…and this is a 
Maybe politicians should just avoid evangelicals and used car salesmen
Category: Politics • Religion
Posted on: May 4, 2008 12:45 PM, by PZ Myers
Why do they waste their time with these idiots? Barack Obama has been struggling against the guilt-by-association of having been a regular member of a lunatic's church, this odious little ignorant rat-bag named Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Yet at the same time, McCain joyfully accepts endorsements from John Hagee and Rod Parsley…and if Wright is a rat-bag, those two are festering, reeking mountains of putrefying rat-shit. Does the media give a damn? No. They're also white members of the televangelical racket, and ever since the anti-semitic backwoods babbler Billy Graham was canonized for introducing the appearance of delusional piety into the hypocritical Nixon White House, it's become the habit to defer to the liars for Jesus who brag about bringing morality to government.
And yet, someone who refuses to sit quietly as these nutjobs rave, who refuses to endorse the lie of religion, who does not suffer through the weekly tedium of sitting in a pew to listen mutely to a know-nothing air his ignorance to a flock of sheep, cannot possibly be elected to the presidency. Meanwhile, if the press is antagonistic towards you, they will cheerfully take some stupid sermon you listened to and blame you for its contents (and if they don't want to trouble your march to election, they'll quietly ignore it). It's a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation.
So why not just Kobiyashi Maru your way out of the whole corrupt situation and stop pandering to the churchies all together? That's my advice to the candidates right now. You're screwed no matter which way you jump, so you might as well take the rational route and announce that you're washing your hands of the whole wretched lot of preachin' scalliwags, whose faith-based advice doesn't belong in government anyway. Be bold! Be free of gods, or at the very least, free of god-bothering liars.
(By the way, if you don't know how vile Hagee and Parsley are, Revere has video clips.)
Let's not forget Hillary Clinton. She's entangled with a far right-wing fellowship of fascists.
Comments
I'm not sure what's worse... the fact you used Kobiyashi Maru as a verb, or the fact that I didn't need to look it up to know what you meant. And I don't even LIKE Star Trek. :)
Posted by: Jonathan Martin | May 4, 2008 12:59 PM
But.. but.. Hagee's "Israel rules" books are selling well at WalMart. Surely that means he must be all-american, and can't be all that bad.
Posted by: dave | May 4, 2008 1:02 PM
I love how the Catholic church is so offended about Hagee's "vile anti-Catholic" remarks.
How do they think atheists feel about the fact that Hagee et al think we're amoral people who are going to burn in a lake of fire for eternity?
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 4, 2008 1:08 PM
Oh to live in a country where candidates, even promising ones like Obama, don't have to always fellatiate the loony religious folks and can instead talk about ideas.
Posted by: Severian | May 4, 2008 1:09 PM
Everyone hates a hypocrite. Exposing these pious poseurs and their enablers by way of mockery, relentless and remorseless, is, I'm growing certain, the antidote.
Moliere would approve, PZ.
Posted by: caynazzo | May 4, 2008 1:13 PM
What's with the weird lighting at the Hagee McCain press conference.
Anoint the apostates!! Anointy noint noit!! Aposteeeateeeeesss woooooooooo....
Posted by: 386sx | May 4, 2008 1:16 PM
John Hagee believes the Jews deserved the Holocaust, which was God's punishment for their crime of trying to live in Europe instead of Israel.
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/3/5/105015/2167/
I guess it would be more newsworthy if Hagee was black.
Posted by: TTT | May 4, 2008 1:20 PM
Frank Rich has an op-ed on Wright vs. Hagee in today's NYT.
Because we live in a country where godless = evil still looks True to most people. I don't have any polling data to back me up, but my gut tells me most of our compatriots would rather vote for a candidate whose religion they despise than for an avowed atheist.
Maybe the recent popularity of people like Dawkins and Harris and yourself, PZ, will change that for future generations, but I don't imagine seeing an openly atheist president, senator, or state governor in my lifetime.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | May 4, 2008 1:20 PM
Some people think that because Obama BELONGED to the "Rev" Wright's church, a distinction should be made between the Hagee connection (McCain didn't attend his church) and the Wright connection.
Personally, I think McCain is being given a free ride on the Xtianist extortion racket.
SG
Posted by: Science Goddess | May 4, 2008 1:22 PM
The Kobiyashi Maru scenario requires the ability and desire to change the rules of the game, something that all politicians pay lip-service to but none ever actually attempt.
Mr. Smith needs to go to Washington, but has been eerily silent since the 1800s.
