Pharyngula

Posted by: Buford | August 26, 2009 4:03 PM

Why do they have a Department of Homeland Security if they rely on god?

Posted by: Doo Shabag | August 26, 2009 4:06 PM

I love this quote:

"Attorney General Jack Conway defended the law in court, arguing that striking down such laws risked creating a secular society that is wholly separated from religion."

Duh - just because the government must be secular does not mean individuals are not permitted to believe whatever absurdities they choose.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | August 26, 2009 4:08 PM

Notice, though, how god protected Kentucky from hurricane strikes while he was credited for homeland security.

Makes you think, don't it?

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: daveau | August 26, 2009 4:11 PM

This is just another one of them tests of faith, i'n't it?

Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | August 26, 2009 4:14 PM

A Conway spokeswoman said the attorney general’s office is reviewing the ruling and will decide whether to appeal.

Posted by: Jay | August 26, 2009 4:17 PM

Good to hear, little by little progress is made.

Posted by: Eamon Knight | August 26, 2009 4:22 PM

So, is God now going to wax exceeding wroth and smite the state capitol? And if so, will be perhaps miss and instead take out a certain building in Petersburg? You know what lousy aim the old guy has....

Posted by: Alyson Miers | August 26, 2009 4:23 PM

Kentucky: Good judge, dumbassed Attorney General. You say "secular society" like it's a bad thing.

Posted by: amphiox | August 26, 2009 4:26 PM

"So, is God now going to wax exceeding wroth and smite the state capitol?"

Wouldn't that make god a little bit like the mafia?

"Ask for our protection - or else"

Posted by: Denise | August 26, 2009 4:27 PM

known and 400 MILES... sorry, I am all wound up now.

Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | August 26, 2009 4:31 PM

(fake) Shaun #12:

Our state is going to the dogs

Posted by: eli | August 26, 2009 4:32 PM

@ #12 Our Constitution is quite clear on these matters, if you want a theocratic society they're out there, go join one...

If you don't believe that freedom OF religion must include freedom FROM religion then may I aid you in exercising your right to freedom of bricks in the teeth.

Posted by: Chayanov | August 26, 2009 4:41 PM

Homeland Security officials have been required for three years to credit “Almighty God” in their official reports...

Are you kidding me? Official reports had to acknowledge that "Almighty God" had kept the state safe from whatever? That is seriously messed up.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 26, 2009 4:43 PM

Larry @ 21;

I had a look at comment no. 9 from this Dave Bernell fellow who said;

"Atheist scum bags need to shut up! This is our country not theirs! One day the believers of this great land will put the fear of God back in them mark my words! Their time is at hand! Hallelujah!

They think they can just trample this country into the ground and commit all manor of immorality. Well they can’t God will judge them, and they will burn!"

After I had stopped laughing myself sick, I started to ruminated on the grand question inherent in any such post. So what does everyone think? A Fundie, or a Poe? Does the distinction even matter?

Of course, if this is a Christian hardliner the difference is obvious. A true Xian would threaten us all with hellfire in the spirit of Christian love.

Anyone feeling the love yet?

Posted by: Ms. Crazy Pants | August 26, 2009 4:44 PM

, 'cos I can insult him & not get a peep back from the wimp.

I think psychiatric testing should be required for owning a gun. I would be very highly for killers getting their hands cut off as a way of preventing them from killing again. It's really hard to shoot a gun with your feet. Annnndddd, they could still be productive members of society by working as AOL tech support.

Posted by: CriticalAtheist | August 26, 2009 4:46 PM

How long before the next tornado in Kentucky? Because I'm sure there will be more than a few people attributing it to this. Call me when Kentucky's skies are burning and towns are torn apart by earthquakes.

Posted by: Richard Harris | August 26, 2009 4:49 PM

Gyeong, that sure brought tears to my eyes. I guess it did the same to Isaac. And how'd Abraham get away with performing genital mutilation? I bet Sarah gave him shit, especially him being one hundred years old. And the bit about her laughing, (if I indulge in some literary criticism), is so fucking wrong, you couldn't trust anything in that fucking bible book.

Posted by: ObSciGuy | August 26, 2009 4:57 PM

It should be illegal to knowingly legislate illegal laws...

Posted by: truebutnotuseful | August 26, 2009 5:00 PM

@ Olowkow (#34):

That poll has almost 16,000,000 votes, and is older than God Himself. I think that one is a lost cause.

Posted by: Trug | August 26, 2009 5:02 PM

@ 34:

That poll appears to be closed, and unless over 10 million people actually responded to it, I think it was pretty well fucked long ago.

Posted by: wasd | August 26, 2009 5:06 PM

Its disturbing how casually people treat the constitution and the principles
It codifies. It's never pleasant to see those who speak most of the sacrifices made by American soldiers turn around and squander that what these brave soldiers fough for, paid a price for and won before. In fact ever since the declaration of indepandance...

... But seriously WTF?? shouldn't these things be scrapped because they are irrational long before someone has even thinks of asking whether it's constitutional? I mean everyone one the ballot loves jebus and all but this is about security which some might considder importand.

Dear lord bless this meal and by the way could you make sure that if there are any terrorists with designs on a chemical plant in town that they show up at the local jail preferably in handcuffs? Amen.

I mean letting your own daughter die of diabetes because it's gods will is about the worst thing I can think of but promissong to put everyone at risk in a fundy vs fundy game of prayer chicken is even worse.

Posted by: reason be | August 26, 2009 5:14 PM

Bog-mindling. Simply.

Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 26, 2009 5:21 PM

Gyeong, that sure brought tears to my eyes. I guess it did the same to Isaac.
Fortunately, my pa spared me that. But imagine a convert. They, as an adult, would have to get it removed. In Genesis 34:14-16 the demand it for all men who marry into a Jewish family. Now for a baby the member of it would be gone. But for an adult, that pain would linger and hurt like none other. But apparently you can't be in favor with God in either Judaism or Islam unless you fix your penis. I wonder if God himself looks for a "good" peni?. Sounds Voyeuristic, perhaps it's his fetish.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 26, 2009 5:26 PM

Wasd @ 41;

"fundy vs fundy game of prayer chicken."

I just want to say that I love that phrase, more than is probably healthy or moral.

Posted by: flynn | August 26, 2009 5:39 PM

Well, the guy who put god in the law is from Louisville, which got hit by a big flood a couple of weeks ago...god telling them to repeal it, right? Of course, that flood did a great deal of damage at the public library, and we all know about them libraries.

Posted by: bunnycatch3r | August 26, 2009 5:40 PM

I wouldn't want to live in Kentucky when Almighty Gawd launches a tornado to some random location within the state.

Posted by: MK | August 26, 2009 5:49 PM

Will the chicken be still as good?

Posted by: chrisD | August 26, 2009 5:56 PM

Posted by: brad | August 26, 2009 5:04 PM

Funny it's unconstitutional when the preamble to every states constitution contains mention of God or a Creator. But go figure.

Also, you should look more into this and see what deal is:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16924

Funny? The law on the books were REQUIRING people to assuage the dutiful ever-diligent baby-saving amputee-healing bastard in the sky by ACKNOWLEDGING it's role in securing our country. Let the Constitution mention all the fucking gods it wants to so long as it doesn't force me to acknowledge the same.

Posted by: JPS, FCD | August 26, 2009 6:11 PM

I think Conway might qualify for a pass on this. It's part of his job description to argue for the state in cases like this.

As for consequences here in my central Kentucky county -- we got our hellacious ice storm back in Jan. and our tornado in May.

And if y'all want to boycott Kentucky bourbon because of what Conway said, by all means do it. Then there will be that much more for us.

-- JPS

Posted by: Chris A | August 26, 2009 6:19 PM

MK@53:
As good? Ok, I will accept that KFC is not a bad thing, especially for fast food, but if you want really good fried chicken, well, you have to do it yourself. If you want a recipe that will make you never miss KFC again, you just let me know. Hell, if you are around Boston, I will make it for you :)

Sir MAJeff, OM@46:
Fortunately, whiskey is self cleansing, especially if you get full cask strength.

