & Sean Hannity give tacit legitimacy to this pig by treating him like a friend on their TV shows. Both pundits are on record against recklessness & vitriol in the public discourse, and both consider Michelle a friend, so which one of them is going to stand up for her next time Rivera’s on their show? Which one is going to tell Rivera to his face that he’s crossed one line of decency too many? Is Fox News Channel going to put up with one of their personalities publicly expressing desires to spit on women?
–
Fellow bloggers (and all observers of conscience), let’s find out. Here are the email addresses for Fox News and their personalities. Let FNC know you think Geraldo reflects horribly on the channel, and ask O’Reilly & Hannity if they intend to do the right thing. You never know what might happen if enough people let their voices be heard.
–
It’s kinda amusing to see Geraldo reduced to such childishness because he can’t handle someone who stands up to him, but there’s nothing funny about the fact that Bill O’Reilly & Sean Hannity give tacit legitimacy to this pig by treating him like a friend on their TV shows. Both pundits are on record against recklessness & vitriol in the public discourse, and both consider Michelle a friend, so which one of them is going to stand up for her next time Rivera’s on their show? Which one is going to tell Rivera to his face that he’s crossed one line of decency too many? Is Fox News Channel going to put up with one of their personalities publicly expressing desires to spit on women?
–
Fellow bloggers (and all observers of conscience), let’s find out. Here are the email addresses for Fox News and their personalities. Let FNC know you think Geraldo reflects horribly on the channel, and ask O’Reilly & Hannity if they intend to do the right thing. You never know what might happen if enough people let their voices be heard.
–
UPDATE: Upon challenge from O’Reilly, Geraldo has apologized. I’m glad to see it, but Geraldo still has a lot of vicious immigration-related hyperbole to answer for before he ought to be taken seriously again. And where’s Hannity?
Pro-Life Violence?
I’ve debated a number of folks of varying caliber on the ‘Net. Most recently, Thayne & G-Man have sparked a productive exploration of morality, religion, secularism, & abortion. I’ve also had some good discussions with Sean back during the Coulter Nation days and at Olbroad’s old site (by the way, this is her current site). On the other end of the spectrum, I’ve met some infantile commenters at The American Mind, the clowns of YouStinkLeft, (by the way, their latest brilliant question is—and I quote—“Why does Fox News want us to have a war with Iran?”), the unintentional hilarity offered by B&S regular Scott, and, of course, the Hacks4Rudy. But the sorriest I’ve encountered would be a truly-despicable fellow by the name of Jayce Commo. Since it’s impossible to have serious debate with the immature, bothering with them is usually a waste of time. But a recent post about Generations for Life on his aptly-named blog takes lazy guilt-by-association to such depths that I can’t let it go unchallenged:
–
I generally don’t have any problems with pro-life supporters, so long as they’re not blowing things up, shooting doctors, or harrassing women. But a few things on the Generations site leave me feeling a bit uneasy…
–
Since the overwhelming majority of America’s millions of pro-lifers would never even consider violence, then Jayce doesn’t have anything to worry about. Indeed, according to the second of these three articles, one of the killers “was disappointed with the anemic response from pro-life activists, who denounced Griffin’s use of violence” (the article also says “Most mainstream antiabortion organizations distanced themselves from him.” I’d sure like to seem them try to substantiate the implication that any pro-life group which could legitimately be deemed “mainstream” either stayed neutral or embraced the killings.).
–
Anyway, the article in question is an announcement for a couple protests of a new abortion mill in Aurora, Illinois (I was gonna call the article a “call to arms,” but as we’ll see below, you never know what phrases might trigger liberal bed-wetting). Jayce is mortified that teen pro-lifers “are determined to do everything they can to stop Planned Parenthood” (his emphasis). “I hope ‘everything’ doesn’t really mean everything,” he says, with no evidence whatsoever that GFL harbors even a shred of sympathy towards anti-abortion violence. Jayce then complains that GFL describes participants of Families against Planned Parenthood’s 40-Day Prayer Vigil as “Prayer Warriors,” because it sounds “way to much like these psychos at Army of God.”
–
The so-called Army of God supports killing abortionists. Take a look at what FAPP’s idea of a “Prayer Warrior” consists of, and you’ll see it’s juuust a little different. Take a look at any serious pro-life organization, like the several on CFO’s “Fighting for Life” sidebar (whoops! Can’t say “fighting!”), and the difference between us and the killers is self-evident—to the fair-minded.