Posted by: Mystyk | May 4, 2008 1:23 PM
I think you're being a little hard on Rev. Wright. Have you seen the interview he gave with Bill Moyers? He at least seems capable of being thoughtful, reasonable person, unlike those other characters mentioned.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Ytn2p8FHos0
Posted by: ajrw | May 4, 2008 1:25 PM
I think Jon Stewart did a pretty good job of examining the media and wright. http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Play/28852/1/TDS-Festival-Wrights.wmv
Posted by: Chris | May 4, 2008 1:25 PM
Oh dear.
Parsley:
He actually thinks it's the duty of the judicial system to support every decision of the executive/legislative system. It's argumentum ad populum taken to a whole new level, taken to a level that is meant to subvert the very governmental system on which this nation was founded. It goes even beyond violating the 1st Amendment -- it completely *ignores* the first three articles of the Constitution. Parsley has *no* concept of the idea of checks and balances, or if he does, he's conveniently forgotten about it.
I don't want to invoke Godwin's Law, but this kind of talk sounds a hell of a lot like the thought that led to the Enabling Act of 1933. And quite frankly, it does scare me a little....
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 4, 2008 1:27 PM
So, I'm going down my list of possible atheist blogs to visit, and I come across Pharyngula.
I can't even read it for all the disgusting foul language and hate speech directed at people, I presume, the OP, PZ Myers, doesn't even know these people personally.
You know, someone has to rule this country, and we better all hope it's a Christian who honestly tries to behave like Jesus Christ. Because if the atheists ever get in power, I can only imagine the horrors.
How does PZ Myers get away with a blog like this? I mean the guy admits the police have to remove him from a line in a movie because he's too offensive to the producer. Were you going to go in and shout down the movie, Mr. Myers? Is this what you call free speech: hate rhetoric and foul language.
I've said it before; I'll say it again, for the good of society atheistic public speech really should be ruled obscene.
Posted by: Edward | May 4, 2008 1:29 PM
People, wake up
Figure it out
Religious fanatics
Around and about
The Court House, The State House,
The Congress, The White House
Criminal saints
With a "Heavenly Mission" -
A nation enraptured
By pure superstition.
_ Frank Zappa, "When the Lie's So Big"
http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Frank-Zappa/When-The-Lie-s-So-Big.html
Posted by: KevPod | May 4, 2008 1:34 PM
Yeah, these religious wackaloons are fucking ridic. But what's even more ridic--which I posted about at my blog a few days ago--is that we elevate their ridicness to such a prominent position in our polity. Most of the rest of the world must just laugh its fucking ass off at us.
http://physioprof.wordpress.com/2008/05/02/obama-wright-wackaloon-religious-assholes/
Posted by: PhysioProf | May 4, 2008 1:36 PM
Edward,
Grow up. Stop spreading lies. Stop being a bigot.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 4, 2008 1:38 PM
"Edward" :
You need to be put down mate.
Posted by: clinteas | May 4, 2008 1:40 PM
Edward! Far out satire! You really must visit here more often.
Posted by: BlindSquirrel | May 4, 2008 1:41 PM
Hey Edward,
It's your "Good Book" that approves of genocide, rape, misogyny and slavery.
Posted by: dkew | May 4, 2008 1:43 PM
Hey MAJ Jeff,
What have I lied about? I'm just making and observation of this particular blog.
And this blog confirms what I have found in almost every atheist blog I've visited: atheists lose their moral foundation, when they jetison God, and eventually end up foul-mouthed, pornographic, hate-filled, humorless individuals. It's because the mind can't actually cope with the implications of atheism. The personality begins to deteriortate. It's a mentally unhealthy state of mind. PZ Myers simple confirms it. He can't be trusted in a theater, he's a professor, but he can't speak without vulgarity, and he appears to be a grossly self-centered individual.
This is the ultimate result of the atheistic influence on a personality. It's tragic. I hope he has a turnaround.
I'll come back and check on this a bit later. I have to go run ten miles in the name of God! :)
Posted by: Edward | May 4, 2008 1:45 PM
There is new game afoot, goes by the name of Edward!
You might as face it, you're addicted to atheism.
Five paragraphs Edward has posted but not one true statement. But it is good to know you like censorship.
Edward, please tell me why Jesus caused a fig tree to wither and die just because it did not have ripe figs in the spring time. This does not sound like a calm and rational leader. I expect better.
Posted by: Janine ID | May 4, 2008 1:45 PM
"You know, someone has to rule this country, and we better all hope it's a Christian who honestly tries to behave like Jesus Christ. Because if the atheists ever get in power, I can only imagine the horrors."