Posted by: dutchdoc | August 26, 2009 6:46 PM

#58:

A Southern Baptist Minister that's a Democrat!?!

Maybe he checked the wrong checkbox.. didn't quite understand the question?
Could happen!

Posted by: Rumpleforeskin | August 26, 2009 7:01 PM

I suppose that some jugheaded leftist marxist brought about this anomaly? Oh well, I suppose when they need a church to go to when a natural disaster strikes, it'll be too bad. Kentucky just shunned them all.

Anyway, this was another example of Christian principles being installed into America's heritage that leftist marxists say doesn't exist.

The far left kook and frauds and communists and socialits and America haters are doing everything in their power to tear down over 200 years of heritage in order to build up a communist style sodomite utopia that enslaves humanity to a rule of dicatortial governmental tyranny. May you all rot in hell, you buzzard faced terdlickers.

Go lick a terd and leave America's heritage alone you freaks of nature. Leftist marxists are a threat to society. We got rid of one marxist communist - Ted "the terdface" Kennnedy is finally dead. That's one down, now, fifty trillion more to go. Now if we could just get rid of the rest of them and make America strong and soveriegn again.

Terdlicker marxist communists can politley lick my saggy stinky unwashed asshole as a oozing three day old terd slides it way out.

Communists are evil and should be dead. The very idea of communism and socialism should be abolished entirely.

Fidel castro endorsed Mighty King Obama's anti-healthcare plan today. Any time a fascist leftist communist terdlicker like castro endorses someone, it can only mean trouble. Why didn;t the CIA try again to kill that asshole back in the 60s. If at first you don't succeed, try again. The world would be better off if the CIA would have killed that bastard then. maybe his left wing influence would not have made it to these shores and influence so many minds here.

Oh well, in due time that goober licker will expire too. Maybe he'll do so on the toilet with severe asshole pains and get his shit on his long scraggly darwin like beard and die that way. FiDel castro has to go! His influence is too dangerous for America and freedom. Those who endorse his way of thinking should go as well. There is no room in America for far left fascist communists. May they all have shit smeared on their face at their time of death.

Posted by: Joffan | August 26, 2009 7:06 PM

There's an MSNBC poll linked from the first comment at present: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10103521/

Should the motto "In God We Trust" be removed from U.S. currency? * 15982621 responses Yes. It's a violation of the principle of separation of church and state. 12% No. The motto has historical and patriotic significance and does nothing to establish a state religion. 88%

16 million responses!!? Literally incredible.

Posted by: felixthecat | August 26, 2009 7:09 PM

@Rumpleforeskin: you could be good at this sort of thing, but, alas, the above was total overkill, mate. Better luck next time! Yuk, yuk, nyuk!

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 26, 2009 7:10 PM

16 million responses!!? Literally incredible.

Posted by: Joffan | August 26, 2009 7:21 PM

OK Nerd. I hadn't seen that poll before but I admit I thought it must have come up here sometime... I was just staggered by the vote levels, which as I implied is not credible.

Posted by: Bevo/devo | August 26, 2009 7:28 PM

@55
LMFAO "Goober licker"?! You just made my day!

Posted by: Holydust | August 26, 2009 7:31 PM

Guardian of the Poll:

nobody takes checks anymore anyway, douche.

Do you realize you're literally whining about how you will shove a silly saying in our faces purposely to make us itch? How Christian of you. Fuckhead.

Posted by: Islander | August 26, 2009 7:35 PM

@ Guardian 72:
"I am glad to hear that people still want the motto on the money.

Besides, if if it were taken off of our currency, we conservatives would just write it back on there anyway. Take a personal check? You'll be glad to see that mine will have "In God We Trust printed on it anyway".

And we'd be perfectly content with having a chuckle to ourselves; you miss the point, though. Pay attention, now: the problem is with the GOVERNMENT, not individuals, preaching. By all means enjoy your right to write whatever fantasies you want on your money.

Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | August 26, 2009 7:51 PM

@Rumpleforeskin #63: Sorry, just not "doing it" for me. I think it's because you used the crazy just a bit much. It came off as over-the-top.

Posted by: Rey Fox | August 26, 2009 8:08 PM

"Besides, if if it were taken off of our currency, we conservatives would just write it back on there anyway."

Getting you to waste a few seconds every time you write a check would put a smile on my face. Let's see you chisel it into all your coins too.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 26, 2009 8:32 PM

Yawn, banned trolls are so boring...

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 26, 2009 8:38 PM

I always commit superpower fornication, doesn't everyone?

Posted by: John Bull | August 26, 2009 9:13 PM

"The safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God."

Military Intelligence, Scotland Yard, and the Metropolitan Police might be a little offended that their hard work is trivialised because we don't believe in a magical sky fairy. Though one must wonder how the Kentucky lawmakers thought they could help - their law holds no precedent outside of their State.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Commonwealth

Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 26, 2009 9:23 PM

brad @ 40:

Funny it's unconstitutional when the preamble to every states constitution contains mention of God or a Creator. But go figure.

Uh, brad . . . clauses in a state's constitution can still be held to violate the United States Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.

Funny how such a simple concept can elude people who are apparently otherwise literate, but go figure.

Posted by: Major Kong | August 26, 2009 10:15 PM

I'm not sure why so many people seem to require validation of their faith from the state and federal government.

Posted by: throwaway | August 27, 2009 12:10 AM

How to assess dear Kentucky?
To hail from that state I feel lucky.
In a fit of good sense,
they struck god from defense
and the laws are now slightly less sucky.

Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 27, 2009 2:26 AM

#63
Paranoia much? I mean, you didn't provide a shrapnel of evidence to support your side or belief or why "leftist" should be eradicate. In fact you just sound like a genocidal maniac.

Posted by: Traveler | August 27, 2009 3:26 AM

Why would anyone think that God can protect the entire state of Kentucky when he couldn't even protect this one statute?

Posted by: TheBear | August 27, 2009 4:08 AM

For some reason - I pictured the whole department bowing down in the general direction of Mecca. Perhaps not what the Kentuckians want - but it would be according to the letter of the law....

Posted by: Fil | August 27, 2009 5:51 AM

I just got home and saw this. Can anyone tell me how such a law could get up in the first place? Surely it is immediately obvious that it runs counter to the constitutional separation of church and state. Or are state rights in the US a kind of a fog under which this stuff can mushroom, so to speak?

Posted by: KevinC | August 27, 2009 8:22 AM

I dunno, this sounds like a good opportunity for some horse tradin'. If the right wingnuts really think their magickal incantations to "Almighty God" (Bruce?) can protect the country, we ought to take them at their word.

We'll let them have their incantations. But only if they're willing to show "Almighty God" they really mean it--by joining us in cutting the U.S. "defense" budget in half, eliminating the Department of Homeland Security, repealing the PATRIOT Act, and declaring victory in Iraq and Afghanistan and bringing our troops home. Then we get to spend the money thus saved to pay for health care and convert our country to alternative energy.

So, how 'bout it, right wingnuts? Do you guys really believe in "Almight God," or not?

Yeah yeah, I know, it would be better if the Democrats would grow backbones (or failing that, tentacles and sharp beaks) and curb-stomp the Republicans a few times to do all those things without giving religious nutters official magick spells in return, but we live in an imperfect world.

Besides, watching the right wingnuts assert absolute confidence in "God" while simultaneously shrieking in terror at the thought of cutting fifty cents from the Pentagon's yearly play-money ought to provide some high-quality entertainment.

Posted by: Davey | August 27, 2009 8:41 AM

#74: Between this and the god-as-homeland-security thing, it looks like Kentucky is boldly marching into the 20th century.

So, when the world is coming to an end, will you be moving to Kentucky so it will happen 100 years later? :>)

The duel clause is a legal appendix which once addressed a big problem but now seems silly.

