Well, I’ve been grading exams for about ten minutes, and I’m already depressed. (One of my students seems to think that one fourth is an integer. Get the idea?) So how about another post?
Here’s Keith Olbermann from last nights’ edition of Countdown proving once again why he is the only one worth watching on cable news:
Tonight’s winner, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, responding to the two shooting nightmares in Colorado Sunday by e-mailing this to his group, quote, “it is hard not to draw a line between the hostility that is being fomented in our culture from some in the secular media toward Christians and Evangelicals, in particular, and the acts of violence that took place in Colorado Sunday, but I will say no more for now other than that our friends at New Life Church and YWAM are in our thoughts and prayers.”
You hypocritical holier-than-thou opportunistic fraud. You say it’s the wrong time to say anything more than prayers to the victims’ families while you’re trying to make political hay out of the victims’ bodies. Oh, the psychopath of the shooting did so because of “hostility fomented in the secular media”, had nothing to do with him getting out of the church’s missionary program. And the hostility you think is directed towards Christians? No, sir, it’s directed toward sub-human snake oil salesmen like you, Tony Perkins of the so-called Family Research Council, today’s “Worst Person in the World”.
Well said, though I think Olbermann meant that the shooter had been thrown out of the missonary program.
Any time some crazy sick lunatic goes on a shooting rampage, people like Perkins cross their fingers in ths hopes that somewhere, at some point in his life, the lunatic said something nice about evolution or natural selection. That way they can blame secularists, and all the evil entailed by that word, for the shooting. But when the lunatic was up to his neck in religion and thoroughly steeped in Christian influences? Turns out that’s secularism too.
While we’re at it, here’s Town Hall columnist Bill Murchison endorsing Mitt Romney’s contempt for secularism:
The preachers didn’t start this business; the secularists did. Out of the celestial blue came the news from the U.S. Supreme Court, in the ’60s, that the public schools enjoyed no right to allow prayer of any kind or the reading of the Bible.
Along came the justices a few years later to assure us that the Constitution forbade legislative restrictions on the right to abort a pregnancy. That religious-based morality generally disallowed abortion was a matter over which the justices passed in embarrassed silence.
We might not equate these pronouncements — untouchable because of the untouchableness of the federal judiciary itself — with assault and battery against religion and, especially, against Christianity. Yet, coming so soon after the comparative serenity of the churchgoing ’50s, such developments shocked. And still do.
Just what gives secularists the supreme confidence there’s nothing to this religion business? The weight of tradition is on the opposite side. You sense, while taking in the scurryings of the secularist brotherhood, an anxiety to get things done and nailed down lest through a sudden opening in the heavens a thunderbolt should shoot downward.
Murchison, of course, is very confused. Secularism has nothing to do with atheism. It is merely the idea that societies function best when there is a firm wall of separation between church and state. That is a premise religious folks ought to endorse as strongly as atheists.
And that’s charming logic Murchison’s got there. As he tells it, all through the fifties people like him were happily trampling on the constitutional rights of their fellow citizens by using the organs of government to promote sectarian religious views. When, starting in the sixties, some people got sufficiently annoyed by this to force the courts to acknowledge the obvious, he thinks this constitutes the secularists “starting it.”
Not dumb enough for you? Well, he’s not finished:
The brouhaha over Darwin vs. intelligent design gives evidence, if not of fear, perhaps of exasperation with folk who just won’t quit wanting to affirm the agency of God in creation. A world without a creative principle — hence without purpose — suits secularists well enough. Nor can they see intelligent designers as working at anything short of the subversion of science.
Whatever is waiting for me on my students’ exams just has to be smarter than that.