First, in this country, we don't have rulers. We have representatives. They get together and argue at length about which particular lobbyist is in the best interests of the people.
Second, as near as I can tell, no president has ever honestly tried to behave like Jesus and we are still here.
Third, any horrors caused by an atheist president--as if you could tell the difference if they didn't self identify--would be constrained by the constitution that also protects us from the horrors of a Christian president...in other words, mostly.
Ever hear of Thomas Jefferson, by the way? The horror of the Louisiana Purchase is still legendary.
And why, pray tell, were you looking for atheist sites to visit? Looking for rational discussion were we?
Steve "Does the troll do tricks?" James
Posted by: longstreet63 | May 4, 2008 1:47 PM
Edward,
You're an idiot.
Fuck off.
Posted by: Steve_C | May 4, 2008 1:50 PM
MAJeff, (Hey, I can get your name right!) just hit the link I made. You will see where Eddie is coming from. I am sure you can have fun with it.
Oh, Edward. No one is angry at you. You are merely sport. To paraphrase an old line from Cheers, it is a dog eat dog world and you are wearing milk-bone underwear.
Posted by: Janine ID | May 4, 2008 1:51 PM
@#8 Bill Daupin --
And depressingly, you'd be right.
Gallup had a poll in which they asked respondents the following question:
As of the most recent polling (December 2007), it's at 46% yes, 48% no, and 6% unsure. They have data from various years starting at 1958 on the poll page...there's been definite improvement (in Aug 1958, it was 18% Yes, 75% No, and 7% Unsure), but it's still a long way to go before an openly atheist candidate would even have a chance. (And according to such pundits as Michael Medved, Americans would be right in refusing to vote for an atheist candidate...so that kind of talk isn't helping things either.)
There's a lot of other interesting data on the poll page as well, including stats for other religious denominations and other minority groups. (The lowest amount yes for a religious denomination was 80% for a Mormon...they didn't have Muslim, though, which is the one religion I think might actually get a lower Yes percentage than atheist. In terms of minority groups, even homosexuals had a higher yes percentage [56%] than atheists.)
I kind of wish they'd broken it up by political party (I'm particularly curious what the allegedly progressive Democratic voters think...my guess would be that the amount that wouldn't vote for an atheist would be depressingly high...) but I guess you can't have it all.
((The poll also had a question on whether the polled think George W is too conservative...scarily 17% actually think he's too liberal.))
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 4, 2008 1:51 PM
Edward, thanks for sticking up FOR THE CHILDREN!!!
Poe's Law is in effect here, but if you are serious, Edward, please check out any of your typical rightie blogs, and notice the difference in rhetoric. Posters here may use salty language and insult looney religious types with gusto, but there is a distinct lack of ELIMINATIONIST rhetoric that seems to always creep into sites like WorldNetDaily and Townhall.
Ironically, on Easter, my mom, sister, and I were lamenting the lack of an agnostic candidate.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | May 4, 2008 1:52 PM
Poor McCain - I'm very honoured by Hagee's endorsement - what a stupid mistake ! Now you're really showing how no different you are from GWB. And I'm sure the dems are going to love this for the general election.
I'm an optimist. I think the whole GWB era has served America a lesson and that any candidate who panders to any of those wackaloons automatically obliterates himself from at least the 60% of the poulation who are amongst the mainstream religions or the secularists.
As long as he was distancing himself from these guys he managed to keep a "semi-progressive" appearance and sway in many independent voters who helped him to secured the nomination. Now that he is moving to the right, he is going to scare the independents. How long is he going to keep on dancing that way ?
Posted by: negentropyeater | May 4, 2008 1:52 PM
Are you talking about the PZ Myers who has been faithfully married to one woman for thirty years, has 3 college-educated children, who doesn't drink to excess, doesn't gamble, doesn't smoke, and who lives a life of such bland middle-class probity that he would make a Southern Baptist swoon with envy?
As for the theater incident, there was no cause -- I was talking quietly with my friends in line. The arbitrary actions of Mark Mathis ought to worry you more, because that's what we'll see more of in an authoritarian theocracy. Atheists might be less inhibited about saying "damn", but we won't burn you at the stake.
Posted by: PZ Myers | May 4, 2008 1:54 PM
Janine,
Wheeee! Flowcharts! It must be true! Next, PowerPoint!