Posted by: KI | August 27, 2009 9:26 AM

I would like to see a boycott of bourbon, only for the simple fact that its increasing popularity is outpacing supply. Prices have increased due to the fact it takes at least eight years from distilling to drinking, and the makers of the best of all distilled spirits didn't anticipate the current upswing in demand. Furthermore, the talk of boycotting scotch because of the Lockerbie bomber's release would lead even more people to bourbon. Evan Williams single barrel has gone from $19 to $22 locally, and Booker's is up to $40 in some stores.

Posted by: Commie Socialite | August 27, 2009 10:15 AM

Damn! I missed the Guradian o' the Pole's post again!

Posted by: alun | August 27, 2009 10:31 AM

@ #63

7/10 for effort

Posted by: Mrs Tilton | August 27, 2009 10:38 AM

Tulse @108,

did you hear that the makers of Lagavulin are homophobic Nazi baby eaters?

Indeed, and just in case any right-wingers happen to be reading this, they are also gay Islamic socialist Kenyan terrorists. Clearly their perfidy is so, umm, perfidious that no mere boycott will suffice. No, those of you who currently have Lagavulin about the house must, for your own safety and that of all that is wholesome and decent, get rid of it at once. Send it to me; I know how to deal with this sort of thing.

Actually, I prefer Springbank myself, but am prepared to make sacrifices for the common good.

Posted by: Tulse | August 27, 2009 11:01 AM

I've never had Springbank, Mrs. T, but by good fortune I am going out this evening to a scotch bar, so I'll take your recommendation to heart.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 27, 2009 11:20 AM

Case Report: Rumpelforeskin

Serious psychiatric issues involving an obsession with feces. Clearly toilet-trained too early, probably using the method traditionally reserved for puppies.
Some risk of violence against people he perceives to be "far-left fascist communist terd[sic]lickers".

Posted by: Dawna K. | August 27, 2009 11:27 AM

The language in the 2006 legislation had been inserted by state Rep. Tom Riner, D-Louisville, a pastor of Christ is King Baptist Church in Louisville.

"They make the argument ... that it has to do with a religion," Riner said, "and promoting a religion. God is not a religion. God is God."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hRgm3AYAMJCUuvKyH-lOyDWNfImQD9AAVVJ00

Huh? I read this last night and laughed myself silly. Thought I would share.

Posted by: brad | August 27, 2009 11:41 AM

Uh, brad . . . clauses in a state's constitution can still be held to violate the United States Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.

Funny how such a simple concept can elude people who are apparently otherwise literate, but go figure.

Uh, Liveliest Crib. . .

Funny how some states had official state religions, even after they ratified the US Constitution.

Funny how up until 1877, the New Hamsphire constitution REQUIRED members of the state legislature to be Protestants.

Funny how the founding fathers really dropped the ball on that. You'd think they would have required them to drop their official state religions, if it were so unconstitutional and all.

The US was founded on the basis of STATES RIGHTS, oh how so far we've drifted from that....The founding fathers would cry if that they saw what kind of Federal government we have now, geez, almost like the monarchy they were trying to get away from.....Heck, the President has more power over us than King George III ever did!

Posted by: JiminKy | August 27, 2009 12:13 PM

Sorry, raven, but brad and his fellow nutjobs will have to find some cult other than Tony Alamo's, or found their own. Alamo just went to prison for molesting a number of his teenage "wives." Yea verily, the Lord works in perverted, disgusting and illegal ways.

Posted by: raven | August 27, 2009 12:31 PM

Alamo just went to prison for molesting a number of his teenage "wives."

Oh gee. Too bad. It's strange how god always wants people to send all their money and cutest teen age girls or boys to the cult leaders. That won't stop them. Alamo is now a martyr being persecuted by those evil heretics.

Yea verily, the Lord works in perverted, disgusting and illegal ways.

Nothing new there. The Old Testament is full of slavery, sex slaves, genocide, and nonstop bizarreness.

Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 27, 2009 12:43 PM

maddogdelta:

Unfortunately, there was that slight disagreement between the federal government and state governments regarding whether federal law or state law is supreme. Just a little dustup between 1861 and 1865. And, unfortunately for Kentucky, the states lost.

True, there was a long-standing disagreement concerning whether states could ignore or nullify federal law, but that actually has nothing to do with what I was noting. Because the question at hand would not concern whether federal or state law was supreme, but whether federal law even proscribed state establishment at all.

Believe it or not, as originally interpreted, the First Amendment (and indeed, all of the Bill of Rights) did not apply to the states. It only limited the actions of the federal government. Period.

In fact, it's still interpreted that way! The only way you can apply measures of the Bill of Rights to the states is to argue that they have been incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment. At the moment, the First Amendment has been deemed incorporated. But many provisions of the Bill of Rights have not!

As for the Civil War, I don't know whether you were disagreeing with me, but I noted pretty clearly that with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, things changed, and now the rights listed in the First Amendment will trump state law. But don't go thinking that everything in the Bill of Rights actually limits the state government's powers. That's not how it works (even if it should be).

Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 27, 2009 1:05 PM

brad:

Funny how some states had official state religions, even after they ratified the US Constitution.

Funny how up until 1877, the New Hamsphire constitution REQUIRED members of the state legislature to be Protestants.

Funny how the founding fathers really dropped the ball on that. You'd think they would have required them to drop their official state religions, if it were so unconstitutional and all.

Oh, there is no question that states had officially established religions even after the Constitution's ratification. They also abridged the freedom of speech and the press. Quite regularly. And a whole bunch of them even had slaves!

Was all of this Constitutional? Arguments could be made that it was not, but under the official interpretation, absolutely it was Constitutional. Slavery was not proscribed, and the Bill of Rights was interpreted not to apply to the states. It only limited the powers of the federal government.

But here's the thing, brad . . . the Constitution has since been amended! States are now officially banned from practicing slavery, as plainly as they were back then from enacting bills of attainder and ex post facto laws. And under the Fourteenth Amendment, they're not allowed to violate people's basic rights either.

The US was founded on the basis of STATES RIGHTS, oh how so far we've drifted from that....

Actually, the U.S. was founded on the self evident precept that all people are created equal, and endowed by our creator with inalienable rights, among them, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But frankly, we haven't lived up to that at all. Theocrats tend to get in the way of the basic pursuit of happiness. They don't believe other people have the right to pursue their own happiness, and even today, that supposedly self evident, inalienable right is not considered a Constitutional right.

And I wouldn't advise talking about that "creator" as the Christian god in the Declaration of Independence. I've got plenty of knowledge on that as well. ;)

The founding fathers would cry if that they saw what kind of Federal government we have now, geez, almost like the monarchy they were trying to get away from.....

The founders were not exactly a monolith. They were a diverse lot with diverse opinions about how the country should work. Many of them passionately opposed the Constitution, fearing the kinds of powers you currently lament. Others would not be so unhappy. Alexander Hamilton would probably celebrate.

Heck, the President has more power over us than King George III ever did!

You know, there I'm not going to argue with you. The powers of the executive have been expanded informally far beyond what they should be. And the Commerce Clause has been perniciously interpreted to grant the federal government all sorts of powers it does not rightfully have, in my opinion.

But the power to prevent the establishment of state religions, and the power to protect the rights of all individuals from state tyranny? Sorry, but the Constitution's text makes it pretty clear that the federal government has that power. And that's as it should be.

Posted by: brad | August 27, 2009 1:24 PM

Hey "Celtic Evolution"...

I was just going Old Testament on you for a sec there, you know "eye for an eye".

I'm the opposite of you, I assume every person I meet warrants my respect, and then when they do something like you guys, they lose it.

But there is nothing against Christian teaching about pointing out the truth. Jesus called the Pharisees "whited sepulchres".

I'm calling you "pathetic wankers".

Have any of you ever kissed a girl? I mean a real one, not a "computer animated" one.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......

Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 27, 2009 1:26 PM

Celtic_Evolution:

. . . the ludicrous argument that the constitution supports state sponsored religion. . . .

