Pharyngula

Posted by: The Disgruntled Chemist | May 8, 2006 6:30 PM

I ordered my copy. I can't wait...creative mischief will be had, to be sure.

Posted by: Cody Cobb | May 8, 2006 6:57 PM

I will cherish this book as I did with my copy of God Doesn't Believe in Atheists.

And by "cherish" I mean "draw amusingly pornographic pictures in the margins in."

Posted by: cathy in seattle | May 8, 2006 7:11 PM

Just asked for 100. I assume they are recyclable?

Posted by: Fred J | May 8, 2006 7:25 PM

Bless you Seed for removing the tornado, No South Carolinian Doctors have signed the new list yet at DI. May you have a safe trip tomorrow PZ. And I only ordered two ARGT books, I feel embarressed.

Posted by: MNDarwinist | May 8, 2006 7:35 PM

I saw something absolutely stunning.
The painting done in 300 AD(how do they know that?)of ancient African's battling a T Rex. Evidence of man and dinosaur coexisting.
This degree of ignorance is simply beyond me.
While this is an ridiculous as it gets, it just shows the dismal status of science in today's world, where the most basic scientific method(e.g. carbon dating)is not valid unless theologically correct.

Posted by: ZC | May 8, 2006 7:53 PM

An odd sentence on the the ARTG page, "God is being driven out of her government, society, classrooms and public lives!"

At least they seem to support the Gaia hypothesis. :)

Take Care -

ZC

see it @ http://www.gcciusa.org/English/ARTG.htm

Posted by: RavenT | May 8, 2006 8:41 PM

daenku32, that's why whenever I want to order literature from someone who I don't want to have my own name, I do it as one of my cats. If they're being data-mined, all of my cats are tracking as really strong right-wingers, based on the literature they send away for, and the mailing lists they're on.

Good luck to those organizations on getting any donations out of them, though.

Posted by: Dustin | May 8, 2006 8:52 PM

Once, I sent an application to the Discovery Institute on behalf of one of my cats. I was trying to get them to support numerology on the grounds that operator theory was, after all, just a theory. I was kind of busy at the time, and I thought that my cat was on more of a mental par with their other research fellows than I am anyway.

They never wrote back.

Posted by: Peter Barber | May 8, 2006 9:25 PM

Wonderful stuff! In the page on 'The Neo-Pagan Drift', there is a table of strained biblical analogies between Israel and the USA. My favourite is no.7: "Theirs [Israel of the Old Testament] was a nation of theocracy - God was their ruler. Theirs [the USA] is a nation of democracy, and they acknowledge God in their Constitution."

Yep: theocracy = democracy. It's obvious - except to all you pinko-liberal-atheist-eco-homosexualists*, of course!

* Read: "people capable of rational thought". 'Homosexualist' borrowed with thanks from Little Britain.

Posted by: RavenT | May 8, 2006 9:45 PM

They never wrote back.,

They probably realized they were intellectually outclassed.

The Republican National Committee was rather actively courting one of my cats for a while there, though. I suspect it was her demographics that interested them; they probably don't get lots of self-described black females writing them for literature.

Posted by: Ken Cope | May 8, 2006 10:15 PM

I'll be ordering a few using the name and address of a fictional TV character, as truthful and honest an act as any of those toxic clowns have ever committed.

Posted by: Jason | May 8, 2006 10:45 PM

And no, I didn't send you or sign you up for that mailing, in case you're wondering.

Posted by: George Cauldron | May 8, 2006 10:52 PM

And it's interesting that you would use this organizations offer to hurt them financially. "Bleed the bastards dry!" indeed! You are a hate-filled lunatic who should be stripped of any and all academic awards and accomplishments. You don't deserve any of them.

Poor widdle baby Jason. Rough day today?

Go cuddle up with Rush or Ann. I'll bet you feel better.

Posted by: Dan | May 8, 2006 10:59 PM

Z, you wouldn't know a theocracy if one came up to you, bit you on the butt and said "Hi! I'm a theocracy!" America is much further away from a theocracy today than it was 200 years ago.

Yeah, that's the ticket. Hell, if you keep saying it, it might even become true!

You bellow about ignorance. Why not look into the sayings and writings of the Founding Fathers and other prominent early Americans sometime (and not just Jefferson and Paine).