I do love the "Without our fairy tale buddy, there is no morality" folks. I like the word, "fuck." I like to have sex with men. I like raunchy humor. None of these are moral issues. Sorry to disappoint you, Edward, but you need to grow up and give up your childish fairy tales and moralistic immorality.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 4, 2008 1:56 PM
Ever hear of Thomas Jefferson, by the way? The horror of the Louisiana Purchase is still legendary.
Posted by: longstreet63
Longstreet63, just because Jefferson's enemies called him an atheist does not mean he was one. He believed in Jesus. He just did not believe that Jesus was supernatural. This explains Jefferson editing the bible to remove all supernatural events.
Posted by: Janine ID | May 4, 2008 1:56 PM
Edward, thanks for sticking up FOR THE CHILDREN!!!
Maybe we should give Edward a nickname: Helen Lovejoy.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 4, 2008 1:57 PM
@#14 Edward --
Look, you've outright admitted that you came here only to tell us that we're obscene and deserving of no respect. You looked specifically for an atheist blog just so that you could say these things.
You're obviously here only for the sake of trolling, and you have no interest in good faith argumentation. Moreover, by arguing in bad faith, you subvert others' efforts to have constructive discussion.
So fuck off.
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 4, 2008 1:57 PM
Gosh, I hope you cleaned the spittle from your computer screen after that, PZ.
Posted by: jsn | May 4, 2008 1:59 PM
I'm not an American, so I willingly admit I have no right to criticize.
But .. is anyone in America giving any thought to restructuring your election system?
I understand that in 1776 it would be important to visit all 13 colonies, and collect supporters in each one. You would need a generous amount of time if you were traveling all around the country on horseback.
But, seriously, how can you justify an eighteen month long campaign in the age of jet travel and the internet? Yes your media are insane, yes they spend countless hours discussing flag pins, yes they are actually controlling the message and dumbing down the dialogue to such an extent that it is outright embarassing.
What are they supposed to talk about for EIGHTEEN months?
No candidate is actualy going to publically announce a great new initiative so far in advance of an election that the incumbants could steal it.
The legal time allowed here for active campaigning was cut from about 7 weeks to 30 days 10 or 15 years ago. It made a huge difference in the quality of the news coverage. You can fill 30 days discussing new policy and a candidate's record.
A side effect of a shorter campaign is less fundraising, and less lobbying.
This is a sincere question. Other democracies have revised their election procedures from time to time. Is anyone in America looking into a more sane election process?
You are probably losing out on many good candidates who will never consider running for the office, because they once dated sisters, had a roommate convicted of trafficking, or appeared on youtube. The media would rather report on any topic except policy, acheivement or ability.
And as for the label "elitist"! Don't you want a president who plans further ahead than beer for Friday night?
Posted by: R E G | May 4, 2008 1:59 PM
The only difference between a valued commenter and a troll here is if you agree with PZ or not.
Posted by: jsn | May 4, 2008 2:01 PM
the media wants a circus to fill the minutes during the 6 o'clock news. they don't care about anything else. and, sadly, the rabble want entertainment above anything else, a jolly. to them running the country or a war has been a sporting contest, like Fever Pitch, no more.
and i think candidates, with some justification, fear telling the truth to the power of the people because of the consequences. Obama is right to oppose the Gas Tax Holiday, but guess how that's gonna go down?
Posted by: ekzept | May 4, 2008 2:01 PM
Hey don't forget to examine the Argument from Non-Neurological Consciousness, which, I'm told, is championed by Edward Gordon, co-founder of Christian Cross Talk (a good name for it, since in my business, cross-talk is what happens when two voice signals get scrambled together).
Basically, it says that since paramecium have no brains, but still move and eat and stuff, they must be conscious, and the only place for that consciousness to come from is...
Guesses, anyone?
Steve "Can't see why that hasn't gotten more play." James
Posted by: longstreet63 | May 4, 2008 2:01 PM
I agree... but I think the distinction cuts the opposite way from the point Obama's critics are trying to make. They say Obama's long-term membership in Wright's church makes him more responsible for Wright's comments; I say that's the bunk. Church membership involves a complex web of personal and social relationships, most of which have nothing to do with what the pastor says from the pulpit (and many of which, BTW, have nothing to do with theology or religious practice). It's not so easy (or particularly common) to just up and leave because you hear something hinky from the pulpit (and keep in mind that Wright was not screaming "God damn America" in every sermon all those years, and Obama was not present for the particular sermon that's getting all the YouTube play). So in my mind Obama's long relationship with that church tends to lessens rather than heightens his culpability for Wright's remarks.