–
I generally don’t have any problems with pro-life supporters, so long as they’re not blowing things up, shooting doctors, or harrassing women. But a few things on the Generations site leave me feeling a bit uneasy…
–
Since the overwhelming majority of America’s millions of pro-lifers would never even consider violence, then Jayce doesn’t have anything to worry about. Indeed, according to the second of these three articles, one of the killers “was disappointed with the anemic response from pro-life activists, who denounced Griffin’s use of violence” (the article also says “Most mainstream antiabortion organizations distanced themselves from him.” I’d sure like to seem them try to substantiate the implication that any pro-life group which could legitimately be deemed “mainstream” either stayed neutral or embraced the killings.).
–
Anyway, the article in question is an announcement for a couple protests of a new abortion mill in Aurora, Illinois (I was gonna call the article a “call to arms,” but as we’ll see below, you never know what phrases might trigger liberal bed-wetting). Jayce is mortified that teen pro-lifers “are determined to do everything they can to stop Planned Parenthood” (his emphasis). “I hope ‘everything’ doesn’t really mean everything,” he says, with no evidence whatsoever that GFL harbors even a shred of sympathy towards anti-abortion violence. Jayce then complains that GFL describes participants of Families against Planned Parenthood’s 40-Day Prayer Vigil as “Prayer Warriors,” because it sounds “way to much like these psychos at Army of God.”
–
The so-called Army of God supports killing abortionists. Take a look at what FAPP’s idea of a “Prayer Warrior” consists of, and you’ll see it’s juuust a little different. Take a look at any serious pro-life organization, like the several on CFO’s “Fighting for Life” sidebar (whoops! Can’t say “fighting!”), and the difference between us and the killers is self-evident—to the fair-minded.
–
Speaking of facts, let’s take a look at some hard numbers. NARAL’s own statistics (PDF link) cover both the US and Canada & are up to date as of January 1, 2007. Now, bear in mind that an organization which advocates killing children is certainly unlikely to have any qualms about cooking the numbers (when you’re in their line of work, you need all the sympathy you can get), but for the sake of argument, let’s take them at face value. So how pervasive is the anti-choice reign of terror?
–
– 7 murders
– 17 attempted murders
– 41 bombings
– 171 arsons
– 82 attempted bombings & arsons
– 574 fake anthrax letters
– 92,000 “acts of disruption” such as bomb threats & harassing calls
–
Assuming none of the other cases were counted among the “acts of disruption,” that’s a grand total of 92,892 acts of pro-life extremism covering both the US and Canada. That sounds like a lot, but bear a couple things in mind. About 99% of the acts come from the “disruption” category, and we should be wary of exactly what constitutes a “harassing call” in NARAL’s view—I highly doubt they only counted violent calls; rather, I’ll bet there are quite a few in that number which only consisted of arguing abortion’s morality and/or offering to pray for their forgiveness. Say what you want about the productivity or decorum of such calls, but they certainly can’t be described as malevolent in any way. What’s more, NARAL puts the bomb-threat number at 596, which means the overwhelming majority of the pro-life extremism in general, and of the disruptions in particular, consists of lesser acts.
–
As for the incidents of actual violence and genuine threat, each is inexcusable & deplorable, and no pro-lifer should tolerate them in any way. The good news is, the fanatics make up only a tiny minority of Americans against abortion. In contrast, how big is the real pro-life movement? Consider that Pro-Life Wisconsin alone boasts the support of 14,000 families (and that many pro-lifers only belong to one of a state’s multiple pro-life groups given their differences on things like rape exceptions), and the serious, honorable pro-life movement easily dwarfs the unhinged.
–
So why does Jayce think saying inflammatory things without evidence is ethical? Because “submission of moral authority makes anything possible, including murder…the lines between morality, martyrdom, and terrorism are blurring more each day.” Is submitting one’s moral authority to religious belief likely to make somebody violent? It can; I’m not aware of any Christian who denies that the Bible’s been used to justify horrible things, and we’re in a world war sparked by Islamic fanaticism. But “submission of moral authority” alone doesn’t create bad results; submission combined with bad teachings does, as does submission in the absence of reason—fortunately, most Judeo-Christians embrace reason wholeheartedly.
–
Moreover, if God-submission is to blame for all religious evil, then it deserves equal credit for all religious good. Believing that one is God-bound to do charity and oppose bigotry is just as powerful as believing that one is God-bound to kill. In fact, the secular should be thankful that believers overwhelmingly “submit their moral authority” to the former than to the latter (don’t believe me? Click here to hear Dennis Prager’s interview with Arthur Brooks, author of Who Really Cares).
–
One more observation: why is submitting moral authority to something else inherently more problematic than the alternative: deeming oneself the highest arbiter of one’s morality? It seems to me the latter has its own potential to produce arrogance & rationalization. After all, Jayce’s atheism certainly didn’t keep him from smearing GFL without evidence.