Don't get overconfident. More than one Supreme Court Justice is susceptible to the argument, even if you consider it ludicrous. (I think it's flat out wrong, but with the history of the U.S., and its line of jurisprudence, we could very easily be back in those times soon.)

We should be careful to note that the First Amendment, by its own explicit terms, only limits Congress. And Congress is prevented from making any law respecting the establishment of religion. One could easily make the argument that while such text is antiestablishmentarian with respect to the federal government, it is likewise antidisestablishmentarian with respect to the states. Congress may neither establish a federal religion nor proscribe the establishment of a state religion.

Got an argument to get around it?

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 27, 2009 1:31 PM

Have any of you ever kissed a girl? I mean a real one, not a "computer animated" one.

Have you ever kissed a boy, Brad?

Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 27, 2009 1:36 PM

By the way . . . I've kissed a girl. I also happen to be one. :)

I've kissed a guy too. ;)

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 27, 2009 1:43 PM

I was just going Old Testament on you for a sec there, you know "eye for an eye".

Right... by being a hypocritical gobshite. As I said, it was very christian of you. And quite typical.

I'm the opposite of you,

Clearly.

I assume every person I meet warrants my respect

They may warrant it, but they have no right to expect it, nor to demand it... see the difference? No... you're a christian, of course you don't...

But there is nothing against Christian teaching about pointing out the truth.

Pure comedy gold right there.

Have any of you ever kissed a girl? I mean a real one, not a "computer animated" one.

That's stupid. How does one kiss a computer animated girl?

Out of curiosity, which part of your argument do you win by answering "yes" to that question?

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 27, 2009 1:46 PM

Liveliest Crib #133

I agree with everything you said in that post... my point wasn't to support or defend the argument, necessarily... it was to point out that brad intentioanlly coming to a liberal atheist blog and asserting it as matter-of-fact and expecting to receive a pleasant, cordial rebuttal was an exercise in willful self-delusion.

Posted by: brad | August 27, 2009 1:50 PM

Because you don't want your faith challenged. If religion had any decent evidence it could simply present it - but it doesn't. Every other claim requires evidence (you claim you have a new car that gets 200 miles to the gallon? Evidence please.) Religions want a pass on that - since they can't very well say that their beliefs are "above needing evidence," (it sounds stupid) they instead hide being an idea that it is impolite or disrespectful to challenge their delusions.

I have no problem with my faith being challenged, I am firm in it and what some internet kids say isn't going to do a thing to hurt it.

As for evidence, there is plenty of evidence out there, it's just not the kind you want. I mean, how are you going to "prove" a miracle? The answer will always be "inconclusive", because a miracle violates established scientific laws.

And how are you going to prove God exists in a lab? I mean God himself could come down, show himself to you, and you would just write it off as a "hallucination" or "mental illness".

But there IS evidence out there. Like how would you explain my original post, about a woman with Lou Gehrig's disease, goes to a fountain where supposedly the Virgin Mary appeared which is known for healings, and she is healed of an incurable disease?

I'm guessing either "huge Church conspiracy" or "inexplicable coincidence"?

There are thousands of healings like that, not to mention mountains of eye witness testimony concerning miracles. The Vatican is very meticulate about what it considers a "miracle", so there are records of everything, available to researchers.

In additions to these, there are also things prophesised in the Old Testament, especially concerning Israel, that are very similar to real happenings much later.

Posted by: raven | August 27, 2009 1:55 PM

brad the christofascist nutcase troll:

I mean, geez, I don't agree with Islam or Wicca, but I don't feel the need to be so vulgar and disrepectful of their beliefs.

Respect or contempt is earned, not demanded. I'm not vulgar or disrespectful of most other beliefs because unlike the fundie xians, no one is trying to impose them on me. The fundies are busy destroying US xianity by trying to overthrow the US government, set up a theocracy and head on back to the Dark Ages. Polls show the majority of the US population is sick and tired of them.

brad the dumb kook troll:

Have any of you ever kissed a girl? I mean a real one, not a "computer animated" one.

What does that have to do with anything? Brad must be 10 years old and resorting to insults and childish taunts because he ran out of thoughts long ago.

Hey brad. Some of us have pushed babies out of vaginas. Many of us have advanced post bac degrees of one sort or another. When you grow up, you might learn what that is all about. But probably not. Idiot.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 27, 2009 1:59 PM

As for evidence, there is plenty of evidence out there, it's just not the kind you want.

Anecdote + strong assertion + mass delusion =/= evidence. Try again.

And how are you going to prove God exists in a lab?

Great... so by that logic, why don't you believe in leprechauns? Fairies? Elves? Unicorns? Prove that they don't exist in a lab. Or does it just make more sense to assume that without any actual evidence for them, the likelihood of any of them existing is infinitesimally small? Time to learn critical thinking skills, brad.

Posted by: brad | August 27, 2009 2:11 PM

Great... so by that logic, why don't you believe in leprechauns? Fairies? Elves? Unicorns? Prove that they don't exist in a lab. Or does it just make more sense to assume that without any actual evidence for them, the likelihood of any of them existing is infinitesimally small? Time to learn critical thinking skills, brad.

Pretend God exists for a moment. What evidence would satisfy you that he is real?

Posted by: Ben in Texas | August 27, 2009 2:15 PM

Pretend Zeus exists for a moment. What evidence would satisfy you that he is real?

Posted by: brad | August 27, 2009 2:20 PM

I would need to see records that showed that a competent physician had indeed confirmed ALS, complete with medical tests. I'd also need proof that the person who claimed to be cured was actually cured.

Don't you see how unrealistic that logic is? According to that, you woulnd't know if ANYTHING was real or not?

For example, then you obviously don't believe Teddy Kennedy really died of a brain tumor then, right? Because you personally haven't seen the hospital records, the doctors diaganoses, the CAT scans, etc.?

And even if you did, what's to say those doctors aren't lying?

That's a VERY low rate of "miracles".

That doesn't prove anything. It would only need one "miracle" for them to be true.

Posted by: Chiroptera | August 27, 2009 2:22 PM

brad, #149: Pretend God exists for a moment. What evidence would satisfy you that he is real?

Well, personally the same evidence that was presented to Gideon. God appears to me saying, "Here I am; believe in me you loser." Then over successive nights I ask God to perform some minor yet highly specific miracles.

This isn't scientific evidence, just what would convince me, but I think this is what you are really looking for anyway.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 27, 2009 2:25 PM

Take a site like Lourdes. They have 5,000,000+ pilgrims and tourists a year. Fewer than 70 "miracles" have been observed, and none have been something that could not have come about by chance (i.e., nobody has regrown a limb, eye, or otherwise irreparably damaged organ).

To expand on what Epinephrine stated, brad, this sort of "proof" from christians always perplexes me...

Even if we were to accept that these cases were true "miracles"... what does that say about the capriciousness of your god? 5,000,000 visitors a year and he only bothers with 70 of them, total, ever? Seems arbitrary to me. Does god hate the other pilgrims? Were the no worse off, equally worthy believers? And are you saying that your god is the type that will allow an otherwise good person to be struck with a debilitating disease, make her suffer horribly with it for 4 years, and then yank it from her because she found the magic water??? Really? Praying every day and being a good person and good christian weren't enough by themselves? Really? Explain that to me, brad, and don't you dare trot out the "works in mysterious ways" apologetic to me. It's a piss-poor excuse for psychopathic behavior.

Dude seems like an asshole to me. Keep him the fuck away from me.

Posted by: Ben in Texas | August 27, 2009 2:26 PM

"Pretend God exists for a moment."

Now that I think about it, that's a great Freudian slip. Perhaps you should've said "assume" rather than "pretend," although I can't disagree with your choice of words.

Posted by: becca | August 27, 2009 2:33 PM

Pretend God exists for a moment. What evidence would satisfy you that he is real?

I'd be content with a logically consistent theology that didn't depend on a deity acting like a spoiled 3 year old or a psychopath.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | August 27, 2009 2:38 PM

"Don't you see how unrealistic that logic is? According to that, you woulnd't know if ANYTHING was real or not?..."