McCain, OTOH, deliberately identified himself with Hagee's ideas by seeking out Hagee's political endorsement. And even if you accept (as I do not) the notion that McCain was unaware of Hagee's most offensive specific comments, he must have been aware of the generally radical philosophical bent of Hagee and his followers, whose favor McCain was trying to curry.
The media have been holding Obama responsible for things said in a church he's associated with while giving McCain a free pass for ideas he specifically sought to align himself with; they've got it precisely backwards.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | May 4, 2008 2:02 PM
FWIW I wrote about this back in March. I find it incredible that McCain is not getting eviscerated by the press for Hagee, who is overflowing with hate. But then, the press treat McCain with kid gloves, which is most assuredly not deserved on his part.
My hope is that when the Democratic party primary dance is over, they'll focus more on what a nutbag McCain is.
Posted by: Phil Plait | May 4, 2008 2:03 PM
They say that God created Man
As part of an enormous plan,
And did so in His image, cos he loves us, every one.
When men of God discriminate
And treat their fellow men with hate
They do so with the knowledge it's what Jesus would have done.
When righteous men, in righteous ways
Hate atheists, or Jews, or gays,
Or Muslims, pagans, redheads, southpaws, foreigners, or Voodoo
I know at first it may seem odd,
But clearly, you've created God
In your own image, when you find he hates the same folks you do.
"You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates the same people you do." --Annie Lamott
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2008/05/in-his-own-image.html
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | May 4, 2008 2:05 PM
After years of struggling under the irrepressible, seemingly all-pervasive influence of American cultural imperialism down in my small corner of the globe it is indeed refreshing for once to see a minor, but welcome reversal.
I refer, of course PZ (er, that's Pee-Zed :-), to your use of the colourful expression "rat-bag", which has been a wonderful staple of Australian idiom for many decades.
(One small point: we generally do not hyphenate it. But your contextual use was perfect.)
I hope to see a rash of American bloggers and commentators fully availing themselves of this most useful and descriptive expression.
Posted by: Rohan Safstrom | May 4, 2008 2:08 PM
You know, I seem to recall something somewhere about there being no religious test for federal office. Oh yeah, it's in the Constitution! How silly of me to forget!
And yet, every one of the current leaders in the race for the office of President of the United States has made some sort of statement meant to assure the followers of the Witch-Doctors that they too are a follower.
Posted by: DLC | May 4, 2008 2:09 PM
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | May 4, 2008 2:13 PM
Out-nerded. It's called the Kobayashi Maru.
Posted by: Kawa | May 4, 2008 2:16 PM
for Edward @#14:
ah, such a toy to play with!Posted by: ekzept | May 4, 2008 2:17 PM
atheists lose their moral foundation, when they jetison God, and eventually end up foul-mouthed, pornographic, hate-filled, humorless individuals
Edward, so far, you are the one calling for censorship. Also, I detect no intentional humor in your two post.(Admittedly, that is not much of a sample.) I have known plenty of god-fearing people who swear a lot mote then I do. Also know of a lot of god-fearing people who like porn.(But I have to ask this, what porn is on this blog? Well, except PZ's cephalopod collection.) As for hate, it really is hard to top telling people like me that we are going to have eternal torment and that we deserve it.
(An other aside, Hagee said that god flooded New Orleans because of a GLBT parade. Is that not hatred? Face it, hatred is a common emotion. It is how we deal with the hate that all of us have that makes us moral or not. Edward, you embrace your hatred and call it righteousness.)
Part of the reason I keep coming back is that most of the regulars here have a great sense of humor.
And Edward, if you have anything thing to say, you are more then welcome to say it. But I do ask that you base what you say in reality.
Posted by: Janine ID | May 4, 2008 2:18 PM
This Parsleyism is just bizarre:
Preferred status to people based entirely on who [sic] they choose as a sexual partner? Say it isn't so!
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 4, 2008 2:19 PM
>The only difference between a valued commenter and a troll here is if you agree with PZ or not.
Geez,the mentally weak are out in force tonight.
>Rat-bag !!! Way to go PZ !
Posted by: clinteas | May 4, 2008 2:20 PM
Edward,
Oh yes a good Christian president whose god commanded genocide as commander in chief of the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. That's just peachy keen. On a more personal note good Christian's claim I should be killed by the state because of who I am. I would e much happier if authoritarian little thugs like you were kept very far from positions of power.
Oh I called you authoritarian because of your call to suppress all speach by atheists by labeling it obscene.