When did those "sayings" acquire recoginzed legal force? I must have missed the memo.

Seriously, Jason, who gives a flying fuck what the Founding Fathers believed?

And it's interesting that you would use this organizations offer to hurt them financially. "Bleed the bastards dry!" indeed! You are a hate-filled lunatic who should be stripped of any and all academic awards and accomplishments. You don't deserve any of them.

I see that you're showing us what a good Christian you are, again.

Posted by: Jason | May 8, 2006 11:02 PM

Ha! Check out their project proposal page:

http://www.gcciusa.org/English/ARTG/pdf/ProjectProposal.pdf

The number of copies printed is set in stone: 500k, with 450k spoken for and 50k stored for requests. They've already been paid for, too, so you're bleeding no one dry. I guess that makes you the ones stewing in ineffectual ignorance (with emphasis on the ineffectual part).

I guess if you really wanted to, you all could play vigilante censors and snatch up as many of those 50k books as you can so that no one who wants to can read them.

And it looks like they probably specifically selected you to receive this book, PZ:

Scientists: Scientists in selected specialties 22,017

Bit of a stretch to call you an "American leader," though.

Posted by: George Cauldron | May 8, 2006 11:09 PM

The number of copies printed is set in stone: 500k, with 450k spoken for and 50k stored for requests. They've already been paid for, too, so you're bleeding no one dry.

Except for the postage. And that's copies they can't give to people like you, who might help them.

I guess that makes you the ones stewing in ineffectual ignorance

Ooh! Alliteration, just like William Safire! Shows us you went to college!

(with emphasis on the ineffectual part).

If it's so ineffectual, then why are you still so upset, Jason?

I guess if you really wanted to, you all could play vigilante censors and snatch up as many of those 50k books as you can so that no one who wants to can read them.

We have your permission? Thanks!

And it looks like they probably specifically selected you to receive this book, PZ:

Scientists: Scientists in selected specialties 22,017

Bit of a stretch to call you an "American leader," though.

Oooh, why are you so ANGRY, Jason? You sound so hate-filled! And judging from your website, you're really obsessing on PZ and Panda's Thumb. What's up, some mean liberal female boss? No girlfriend? Got laid off? Can't lose weight? You can share with us, please!

Posted by: Dustin | May 8, 2006 11:24 PM

Well, I for one don't think God will bless America until America bans flash tornados. If you order a copy of that book and replace every instance of perceived social ill in its glossy pages with the word "flash tornado", I think the book would have some value.

Posted by: Dustin | May 8, 2006 11:31 PM

Oh, please... This is mindless conspiracy drivel with no basis in fact and reality.

Remind me again... what was the demographic that made up the bulk of the Republican party? Think about that for a while... I'm sure it will come to you eventually.

And why did it only become a part of law via a court decision?

Right... see, we have this thing we like to call The Constitution. It was written by The Founding Fathers. It is the job of those courts to make sure that the laws passed by the legislature are in accordance with The Constitution. That's why (1) the courts made that descision and (2) I can say that the founding fathers were so in favor of this separation of church and state thing.

I'm glad I could clear that up for you.

Posted by: Jason | May 8, 2006 11:40 PM

Except for the postage.

Which was anticipated and figured into the cost per book, genius. Check out the bottom line (literally!):

http://www.gcciusa.org/English/ARTG/pdf/ProjectProposal.pdf

"Cost includes production, printing, handling, postage, mailing list purchasing etc."

See that? POSTAGE. Thanks for showing your ignorance.

And that's copies they can't give to people like you, who might help them.

So you enjoy playing the vigilante censor - something you would wholeheartedly condemn if a conservative were doing it.

Ooh! Alliteration, just like William Safire! Shows us you went to college!

Just holding up a mirror so you can see those pointing fingers of yours pointing back at yourselves.

If it's so ineffectual, then why are you still so upset, Jason?

Upset? Nah. Amused by your displays of impotence and ignorance while you fumble about in your bigotry and intolerance? Hell, yeah!

We have your permission? Thanks!

I knew you'd have no problem with it. Censoring (vigilante or otherwise) is another one of those things that liberals say they hate except when they themselves do it.

Oooh, why are you so ANGRY, Jason? You sound so hate-filled!