So basing one's understanding on evidence is more fault-prone than taking for granted the anecdotes of believers. How is anything he listed that difficult to obtain? It's called medical records. They exist. They're kept for a reason. How do you think research is done?

As for a woman going to a supposedly magical fountain and being cured of a disease, your own assertion disproves your point. If the fountain really did as is claimed, why hasn't the entire world lined up for a turn at it? Stories of spontaneous cures are nothing more than stories. Fanciful claims. What's the name of the woman? Where does she live? What was her illness? What records of her treatment are there? How did the illness change over time? What state was she in when the fountain incident occurred? Was her doctor present? What procedure was followed just prior to the "cure" effect? Any number of questions can be asked. We have no proof of absolute cures based on miracles, of repeatable success, of treatments stemming from such incidents.

If a god exists and is indeed committing such acts, it is entirely random and capricious in doing so, because while it cures a woman with an incurable disease, a child is dying at the very same second somewhere else in the world. Would it not be better to raise the child up than the adult who has lived much more of her life? Do you really put that much stock in your arguments?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 27, 2009 2:40 PM

So why are you constantly asking believers for evidence, when you know that such evidence cannot really exist?

Exactly because of that.

Thanks for supporting the atheist position.

Posted by: Chiroptera | August 27, 2009 2:41 PM

brad, #160: So why are you constantly asking believers for evidence, when you know that such evidence cannot really exist?

If you're asking me personally, then I ask for the evidence when the believer claims that she has evidence or when she insists that the evidence is overwhelming. I can't think of any case where someone has simply stated that they believe in God and I responded by asking for their evidence.

Posted by: brad | August 27, 2009 2:47 PM

If the fountain really did as is claimed, why hasn't the entire world lined up for a turn at it?

Because the entire world doesn't believe. But Lourdes is not exactly a ghost town.

Here's some more info if you're interested:

http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2009/08/24/Woman-with-ALS-reports-healing-at-Lourdes/UPI-61891251164127/

http://www.ansa.it/notiziari/engmediaservice/2009-08-25_125366448.html

Here's a news report, unfortunately in Italian though:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUx-Ukux_Tc

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 27, 2009 2:50 PM

blah blah blah... Suffering happens on Earth so people can "earn" their way into Heaven, since the universe is just... blah blah blah I know I know, you don't believe in any of that, but that is my explanation.

First of all, that wasn't an explanation, you faith-addled impotent, it was an apologetic. It doesn't come CLOSE to answering the question.

But to address your apologetic, what does that say about the woman with ALS? Is she now going to hell because god removed her suffering? Why would he do that? Does the poor woman know this? I'm betting she'd gladly take back her ALS if she knew that, don't you? And if that isn't the case and she can have her suffering removed and still get into heaven, then I refer you back to my first question about why the need for capricious removal of suffering?

Are you seeing yet how fucked up all of this is?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 27, 2009 2:59 PM

If the fountain really did as is claimed, why hasn't the entire world lined up for a turn at it?

Because the entire world doesn't believe. But Lourdes is not exactly a ghost town.

Here's some more info if you're interested:

http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2009/08/24/Woman-with-ALS-reports-healing-at-Lourdes/UPI-61891251164127/

http://www.ansa.it/notiziari/engmediaservice/2009-08-25_125366448.html

Here's a news report, unfortunately in Italian though:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUx-Ukux_Tc

Brad is your threshold for what is evidence that weak?

Posted by: bradt | August 27, 2009 3:10 PM

brad, how do you explain miracles done by the Hindu gods? or by Allah? How do you know that *your* version of god is the correct one? what about religions like Taoism that don't really have any god per se?

If there is a universal god, wouldn't you expect that the various religions would have more in common than they do? they can't even agree on the number of gods there are!

There IS a universal God, he has just revealed himself to different cultures in different ways. Hinduism actually only really believes in one God, there are just hundreds of different manifestations of him. But that doesn't make every asepct of every religion true, either.

The most common element to religions is a vague "do unto others" kind of commandment, and that can be explained by biological imperatives, and seems to be a trait common to many mammals. Even bacteria have been known to exhibit a sort of altruism.

Very true, summed up quite nicely by Jesus when he spoke of the 2 greatest Commandments, Love God, and Love thy neighbor.

But the moral codes of the "orthodox" form of nearly every major religion are very similar.

Why should I give your specific theology any more credence than any other?

The only theology I think you should give more credence to is believing in God and attempting to do good on work, and not live for your only selfish desires.

Posted by: becca | August 27, 2009 3:15 PM

The only theology I think you should give more credence to is believing in God and attempting to do good on work, and not live for your only selfish desires.

If I do the last two, why should I do the first one?

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 27, 2009 3:19 PM

There IS a universal God, he has just revealed himself to different cultures in different ways.

Why? What the hell purpose would that possibly serve? Frankly, if that is true, then it is again capricious and psychopathic, because all it has served to do is cause millions to die and suffer at the hands of others who think their god is the correct one. So why would god do this when he could easily avoid all the needless death and suffering by simply "revealing himself" the same way to all people?

Or is the more logical explanation that different cultures have adopted various versions of the same ancient myths to fit their own independantly developed cultural systems, and those have evolved independantly along with their cultures?

Which is more likely, in reality? Your arguments are making your case for god worse, brad, not better. First rule when in hole: stop digging.

Posted by: Sastra | August 27, 2009 3:39 PM

I've a question for Brad regarding the recent miracle at Lourdes:

If the same story had been reported in a paper in India, credited directly to a local healing shrine, would you consider it strong enough evidence to convert to Hinduism?

Or would you be cautious, skeptical, and willing to consider other explanations more likely than concluding that God used this indirect method to get you to abandon your Catholic faith?

Stories about miraculous healings usually either fall apart under examination, don't have enough information, or can plausibly be attributed to our lack of knowledge of how disease works. My sister-in-law's doctors were astonished recently when they discovered that lesions from her MS had simply disappeared -- they're not supposed to do that. However, she hadn't undergone any dramatic religious rituals, and she wasn't taking any forms of 'alternative medicine.' Had either been the case, it would doubtless have been considered irrefutable evidence by their proponents.

Posted by: Tulse | August 27, 2009 3:43 PM

Pretend God exists for a moment. What evidence would satisfy you that he is real?

Galaxies spontaneously spelling out "I'm real, damnit! Signed, God". Finding the Bible (King James Version, of course) encoded in the junk DNA of our genes. All the birds on the planet simultaneously singing "Onward Christian Soldiers". Natalie Portman agreeing to have sex with me.

See, there is plenty of evidence that an omnipotent being could provide that would indicate his/her/their/its existence in a manner that would convince me. And it seems indicative of how limited your imagination is that you can't come up with these kind of events yourself. After all, the Bible is chock full of extremely showy miracles (seas parted, suns danced, cities smited, firstborn slain, fishes multiplied, dead raised).

Huh, come to think of it, isn't it odd that God has become so shy all of a sudden?

Posted by: Leon | August 27, 2009 3:46 PM

...striking down such laws risked creating a secular society that is wholly separated from religion.

Wow, some people just don't get it, do they?

As Roy Zimmerman observed, sometimes satire just writes itself.

Posted by: becca | August 27, 2009 3:58 PM

There IS a universal God, he has just revealed himself to different cultures in different ways.

Why would he do that? (and why "he"?) why send only one savior, and have other religions not believing in the need for one? Why wouldn't god be more consistent in message and requested rituals?

wouldn't it make more sense to try to find this universal god than worry about all the small slices of god that the different religions worshop?

parsimony says that there probably isn't an interventionist god, and the more vague deist god doesn't seem to be necessary to understanding the workings of the universe, such as we currently know it.

I guess that just makes me an intellectual cheapskate.

Posted by: Epinephrine | August 27, 2009 4:08 PM

Tulse @183 wrote:

Huh, come to think of it, isn't it odd that God has become so shy all of a sudden?

My gripe would be that he's always been colossally ineffective.