Posted by: Natasha Yar-Routh | May 4, 2008 2:22 PM
The only difference between a valued commenter and a troll here is if you agree with PZ or not.
Posted by: jsn
Paging Glen Davidson! Paging Glen Davidson! You have been called out! You are a troll!
'snicker'
Posted by: Janine ID | May 4, 2008 2:23 PM
If you've not already seen the whole Obama/Wright issue summed perfectly, here it is in one panel.
Posted by: Moody834 | May 4, 2008 2:24 PM
My hope is that when the Democratic party primary dance is over, they'll focus more on what a nutbag McCain is.
Not going to happen. The press corps like him as a person and won't turn on him. He's got the "moderate maverick" image, and the press corps has that story-line deeply embedded within all their reporting. Yeah, he's basically been a right-winger his whole career (only recently embracing the religious wingnut aspect), but the fact that he has no policy initiatives--indeed the only policy proposals he's made are continuations of the Republican opposition to understanding the effects of policy--will be washed over by the reporters he barbecues for.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 4, 2008 2:24 PM
Janine, I have an answer for your question to Edward:
"Edward, please tell me why Jesus caused a fig tree to wither and die just because it did not have ripe figs in the spring time."
Simply put, GOD HATES FIGS!
Fred Phelps is guilty of a gross misinterpretation of scripture.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | May 4, 2008 2:24 PM
@#50 Natasha Yar-Routh --
Why did you have to die during S1? I really liked you.
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 4, 2008 2:25 PM
Edward; you can come visit my blog; I swear a lot less than PZ does. But guess what? I don't think your god exists either, and I also think Hagee, et al, are delusional misogynistic bigots. And I think your call to curtail free speech is just plain un-American. See, it isn't the words, it's what they mean, y'know?
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | May 4, 2008 2:30 PM
Preferred status to people based entirely on who [sic] they choose as a sexual partner? Say it isn't so!
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 4, 2008 2:19 PM
What's amazing is how few heterosexual Christianists see no irony in making such a statement.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 4, 2008 2:30 PM
Hi, Edward (#14)! I don't want you to be disappointed on this blog so I, as an atheist, would like to cheerfully invite you to fuck off. I'd throw some more potty mouth words in there but it would likely make somebody of your obviously delicate sensibilities get the vapors.
Posted by: Wolfhound | May 4, 2008 2:31 PM
Ahem.
If you go by the monthly awards for most-valued commenters, I've been near the top of the pack. Yes, I hang out here because I find the host and most of the other frequent guests congenial, but news flash: if everybody here said only things with which I agreed exactly and could have said myself, the place would be boring. One of the important things which makes people here congenial is their willingness to roll up the sleeves and have a frank, evidence-based discussion of important questions to which the answers are not clear. We like to argue, and we're good at it. Sometimes, I even think we do good by doing it.
I've said before, on multiple occasions, that I have my disagreements with the people whom, if I were really a "fundamentalist atheist", I would have to follow slavishly. I disagree with Richard Dawkins about the reason why physicists are not gung-ho for Smolin's hypothesis of evolutionary selection of universes, about the role "Bible studies" should play in cultural education, and about the relative rhetorical strengths of the Ultimate 747 and the Problem of Evil. I disagree with Michael Shermer about most everything concerning economics, particularly when he yokes libertarianism to evolutionary psychology, and about the origins of religion. I disagree with Hector Avalos about the merit of Baudrillard and the religious content of The Simpsons. I disagree with PZ Myers about the merit of D. S. Wilson's arguments for "group selection", and (more crucially, of course) about the movie The Golden Compass.
See?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | May 4, 2008 2:32 PM
Etha #26
the Economist had a fairly detailed report (I think it's still online - anglosaxon attitudes - april 07 - I downloaded it) and there are many interesting comparisons between britain and the US. Amongst others, this question, how would you feel if your president (our prime minister), were :
- a muslim
- an atheist
what's interesting is also that they have by age groups, so you can see the evolution :
1st column : % of people positive attitude or wouldn't mind
2nd column : % of people negative attitude
(total not 100 because of respondent not answering)
US
Atheist
total 34% 52%
18-34 46% 39%
35-54 30% 53%
55-99 29% 62%
Muslim
total 29% 53%
18-34 40% 41%
35-54 26% 53%
55-99 23% 61%
UK
Atheist
total 74% 16%
18-34 79% 7%
35-54 76% 15%
55-99 68% 24%
Muslim
total 34% 55%
18-34 44% 39%
35-54 32% 56%
55-99 26% 66%
Whereas both US and British still seem to reject the idea of a muslim as head of state, the british are perfectly happy with an atheist. Also, in the US, within the younger generation, the percentage which is rejecting the idea of an atheist president is diminishing rapidly and at 39% is not any more such a determinant force...