Alliteration. I guess you went to college, too, eh?

And judging from your website, you're really obsessing on PZ and Panda's Thumb.

Yeah, 3 posts about PZ on the main page with 1 actually agreeing with him. Oooh, I'm really obsessing!

What's up, some mean liberal female boss? No girlfriend? Got laid off? Can't lose weight? You can share with us, please!

I just enjoy smacking the living daylights (figuratively speaking, of course) out of buffoons like yourself and PZ who have the intellectual level of spoiled children.

Posted by: Jason | May 8, 2006 11:48 PM

Remind me again... what was the demographic that made up the bulk of the Republican party? Think about that for a while... I'm sure it will come to you eventually.

And what demographic makes up the bulk of the Democratic party? Atheists and agnostics? No... Muslims? No... Buddhists? No... Oh, that's right. It's Christians! Imagine that...

Right... see, we have this thing we like to call The Constitution. It was written by The Founding Fathers. It is the job of those courts to make sure that the laws passed by the legislature are in accordance with The Constitution. That's why (1) the courts made that descision and (2) I can say that the founding fathers were so in favor of this separation of church and state thing.

The "separation of church and state" is found nowhere in the Constitution. Nothing even like it is found there. No "wall." No mention of said "wall" being "high and impregnable." Nothing.

And it's odd how people who supposedly were so much in favor of this "wall" had no problem with - among many other things - opening legislative sessions with prayer, holding worship services in government buildings and authorizing the printing of Bibles by congressional order.

Posted by: Jason | May 9, 2006 12:08 AM

Now, Jason, I don't understand, that's not a very Christian sentiment!

According to whom? I'll admit that my vernacular certainly isn't biblical. It's more modern, but I'd like to see you actually show me how I've not been Christian.

So hate filled.

I assure you that I am not motivated by hate. I gave that up when I gave up being a liberal.

You mustn't attack liberals for failings you yourself have.

Again, according to whom? And why is it okay for you to attack me and those like me for failings that you yourselves have? Is that just another one-way street for liberals?

Now, it seems to me that you're, what, one of those heavy duty Evangelical types, who are doing God's work, right? Now you claim you guys don't want a theocracy, right, but really, all you've done to disprove this, or, really, to disprove anything here is just to ridicule people.

I've done more than that, but even if I didn't, at least I still would've done more to disprove the idea than you have done to prove it.

Now, since us wicked liberals DO think you guys want a theocracy, and you claim it's not true, why don't you give us an reasoned argument as to why you don't want one?

A ***human-led*** theocracy is not a good idea. Ever. I and almost all of those who you think want a theocracy don't want any such thing. President Bush is not our "high priest." The only theocracy we want and look forward to is the TRUE theocracy led by God and God alone. This theocracy will not come about in this age by any human means and anyone who tries to establish it before its time is a charlatan and a fool.

Why a theocracy would be a bad idea? Since God wants you to convert all the evil 'spoiled' liberal atheists to good, conservative Christians, incidentally just like YOU are, wouldn't that be a more effective way to make converts?

No. If you knew ANYTHING about what Christians are taught by Jesus, you'd know that forcing people to covert is not what He wants us to do. Matthew 10:14 - "If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town."

And won't God look more kindly on you if you don't just act all ANGRY and ABUSIVE? You know, you'll never make converts that way.

Please. We're all ears. Just quit being so angry all the time.

As I said, I'm not motivated by hate or anger towards you. Continually saying that I am will not make it so.

God doesn't like a hater.

Depends on what's being hated. Does God like people who hate sin? Yep. Does God like people who hate lies (esp. lies about Him)? Certainly.

Posted by: Sexy Sadie | May 9, 2006 12:17 AM

Something tells me Jason is in dire need of a good blow job.

Posted by: Susannah | May 9, 2006 12:20 AM

I have seen Wang, speaking at a Mission's conference, years ago. He didn't impress me then, and I was on his side. Now... Yikes!

From his page, "Ambush Alert", page 3:

"4. Today's Society
Today's most dreadful decease" (sic) "is not AIDS but atheism----the destruction of both body and soul."

http://www.gcciusa.org/English/ARTG/pdf/AmbushAlert.pdf

Posted by: Jason | May 9, 2006 12:29 AM

Now, Jason, lots of people are going to assume that this 'impulsive, cynical and sarcastic' routine constitutes being angry and, well, hate-filled.