–
Only someone suffering from religious paranoia could seriously construe the work of Generations for Life as blurring the lines between morality, martyrdom, and terrorism. Neither critical thought nor honest concern could possibly yield such a result. Whether it’s Jayce, Christopher Hitchens, or Sam Harris, some people just can’t escape their prejudices when it comes to religion. That’s a shame, and we can only hope & pray that they’ll someday grow up.
Speaking of facts, let’s take a look at some hard numbers. NARAL’s own statistics (PDF link) cover both the US and Canada & are up to date as of January 1, 2007. Now, bear in mind that an organization which advocates killing children is certainly unlikely to have any qualms about cooking the numbers (when you’re in their line of work, you need all the sympathy you can get), but for the sake of argument, let’s take them at face value. So how pervasive is the anti-choice reign of terror?
–
– 7 murders
– 17 attempted murders
– 41 bombings
– 171 arsons
– 82 attempted bombings & arsons
– 574 fake anthrax letters
– 92,000 “acts of disruption” such as bomb threats & harassing calls
–
Assuming none of the other cases were counted among the “acts of disruption,” that’s a grand total of 92,892 acts of pro-life extremism covering both the US and Canada. That sounds like a lot, but bear a couple things in mind. About 99% of the acts come from the “disruption” category, and we should be wary of exactly what constitutes a “harassing call” in NARAL’s view—I highly doubt they only counted violent calls; rather, I’ll bet there are quite a few in that number which only consisted of arguing abortion’s morality and/or offering to pray for their forgiveness. Say what you want about the productivity or decorum of such calls, but they certainly can’t be described as malevolent in any way. What’s more, NARAL puts the bomb-threat number at 596, which means the overwhelming majority of the pro-life extremism in general, and of the disruptions in particular, consists of lesser acts.
–
As for the incidents of actual violence and genuine threat, each is inexcusable & deplorable, and no pro-lifer should tolerate them in any way. The good news is, the fanatics make up only a tiny minority of Americans against abortion. In contrast, how big is the real pro-life movement? Consider that Pro-Life Wisconsin alone boasts the support of 14,000 families (and that many pro-lifers only belong to one of a state’s multiple pro-life groups given their differences on things like rape exceptions), and the serious, honorable pro-life movement easily dwarfs the unhinged.
–
So why does Jayce think saying inflammatory things without evidence is ethical? Because “submission of moral authority makes anything possible, including murder…the lines between morality, martyrdom, and terrorism are blurring more each day.” Is submitting one’s moral authority to religious belief likely to make somebody violent? It can; I’m not aware of any Christian who denies that the Bible’s been used to justify horrible things, and we’re in a world war sparked by Islamic fanaticism. But “submission of moral authority” alone doesn’t create bad results; submission combined with bad teachings does, as does submission in the absence of reason—fortunately, most Judeo-Christians embrace reason wholeheartedly.
–
Moreover, if God-submission is to blame for all religious evil, then it deserves equal credit for all religious good. Believing that one is God-bound to do charity and oppose bigotry is just as powerful as believing that one is God-bound to kill. In fact, the secular should be thankful that believers overwhelmingly “submit their moral authority” to the former than to the latter (don’t believe me? Click here to hear Dennis Prager’s interview with Arthur Brooks, author of Who Really Cares).
–
One more observation: why is submitting moral authority to something else inherently more problematic than the alternative: deeming oneself the highest arbiter of one’s morality? It seems to me the latter has its own potential to produce arrogance & rationalization. After all, Jayce’s atheism certainly didn’t keep him from smearing GFL without evidence.
–
Only someone suffering from religious paranoia could seriously construe the work of Generations for Life as blurring the lines between morality, martyrdom, and terrorism. Neither critical thought nor honest concern could possibly yield such a result. Whether it’s Jayce, Christopher Hitchens, or Sam Harris, some people just can’t escape their prejudices when it comes to religion. That’s a shame, and we can only hope & pray that they’ll someday grow up.
Same-Sex Marriage Nuance
From David French:
–
The language surrounding the same-sex marraige debate is inherently deceptive. Much of the news coverage of the Iowa decision has declared that “Gay Marriage” is now “legal” in Iowa. Or that a judge struck down a state “prohibition” against same-sex marriage. Neither statement is precisely true, and the distinctions matter.
–
Same sex marriage is legal in every state in the United States. Yes, you read that correctly. It’s legal everywhere. There is no law in any state that prevents a man and a man or a woman and a woman from marching down the aisle of a church (or standing together in a backyard garden) and saying “I do.” Priests and pastors from our watered-down mainline denominations perform these ceremonies all the time in states from coast to coast.