1) Create people! Botches it, they're sinful, kicks them out of garden.

That's 0 for 1. Why not make them right the first time? Or fix the sinning? Or revoke their knowledge?

2) The world is full of sin. Solution? Makes it rain a lot.

That's 0 for 2. I note that this failed to fix the problem, it just made the earth wetter. His hand-picked survivors end up just as sinful as ever.

3) People are still sinful. Solution? Knock up a jewish broad (chastely though, let's not get crude), appear on earth as the son of god, and make up for everyone's sins by sacrificing himself to himself.

Umm, I don't know where he's coming from with this, but 0 for 3. A) he appeared to a minute fraction of the world, B) he didn't really provide any evidence of his divinity in any lasting way, C) what the hell is that supposed to prove? It's not exactly a sacrifice to go back to being a god. And if forgiving people were all that was needed, why the elaborate sacrificing yourself crap? And if sin is really that big an issue, why not fix it? Why show yourself to a small number of people and assume they'll pass the word along. Has he never watched people play "broken telephone"?

He can't seriously think that humans are competent enough to pass along divine wisdom when people sitting in the same room whispering in one another's ears can mangle a single sentence as badly as they do.

Posted by: Tulse | August 27, 2009 4:25 PM

There IS a universal God, he has just revealed himself to different cultures in different ways.

Curiously, some of those revelations involve killing those with different revelations. Kinda weird if all those revelations come from the same God. Perhaps He wasn't clear enough...

Posted by: Tulse | August 27, 2009 4:53 PM

Defendant, you have been found guilty of mass murder. Thankfully, though, your friend has agreed to be whipped as punishment for your crimes. If you're contrite, and you believe your friend will be whipped for your crimes, you're free to go.

Keep in mind that the friend is the judge's son -- what kind of sick bastard thinks it's appropriate to torture their own son?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 27, 2009 5:01 PM

"Seek and you shall find."

Posted by: Tulse | August 27, 2009 5:22 PM

If any of those things happened, yes some would believe, but there would still be those attributing it to "mass hysteria", (which is basically what is used when scientists/psychologists don't have an answer, and refuse to believe in a higher power) or simply "amazing coincidences", since those things wouldn't actually "prove" anything, just be strange occurences.

In a word, bullshit. If we had irrefutable objective evidence that galaxies indeed realigned themselves to spell out an English-language message, that would require so many violations of our current understanding of the universe as to demand an extraordinary explanation like God.

In any case, as you point out, even if you're right, some would believe, so why wouldn't your god do that? Doesn't he/she/they/it want to be believed in? Seriously, brad's god, I would believe if Natalie Portman propositioned me -- don't you want me to worship you? (I figure this is a win-win argument as far as I'm concerned.)

The Miracle of the Sun at Fatima was widely reported, but simply attributed to "mass hysteria".

So you believe the Sun literally moved?! Perhaps it was attributed to "mass hysteria" because if it actually happened it would have put the solar system into chaos, and likely destroyed the earth or at least made it uninhabitable.

Thousands of Christians, Muslims and Jews(including the president of Egypt) saw Mary above a Coptic Church in Zeitoun, Egypt in the late 1960's.

And thousands of Hindus, Zoroastrians, and Aztecs experienced "miracles" as well. Were these all by the same god (reminding you that, for example, the Aztec god demanded human sacrifice)?

Just because you haven't personally experienced it, doesn't mean its not happening.

Do you feel the same way about unicorns and leprechauns?

Posted by: pdferguson | August 27, 2009 6:15 PM

However, I don't think most of you care to know the answers, you just ask them in attempt to try to disprove me.

You don't have "answers", you have a warm childhood cocoon of superstition and magical thinking. From what you've written, you are clearly still under the thrall of religion, your woo-laden post about supposed miracles shows that.

It is not our job to disprove your beliefs (there are plenty of resources for that), but we will try to open your eyes to the foolishness of religion--and more. Besides being a waste of time, religion can be downright harmful. Regardless of what you think of Karl Marx, he got it right when he said religion is the opium of the masses.

We see no reason to worship mythical Bronze Age superheros any more than we would worship Superman or Wonder Woman (okay, so maybe I did worship Wonder Woman when I was fifteen...) We don't bring fables and fantasy into our homes because the world around us is amazing enough all on its own. We're not born again because we have no desire to return to infancy. And neither should you. It really is that simple.

Posted by: Sue | August 27, 2009 7:02 PM

brad #194 wrote:

If you are really interested in the answers, there are plenty of sites online that will answer them for you. However, I don't think most of you care to know the answers, you just ask them in attempt to try to disprove me.

As JiminKY said, this is debate, and its perfectly respectable on a science blog forum. We'd behave the same if you came in claiming that the earth is only 6,000 years old, or that vitamin C cures cancer, or that there was no holocaust. Both sides have to be open to persuasion. And both sides then take a risk.

If you take your views seriously, you would be trying to disprove your own views. They would be falsifiable.

"Seek and you shall find."

That's subjective confirmation. You find what you expect (hope, need, desire) to find. You disparage that when others do it (or you think they do it) -- but then use it as a guiding principle of faith.

Posted by: Concerned Right Winger | August 27, 2009 7:30 PM

Any human who quotes or agrees with Karl marx should definitely be considered a threat to national security. marxism should be banned in America and be punishable with the charge of treason. Stalin, marx, etc. were all sick twisted perverted evil men and we can all be assured they have a very special place reserved just for them in the bowels of Hell. They got what they deserved and are still paying for it in Hell. The only way to deal with a Marxist is to bash his head in with a club. Otherwise he will only corrupt more minds and lead a nation astray. Look at us for example. Marxists everywhere. McCarthy was definitely right!

-----------------------

Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state." - Communist goal #28

The rest of the communist goals:
http://upssa.com/1963-congress.htm

Posted by: Chiroptera | August 27, 2009 7:45 PM

Concerned Right Winger, #203:

Be careful. You're gonna hurt yourself with all that deep thinkin'.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | August 27, 2009 7:51 PM

To CRW: Leave you imbecilic, pedantic, brainwashed nihilist troll. Minds like yours are a threat to humanity.

Posted by: Concerned Right Winger | August 27, 2009 8:09 PM

MaJeff:

Sounds like you are leaning toward communist goal #39 - Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

Blue independent:

Sounds like you need a pineapple up yours.

-------------------------

Some CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS

Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.

Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

Do away with all loyalty oaths.

Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

Gain control of all student newspapers.

Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."

Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."

Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture.& Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.

Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

Internationalize the Panama Canal.

Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.

------------

Any of these communist goals sound like the Democrat party, Move On.org, George Soros, ACLU, etc?

Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 27, 2009 8:14 PM

#208 #209
Banded troll double posting, accusing people of being a "commie," and defending a poisonous tradition. What a surprise.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 27, 2009 8:31 PM

Yawn, idjit trolls who post tl;dr. Makes their post a failure for them if nobody reads their idjit screeds. Put your tin foil hat back on and go hid in your basement. The black helicopters are heading your way...

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 27, 2009 8:44 PM

Anne, your delusions are making you say stupid things again.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | August 27, 2009 8:57 PM

The stupid is strong in this one.

Posted by: Sastra | August 27, 2009 9:04 PM

I wonder if these are standard John Birch talking points, or if Concerned Right Winger has gone off on his own.

Well, he's starting to get us sorta concerned, too. Though not for the same reasons.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 27, 2009 9:09 PM

I wonder if these are standard John Birch talking points, or if Concerned Right Winger has gone off on his own.

You know, it's been a long time since I've heard anyone seriously quote the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Maybe Anne will bless us. I bet The Pink Swastika makes an appearance, too.

Posted by: Chiroptera | August 27, 2009 9:15 PM

Sastra, #219: I wonder if these are standard John Birch talking points, or if Concerned Right Winger has gone off on his own.

He's quoting from the site to which he linked in comment #203.

Posted by: Chiroptera | August 27, 2009 9:20 PM

Concerned Right Winger, #214: I cannot take my meds. Obamacare / socialismcare wants me dead, so they will not give me any more meds.