"Lots of people" will also see that it's not borne of anger and hate. "Lots of people" will actually read beyond the words themselves and see no anger or hate. See, I don't say or write things like "Bleed the bastards dry!"

Since you've figured out with such certainty everything God wants,

I don't do that either - making up lies out of whole cloth about people as a cheap, intellectually dishonest and childish way to have talking points.

it seems to me you'd be in an ideal position to present your ideas better. I mean, how are us liberals ever going to become more like you?

You won't if you don't face up to your lies, mistakes, hate and ignorance. Here's a start: admit you were wrong about "bleeding the bastards dry" through postage costs. It's such a small thing to admit, but it might instigate a landslide.

Posted by: Jason | May 9, 2006 12:48 AM

The wall exists so that our government doesn't establish a religion, or make policy based off of a particular religion, since that would undermine the whole freedom of religion thing, too. Alright, so that isn't in the Constitution, it's in the Bill of Rights, but that's the motivation.

Why did you need a 1947 judicial ruling establishing this "wall" when the Constitution already had an amendment preventing the establishment of religion? The fact is that the 1947 ruling was made in order to trump the First Amendment and create a false dichotomy that goes well beyond the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

There's a difference between having a prayer meeting, and legislating based off Duteronomy.

Yes, there is, and no one of any consequence is favoring the latter. (There's those nuts who want to force South Carolina or whatever to secede and create a theocracy there, but that's as likely to happen as it is for PZ here to say something nice about Christians.)

They had no problem with having a religion of their own, they had a problem with enacting policy based off of that religion.

Seems to me that authorizing the printing of Bibles would be enacting policy based on their religion...

Of course, since this 1947 ruling, there'd be no way that many of the things the Founding Fathers and other early American lawmakers did would be allowed. Imagine what would happen if a future president would open up the Treasury Building to Christian worship services as Jefferson did.

Ahh, so Christians make up the bulk of both parties (and here I was being generous and only forcing you to concede that they control one party). What was that you were saying about the idea that churches threw their political clout around? That it wasn't based in reality?

Nice save attempt. Nothing that either of us has posted about what religion makes up the majority of the populace proves anything about mega-churches having any political clout. In fact, these mega-churches are under far more scrutiny than dinky little country churches when it comes to politics since they are televised nationwide. Pastor Bob of the 50-member Brickabrak Church in Yahoo County, USA, might get away with telling his congregation who to vote for, but someone like D. James Kennedy or that guy who has his congregation do that Bible oath before each sermon wouldn't.

Posted by: George Cauldron | May 9, 2006 12:53 AM

Goodness, Jason, so *are* you actually "praying, practicing, and thinking" about things? Is this the 'softened' form of your personality? If so, I'd hate to see what the unaltered 'hard' form is like. Either that, or the prayer just isn't working? Either way, I can't see what the big deal is about this whole Christianity thing you seem to be so fond of, Jason. I just can't see tangible results here. But thank goodness you're not angry, huh?

Posted by: Dustin | May 9, 2006 12:59 AM

Why did you need a 1947 judicial ruling establishing this "wall" when the Constitution already had an amendment preventing the establishment of religion?

Nothing that either of us has posted about what religion makes up the majority of the populace proves anything about mega-churches having any political clout.

But, hey, just so that we know you aren't some kind of shithead troll, why don't you voice your support for a secular state?

Posted by: Dan | May 9, 2006 1:02 AM

Yeah, that's the ticket. Hell, if you keep saying it, it might even become true!

Ironic. That's what runs through my mind whenever some boob like you or PZ caterwauls about "THEOCRACY!!! THEOCRACY!!! THEY'RE COMING TO TAKE ME AWAY, HA HA!!! THEY'RE COMING TO TAKE ME AWAY, HO HO HEE HEE!!!"

Well, I'm sure that that is what actually runs through your mind. We all know how meaningful that is, though, given your rather "free-form", to put it diplomatically, relationship with reality.

When did those "sayings" acquire recoginzed legal force? I must have missed the memo.

Just as I missed the memo that this book PZ received acquired recognized legal force. And the memo that anything the people featured within wrote or said acquired recognized legal force, too.