–
So, the issue is not whether same sex marriage is legal. The issue is whether same-sex marriage should receive the same state benefits as traditional marriage. Homosexual activists have made great progress in the public debate by essentially making people believe that the police would stop a same-sex couple from getting married. Nothing could be further from the truth. Homosexual activists are not asking for same-sex marriage to be “legal” (it already is) but instead for the state to recognize and incentivize their unions.
–
But what’s the state interest in doing so? Must the state recognize and incentivize every private relationship? At the moment, all of the available social science tells us that the two parent, mother-father family provides kids with their best chance to get a good education, escap poverty, and avoid prison. Why can’t the state choose to recognize and incentivize the one family structure that we know leads to the best outcomes across society?
–
The language surrounding the same-sex marraige debate is inherently deceptive. Much of the news coverage of the Iowa decision has declared that “Gay Marriage” is now “legal” in Iowa. Or that a judge struck down a state “prohibition” against same-sex marriage. Neither statement is precisely true, and the distinctions matter.
–
Same sex marriage is legal in every state in the United States. Yes, you read that correctly. It’s legal everywhere. There is no law in any state that prevents a man and a man or a woman and a woman from marching down the aisle of a church (or standing together in a backyard garden) and saying “I do.” Priests and pastors from our watered-down mainline denominations perform these ceremonies all the time in states from coast to coast.
–
So, the issue is not whether same sex marriage is legal. The issue is whether same-sex marriage should receive the same state benefits as traditional marriage. Homosexual activists have made great progress in the public debate by essentially making people believe that the police would stop a same-sex couple from getting married. Nothing could be further from the truth. Homosexual activists are not asking for same-sex marriage to be “legal” (it already is) but instead for the state to recognize and incentivize their unions.
–
But what’s the state interest in doing so? Must the state recognize and incentivize every private relationship? At the moment, all of the available social science tells us that the two parent, mother-father family provides kids with their best chance to get a good education, escap poverty, and avoid prison. Why can’t the state choose to recognize and incentivize the one family structure that we know leads to the best outcomes across society?
We’re on GFL!
Generations for Life has a post on the pro-life stuff several friends and I did this summer in our Fondy pro-life group, HeartBeat Teens, complete with pictures. Thanks for the props, guys!
Off to College!
Well, tomorrow I’m off for Hillsdale College. Blogging’s been light lately, due to all the last-minute preparations & whatnot, and it’ll probably be light for a while, as I get settled into my schedule and develop a feel for how much spare time I’ll be able to devote to CFO.
The Church of Liberalism
I just caught part of a segment on The O’Reilly Factor about some judge who gave a disgustingly-lenient sentence to a violent criminal. The guests were Fox judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano and some ditzy defense attorney.
–
Napolitano said he reviewed this judge’s record, and he found a history of light punishments for similar crimes. In response, the ditz said O’Reilly & Napolitano had no right to make criticisms because they “weren’t in the courtroom.” Never mind that the entirety of the man’s record had been called into question.
–
The interesting thing: isn’t this one of the major attacks on religious hierarchy, the idea that instead of grappling with ideas’ merits & genuine concerns, it tries to stifle & delegitimize dissent from “outsiders?” Once again, the thesis of this book is supported: liberalism is a religion (only without the good parts).
–
Napolitano said he reviewed this judge’s record, and he found a history of light punishments for similar crimes. In response, the ditz said O’Reilly & Napolitano had no right to make criticisms because they “weren’t in the courtroom.” Never mind that the entirety of the man’s record had been called into question.
–
The interesting thing: isn’t this one of the major attacks on religious hierarchy, the idea that instead of grappling with ideas’ merits & genuine concerns, it tries to stifle & delegitimize dissent from “outsiders?” Once again, the thesis of this book is supported: liberalism is a religion (only without the good parts).
Barack I’ll-Bomb-Ya
For a while I was hoping Hillary Clinton would get the Democrat nomination, but now I’m thinking maybe Barack Obama would be the better general election opponent. First he agrees to unconditionally meet with America’s enemies within the first year of his administration, and now he’s threatening to invade Pakistan. Y’know, a Muslim nation that not only didn’t attack us on 9/11 (where have I heard this before?) but whose government is actually an ally? Oh, and did I mention that Pakistan already has nukes?
–
Dean Barnett posts an appropriate bumper-sticker on the subject, and Mitt Romney nailed it, too: “from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week.”
–
Dean Barnett posts an appropriate bumper-sticker on the subject, and Mitt Romney nailed it, too: “from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week.”
And Now for Some Apolitical Nerdiness
http://youtube.com/v/RP2jFn9Zk-U
(teaser trailer for the next Batman film, “The Dark Knight.”)
Why? Because it’s my blog and I can.
Conservative Standards 