As I always say, within a generation or so, and we'll probably have a not so religious president.
Posted by: negentropyeater | May 4, 2008 2:32 PM
Longtime Lurker, you do know there is a website for that.
But my main point was this, for a perfect being, Jesus punishes for the oddest reasons. And leaders should set a better example then that.
Posted by: Janine ID | May 4, 2008 2:33 PM
I disagree with Hector Avalos about the merit of Baudrillard and the religious content of The Simpsons.
Baudrillard and The Simpsons, That just makes me happy.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 4, 2008 2:33 PM
She tried to murder Harry, Dexter's father, as well as murdering many more patients. She deserved what she got.
'snark'
Posted by: Janine ID | May 4, 2008 2:37 PM
negentropyeater, that did not prevent Tony Blair from being PM. But he did hide it away from the public, unlike dubya.
Posted by: Janine ID | May 4, 2008 2:40 PM
About the stats for atheists:
In my own family (my parents and siblings) this fits the trend perfectly. My parents are both religious (go to church twice a week, etc) and tried to imprint that upon their children. All of their children ending up being intelligent free-thinker, and so they went 0-3 on religion. I'm an atheist, so is my brother, and my sister is an agnostic (possibly atheist, she doesn't talk about it much).
However, it is going to take that 39% dropping even lower in the next set of demographics to get an openly agnostic or atheist president. Religious people are too motivated by this single issue and have high rates of voter participation. There needs to be fewer of them (as a percentage) and atheists need to be a more vocal block in society.
Posted by: Eric | May 4, 2008 2:41 PM
One of my Senators - Lindsey Graham - participated in the "coronation" of Rev. Moon a few years ago. The other, Jim Dimwit whoops, I mean DeMint, (I'm always getting that wrong) reportedly lives in housing belonging to The Family/The Fellowship in DC. It has been reported that while rent is charged these senators and congressman, it is well below the market rate for DC.
Yeah, South Cackalackee's senators are a couple of real supernaturalists! Someday, someone will catch a shot of these two, naked and glistening in a coating of Crisco oil, howling at the moon.
And most folks in South Cackalackee will think a thing of it.
Posted by: Senecasam | May 4, 2008 2:42 PM
@#39 jsn --
I really think the difference between a troll and someone who disagrees (and there is one) can be traced back to Habermas' discourse ethics (yes, I've been on a Habermas kick lately) regarding good faith vs bad faith argumentation. In good faith argumentation, an effort is made to understand the points of the other speakers (both PZ and commenters, in this case) but there is no obligation to agree. In bad faith argumentation, such an effort is not made, and in the most extreme cases, an effort is made to deliberately misconstrue the others' arguments or to ignore them completely when "responding" (as seen in Edward's case, where he goes through his list of "atheist blogs" just too find a place where he can spout his hateful nonsense).
Bad faith argumentation can often lead to disastrous consequences for the rest of the discourse, since even though it is impossible to have a good faith argument with someone who is already arguing in bad faith, there is an innate desire to refute their points as one would with any argument. Thus, the futile effort to combat bad faith argumentation using the ethics of good faith argumentation can take over an entire thread at the expense of actual discourse.
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 4, 2008 2:44 PM
Of course all religious people are somewhat off kilter, but Wright doesn't seem near the idiot that Hagee (and a SLEW of WHITE RIGHTWING PASTORS) et.al. represent.
Wright's mistrust of Government and healthcare (ref: his AIDS comments) are supported by the citing of the Tuskeegee experiments on untreated VD in black males. That study concluded in 1972, not exactly ancient history in you get my drift.
His saying that 911 was a result of our activites abroad. Check. Osama told us he'd attack us if we kept troops in Saudi Arabia. Those troops were removed POST 9-11. I'm not sure if they flew back on the same planes Bush used to shuttle all the Bin Ladens out of the country. Osama specifically wanted our troops removed. He mentioned nothing about 'hating our freedoms'.
It is indeed a sad statement on the educational level of the average citizen of this country that politicians have to pander to these fools. IMHO, they really DON'T need to. I'm CONVINCED that there are no more than 5% religious NUTJOBS because when Pat Robinson ran that was the ceiling for his support. A small minority of torturers and religious quacks have SEIZED THE MICROPHONES. That's all it is. It is illusory but that doesn't mean it isn't dangerous IF WE LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT.