It seems that you learned your mad argumentative "skillz" at the elementary school playground. Do you really think that we can't recognize these "I know you are, but what am I" rhetorical tactics of yours for what they are?

But that theocracy's a-comin'! No doubt about it! Chicken Little Myers said so!

Sure, because we're the mindless sycophants here, not you, right?

Seriously, Jason, who gives a flying fuck what the Founding Fathers believed?

You do, but only when it suits your purposes. When it doesn't, then you just flippantly and dishonestly say, "Who gives a flying fuck what the Founding Fathers believed?"

I challenge you to find a comment transmitted in any medium stored anywhere on this or any other planet in which I clamed to give a flying fuck what the Founding Fathers believed on any subject, or to admit that you're a self-serving liar.

Failure to perform one of these two actions will result in the total revocation of whatever tiny shreds remain of your credibility.

I see that you're showing us what a good Christian you are, again.

Care to show me how I'm not being "a good Christian?"

What, you think that being a baselessly self-righteous, willfully ignorant, shamelessly dishonest, cluelessly hypocritical, unapologetically judgemental little asshat is a Christian virtue? You think that's what God called you to do here? Care to support that with a Bible quote or two?

The fact that you truly, honestly believe that you've ever done anything, here or (I can only imagine) elsewhere, but insult your intellectual betters and gleefully lie about absolutely everything in existence (or even worse, credulously repeat lies that other people far more intelligent than you have told you) makes you a feckless jackass. The fact that you expect us to take you seriously in spite of that would be specacularly hilarious if it weren't so fucking pathetic.

Posted by: George Cauldron | May 9, 2006 1:10 AM

You didn't know me when I was an atheist, George. You wouldn't have liked me then. Well, actually, maybe you would've liked me, because I was a lot like PZ. My point is that when I was an atheist, I really was motivated by anger and hate and you would've clearly seen it. You wouldn't have had to play the silly games you're playing now to try to concoct anger and hate where there is none.

Hmm. So is the prayer working, Jason? Or are you not trying all that hard? You still seem awfully cynical and sarcastic. And was your awful personality caused by being an atheist, or was your atheism caused by you being an awful person? Which direction did the cause and effect go? And did you become a much more wonderful person merely by becoming a Baptist? I mean, is it possible for me to become as good a person as you without the actual Christianity thing, or is the whole package necessary?

Posted by: Dustin | May 9, 2006 1:29 AM

Alright, I guess I can see why you're having so much trouble with that simple of a concept. I mean, you seem to live in a world where you can have a state that's secular and religious at the same time, where enacting policy based on religious beliefs doesn't interefere with the freedom of religion, where droves of people adhere to churches, but those churches are simultaneously berift of political power, and where you are trying your dearest not to be an obnoxious pissant, but manage to do that anyway. You have moved beyond such novel concepts as "consistency" and "reason", and I'm sure Constitutional Law falls into one or both of those.

Posted by: noema | May 9, 2006 2:27 AM

Consider this a quibble if you like.

You wrote, "Why did you need a 1947 judicial ruling establishing this "wall" when the Constitution already had an amendment preventing the establishment of religion? The fact is that the 1947 ruling was made in order to trump the First Amendment and create a false dichotomy that goes well beyond the intentions of the Founding Fathers."

It would be one thing to claim that the supreme court case in 1947 was wrongly decided-- that the justices who issued the ruling misinterpreted the language of the first amendment, perhaps (incidentally) in accord with their own personal beliefs. But the claim above goes well beyond that: you assert that the purpose of the ruling was not, as is normally the case, to interpret the constitution, but deliberately to revise it. That's a very weighty claim. What evidence, then, do you have, that those sitting justices were deliberately attempting to enshrine a secularist hegemony, rather than just ruling one way and getting it wrong? Fair enough if you have evidence, but in the absence of such I'd tend to conclude that there's a opposite-wing conspiracy theory lurking in your worldview, too.

In a similar vein, you write, "The "wall" from the 1947 ruling went beyond what the Founders intended the First Amendment to entail."

I guess I wonder, what, pray tell, did they intend the First Amendment to entail? The precise clause in the first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." An awful lot, it seems, depends on how widely you intepret the word 'establishment' in that clause. The relevant ruling (to which you have adverted several times) proceeds as follows:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain awa