Enjoy.
Posted by: Tim Fuller | May 4, 2008 2:45 PM
Posted by: Epistaxis | May 4, 2008 2:45 PM
Edward, on your site in your "Existence Requires Observation" argument, you say that the universe could not exist without God to observe it. By that same logic, how can God exist without you to observe Him? (assuming you actually do observe him, and you're not hallucinating). How can God exist if you don't?
Posted by: dave | May 4, 2008 2:49 PM
"atheists lose their moral foundation, when they jetison God, and eventually end up foul-mouthed, pornographic, hate-filled, humorless individuals."
Pornographic? I'm sorry, but if you're getting turned on by all those squid pictures, then it sure as hell ain't anyone else's fault.
As for "humorless", I don't think I can take that accusation seriously from someone who, with a straight face, tells us that he's gonna "run ten miles in the name of God".
Posted by: Rey Fox | May 4, 2008 2:50 PM
Hm,ok,maybe i should apologize for my comment No 18,but im grumpy and on night shift and a little over the Edward's of this world right now....
Edward said : "You know, someone has to rule this country, and we better all hope it's a Christian who honestly tries to behave like Jesus Christ. Because if the atheists ever get in power, I can only imagine the horrors."
Sounds like he saw Expelled....
And @ No 1 :
"I'm not sure what's worse... the fact you used Kobiyashi Maru as a verb, or the fact that I didn't need to look it up to know what you meant. And I don't even LIKE Star Trek. :)"
That,and the fact that PZ used it,I think that shocked me most LOL
Posted by: clinteas | May 4, 2008 2:51 PM
Janine, what's Gordon Brown's religion ? Do you know ? Do you care ?
The key point is that the media always gives the impression that Americans care a lot about the religiosity of their president. I think it's more a self fulfilling prophecy. And it's more a generational issue.
Also, as I mentionned earlier in my post #28, if there is one good example of an election where a candidate would have been very wise to keep religion completely out of his campaign (which doesn't mean declaring being atheist, it just means keeping it out), because of the very bad historical precedent created by GWB, it's precisely this election, and that works for the three of them.
I mean they are just a bunch of idiots, can't they see that this religious issue just backfires and brings them nothing ?
Posted by: negentropyeater | May 4, 2008 2:56 PM
I agree with the commenters who think PZ is too hard on Wright. I listened to some of Wright's (supposedly) controversial sermons in full, and found them interesting and entertaining, pretty free of god hocus-pocus, and certainly not as offensive as the standard hate-filled evangelical/fundamentalist sermon. The whole media frenzy about this is just a distraction from the real (i.e., President McCain would be a disaster) issues.
Posted by: Dean Booth | May 4, 2008 3:01 PM
Damn, I knew living in a small isolated mountain community was going to come back and bite me. What, pray tell, is S1? Perhaps one of these television shows I keep hearing about?
The sad thing is I commute to Los Angeles to earn a living. Los Angeles, according to Josh Whedon, is hell on earth or at least will be dragged down to hell. So I really should be more up to date on this sort of thing
Posted by: Natasha Yar-Routh | May 4, 2008 3:04 PM
negentropyeate, my point was that Blair's religious beliefs were a lot closer to dubya then any of us though. But Blair cloaked his beliefs from the british public while dubya clobbered the american public over the head with his beliefs.(Funny thing, the american fundies said it felt like a kiss.)
Yet despite the british not clamoring for a true believer, they still got one. Call Blair the stealth candidate.
Posted by: Janine ID | May 4, 2008 3:06 PM
@#74 Natasha Yar-Routh --
I was referring to Season 1 of Star Trek: The Next Generation...there was a character named Natasha Yar who got killed off towards the end of the season. Good character, crappy death.
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 4, 2008 3:08 PM
Natasha Yar-Routh, I do hope you are living in Silverlake. Is there a green skin man with horns who happens to be a great singer lurking about?
Posted by: Janine ID | May 4, 2008 3:09 PM
Natasha: Do you live in Crestline? I kinda sorta know someone there.
Posted by: Rey Fox | May 4, 2008 3:12 PM
MAJeff: "Maybe we should give Edward a nickname: Helen Lovejoy."
I was just chuckling over how much Hagee reminded me (see video link in PZ's post) of Reverend Lovejoy - all that preacher-style, bizarre extension of words the congregation needs to *really* concentrate on.
Of course, it'd be a hell of a lot funnier if he weren't such an odious little turd.