Okay, I'm going to assume you're not a Poe and respond to this.

You do realize that "Obamacare" hasn't passed Congress yet, right? Your problems are with a medical system that the right wing claims is perfectly fine and doesn't need to be changed.

Do you know what "irony" means?

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | August 27, 2009 9:22 PM

Dear Concerned Right Winger,

I too am a concerned right winger, and right now I am concerned that your concern is excessive to the point that it is concerning a number of concerned citizens of both the left and right wings. I fear that your brain is not currently a going concern, and that rather than being in the right wing (or even the left wing for that matter) your true station is in the loony wing amongst like-minded mindless people about whom the state is concerned.

There is no need to be concerned about this. All that is proposed is a nice tidy room with soft walls and no sharp corners where you can plan out your acts of homicide and roll around in your scatological thoughts with the maximum of unconcern.

Yours from the Sane wing

Smoggy

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 27, 2009 9:31 PM

Shame on you Smoggy. You should be praying for him. Although he might enjoy a nice pineapple in his fruit basket.

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | August 27, 2009 9:42 PM

Dear Sister Patricia,

I have prayed for him, although in my haste I mistakenly prayed for a pineapple up his back passage. I imagine it will get to his fruit basket eventually.

Smoggy

Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 27, 2009 10:12 PM

Okay, I realize that Concerned Right Troll is either a bored agitator or certifiably insane, and should be ignored, but just for fun . . . . .

Some CURRENT AUTHORITARIAN THEOCRATIC GOALS

• Develop the illusion that constant and perpetual warfare by the United States against Muslim countries fosters national security.

• Extol the virtues of free trade among all nations regardless of the effects on U.S. citizens.

• Refuse American aid even to disaster-struck American cities.

• Promote the U.N. as the only means for other countries to take action, but undermine it if it impedes American imperialism.

• Resist any attempt to outlaw the integration of church and state.

• Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

• Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate the civil rights of Christians.

• Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for religion and Christian propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the theocratic, anti-evolution line in textbooks.

• Eliminate all student newspapers.

• Use riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are intended to promote the general welfare of the United States. (Convince the rioters that programs that would help them will actually harm them, and take away freedoms they don't actually have anyway.)

• Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

• Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures. (FUX News, Limbaugh, Beck, O'Really? mark a good start.)

• Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression as obscene or blasphemous.

• Expand all laws governing obscenity by calling them "national security measures."

• Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting distortions of science and opposing political views in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

• Present homosexuality and promiscuity as a greater threat to nsociety than nuclear and biological weapons.

• Infiltrate public institutions and replace natural rights with religion. Discredit science and the Constitution and emphasize the need for a "religious crutch."

• Promote mandatory prayer and religious expression in the schools on the ground that lack of such mandates violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

• Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to American national security.

• Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as devout Evangelicals who had no concern for "liberty" outside the Christian context.

• Belittle all forms of culture not congruent with 1950s-style Christianity and segregation, and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it is revisionist to say that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" have any value outside Christianity.

• Support any authoritarian movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

• Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of preachers in the military.

• Fortify the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

• Discredit and eventually dismantle the Bill of Rights.

• Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

• Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

• Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to military. Treat all behavioral problems as demonic possessions which no one but priests and theologians can understand [or treat].

• Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Christianity.

• Extol the family as an institution. Encourage female subordination and corporal punishment in accordance with the Bible.

• Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of science. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to the glory of god.

• Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems. (Heh, I didn't even have to rewrite that one!

• Subordinate all colonial governments lest native populations become ready for self-government.

• Prevent the world court from ever having jurisdiction over American war criminals.

-----

Say, that was pretty easy. Not even much editing to do. :)

Posted by: Ben in Texas | August 27, 2009 10:18 PM

Dude started out wacky and got even wackier. Impressive.

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 27, 2009 10:24 PM

Nazis were a socialist labor union - much like the backbone of the democratic party. The dems love socialist labor unions.

Fucking bull fucking shit. The Nazis banned labor union when they took power. But this is hardly surprising, reality is shrouded from you. Engage killfile. Reading a historical bullshit is a waste of time.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 27, 2009 10:29 PM

Cue Twilight Zone theme music for every time CRW posts. Is he just a morph of an already banned troll?

Posted by: Chiroptera | August 27, 2009 10:32 PM

Concerned Right Winger, #234:

Okay, that was slightly less nutty than the "I have cancer, and I'm going to shoot anyone who doesn't give me St. John's Wort" thing that you had going. Are the meds starting to take effect?

Posted by: CONCERNED RIGHT WINGER | August 27, 2009 11:00 PM

Some CURRENT AUTHORITARIAN THEOCRATIC GOALS -corrected for the liberals and whiners of religion..............

• Develop the illusion that constant and perpetual warfare by the United States against Muslim countries fosters national security. THEY STARTED IT, WE SAY WHEN IT ENDS!

• Extol the virtues of free trade among all nations regardless of the effects on U.S. citizens. NO COMMENT, YOU MAY BE CORRECT

• Refuse American aid even to disaster-struck American cities. DISASTER STRUCK AMERICAN CITIES WERE WARNED 24 HOURS PRIOR OT THE EVENT. LIVING IN A SHITHOLE SOMODITE SWAMP IS NO EXCUSE. THEY SHOULD HAVE USED THE AVAILABLE SCHOOL BUSES. ONE MORE EXAMPLE OF DEPENDENCY UPON GOVERNMENT RATHER THAN SELF RELIANCE AND COMMON SENSE.

• Promote the U.N. as the only means for other countries to take action, but undermine it if it impedes American imperialism. SCREW THE UN. WHERE WERE THEY ON 9/11 AND WHEN SADDAM BROKE 17 UN RESOLUTIONS? WE SHOULD PULL OUT NOW!

• Resist any attempt to outlaw the integration of church and state. NO SUCH THING. THIS CLAUSE WAS TO PROTECT THE CHURCH FROM THE STATE'S ABUSIVE POWERS.

• Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States. CAPTURED NEITHER ONE. BOTH PARTIES SEEMS TO HAVE A FETISH FOR DESTROYING CHRISTIAN HERITAGE.

• Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate the civil rights of Christians. MOST OF THE TIME THEY DO. ACTIVIST JUDGES SHOULD READ HISTORY BOOKS PERTAINING TO AMERICA AND NOT EUROPE WHEN MAKING DECISIONS.

• Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for religion and Christian propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the theocratic, anti-evolution line in textbooks. SCHOOLS USED TO USE THE BIBLE FOR READING LITERATURE. LATER LIBERALS AND COMMUNISTS WERE INTENT ON REMOVE THE FABRIC OF SOCIETY FROM SCHOOL (GOD) IN ORDER TO BRAINWASH YOUTH TO BE FUTURE USEFUL IDIOTS FOR THE CAUSE OF SOCIALISM AND "TOLERANCE" FOR OTHERS. TEACHERS ASSOCIATIONS ARE CLEARLY LEFTIST SOCIALISTS AND SHOULD BE BANISHED FROM TEACHING.

• Eliminate all student newspapers. STUDENT NEWSPAPERS ARE OKAY AS LONG AS THE UNIVERSITY DOESN'T CENSOR CONSERVATIVE OPINIONS AS SO MANY DO. WE ALL KNOW THAT ONLY LEFTISTS ARE ALLOWED TO SPEAK AND BE HEARD ON CAMPUS.
• Use riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are intended to promote the general welfare of the United States. (Convince the rioters that programs that would help them will actually harm them, and take away freedoms they don't actually have anyway.)HA! RIOTS? I SUPPOSE THOSE AT THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION WERE NOT VIOLENT LEFTISTS MARXIST RIOTS? EVEN ONE OF THE JUGHEADED REBEL FARTKNOCKERS ESCAPED AND ACTUALLY GOT INTO THE CONVENTION. THEY SHOULD HAVE MAULED HIM. THEY HAD HIM SURROUNDED. CODE PINK WAS IT? A GROUP OF RADICAL HATEMONGERING FASCIST FEMINIST MILTANTS THEY ARE. MAYBE WE SHOULD SEND THEM TO BAKE SOME COOKIES AND TAKE LOAD OFF THEIR MINDS. WAIT, NOW I'M HUNGRY FOR COOKIES. DAMMIT!

• Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions. LIBERALS DONE THAT DECADES AGO. EVER HEAR OF THE NEW YORK TIMES?

• Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures. (FUX News, Limbaugh, Beck, O'Really? mark a good start.) CHRIS MATTHEWS, ETC. HEY DIDN'T DAN RATHER GET CANNED FOR TELLING LEFTISTS PROPGANDA LIES ABOUT OUR PRESIDENT? SO MUCH FOR CONSERVATIVE TAKE OVER OF TELEVISION. WE ONLY HAVE FOX NEWS. LIBERLAS HAVE ALLLLLLL OTHER NETWORKS, MOST NEWSPAPERS, EDITORIALS, COLUMNS, MAGAZINES, ETC. WHO HAS THE MONOPOLY?

• Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression as obscene or blasphemous. SOME ARE OBSCENE AND PATHETIC. REMEMBER PISS CHRIST? THE SO CALLED "ARTIST" SHOULD HAVE BEEN PISSED ON HIMSLEF. I SUPPOSE WE COULD CALL THAT ART. MAYBE I'LL SHIT ON DARWIN'S BEARD AND CALL IT ART AND HANG IT IN THE SMITHSONIAN.

• Expand all laws governing obscenity by calling them "national security measures." NATIONAL SECURITY MEASURES INCLUDES KEEPING US SAFE AT ALL COSTS AND GETTING RID OF THE ISLAMIC THUGS WHO ENDAGER FREEDOM BY ANY MEANS IT MAY TAKE.

• Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting distortions of science and opposing political views in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. WHO DOEN THAT? THE LIBERALS OF COURSE! SICENCE HAS BECOME A DARWIN FETISH, RADIO A BASTION OF ATHEISTS, WHOREMONGERS, AND DESTITUTES, AND TV HAS BECOME A SODOMITE EMPIRE. MAGAIZINES SHOW WHORES AND SLUTS AND PROMOTE EVIL AS GOOD AND GOOD AS EVIL. BACKWARDS THE WORLD HAS BECOME.

• Present homosexuality and promiscuity as a greater threat to nsociety than nuclear and biological weapons. HOMOSEXUALITY IS DANGEROUS TO MARRIAGE, AND POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS TO ALL OF US. YOU'LL CHANGE YOUR MIND WHEN FABIO GIVES YOU AIDS AT YOUR NEXT SODOMITE CONVETION.

• Infiltrate public institutions and replace natural rights with religion. Discredit science and the Constitution and emphasize the need for a "religious crutch." RELIION WAS ALREADY THERE BEFORE LEFTISTS FASCISTS CAME ON THE SCENE IN THE 1920S AND 1930S AMERICA.

• Promote mandatory prayer and religious expression in the schools on the ground that lack of such mandates violates the principle of "separation of church and state." PRAYER HAS NEVER BEEN MANDATORY. DARWINISM HASN'T EITHER LET'S KEEP IT THAT WAY. SEPERAION OF CHURCH AND STATE IS A HOAX BY MARXISTS TO GET GOD OUT OF CULTURE TO BE ABLE TO CONTROL IT MORE EFFECTIVELY.

• Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to American national security. THE CONSTITUTION IS VIRTUALLY WRITTEN IN STONE. THE FACT THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT EXISTS TO PROTECT CITIZENS FROM THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT BUGS THE HELL OUT OF YOU AND THERE'S NOT A DAMNED THING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. THAT IS A STATES RIGHTS AND A INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ISSUE. THE FEDS HAVE NO JUSRIDICTION OR SAY SO IN THE MATTER, SO HA HA!

• Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as devout Evangelicals who had no concern for "liberty" outside the Christian context. MOST WERE EVANGELICALS, BUTOF DIFFERENT DENOMINATIONS. ONCE AGIAN, THIS A A MARXIST PLOY TO TAKE GOD AND GODLY CULTURE AWAY FROM SOCIETY TO BE ABLE TO IMPOSE SOCIALISM ON IT MORE EFFECTIVELY. IT HAS BEEN HAPPENING FOR A LONG ANOW THE WINDOWS ARE OPEN. GUESS WHAT I'LL SHUT TEJM FOR YOU!

• Belittle all forms of culture not congruent with 1950s-style Christianity and segregation, and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it is revisionist to say that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" have any value outside Christianity. WE LOVER AMERICAN HISTORY, JUST NOT MARXIST REVISED AMERICAN HISTORY. THE 1950S WERE GREAT. PEOPLE WERE MORE FREE THEN THAN NOW. wHAT ABOUT BLACKS YOU SAY? WELL, THEY ARE STILL SLAVES NOW. THEY ARE SLAVES TO GOVERNMENT WHO BOUGHT THEIR VOTES IN RETURN FOR WELFARE, FOOD STAMPS, AND A FREE HOUSE. SOME LIKE ALAN KEYES, MICHEAL STEELE AND MANY OTHER HAVE AWAKENED TO THE TRUE OF THE WICKED LEFT WING PARTY AND HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT. FOR DOING SO, THEY ARE CRUCIFIED BY THE VERY PEOPLE WHO CALLS US RACSISTS.I SUPPOSE RACISM DOES NOT COVER TURNING YOUR BACK ON BLACK PEOPLE WHEN THEY LEANR TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES AND NOT LET THE GOVERNMENT ENSLAVE THEM IN RETIRN FOR VOTES. NOW THAT'S REAL RACISM.

• Support any authoritarian movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc. ABSOLUTELY NOT. WE ABSOLUTELY WANT TO KILL ANY KIND OF SOCIALIZED ANYTHING - ESPECIALLY HEALTHCARE AND EDUCATION.

• Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of preachers in the military. PREACHER HAVE BEEN PREACHING IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST LONG BEOFRE THE ACLU EVER CAME ALONG AND LONG BEFORE THE MARXIST LEFT EVER WAS CREATED. GET OVER IT.

• Fortify the House Committee on Un-American Activities. DAMNED STRAIGHT!

• Discredit and eventually dismantle the Bill of Rights. WHAT? I THOUGHT THAT WAS WHAT SOCIALISM WAS ALL ABOUT. ITHOUGHT OBAMA WAS DOING A REAL GOOD JOB OF DOING THAT.

• Infiltrate and gain control of more unions. WE DON;T WANT ANY UNIONS. THEY COST US MORE MONEY AND INTERFERE WITH DAY TO DAY BUSINESS. BESIDES AFTER THE DEFEAT OF THE NATIONALIST SOCILAIST UNION WHO IS BRAVE ENOUGH TO JOIN SOMETHING WITH THE NAME UNION IN IT?

• Infiltrate and gain control of big business. BLAH BLAH BLAH. IF IT WERE NOT FOR BIG BUSINESS, YOU WOULD NOT BE ON THIS WEBSITE. MICROSOFT IS A BIG BUSINESS. IDIOTS.

• Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to military. Treat all behavioral problems as demonic possessions which no one but priests and theologians can understand [or treat]. WELL, THAT'S A START.MILITARY HAS JUSISDICTION OF THUGS CAPTURED INA WAR ZONE. POLICE ARE DOMESTIC FORCE ONLY. GO TO SCHOOL AND LEARN SOMETHING. DID YOU WAN TO SEND THE LAPD TO ARREST SADDAM? GOOD LUCK! MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE SENT THE NEW YORK POLICE TO ARREST BIN LADEN AND HIS THUG COMPANIONS. IT TAKES MILITARY TO FIGHT A WAR. AGAIN - IDIOTS!

• Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Christianity. WHAT? THE LAST TIME I CHECK THIS PROFESSION WAS PRO HOMO AND ANTICHRISTIAN FOR UNKNOWN REASONS. MAYBE FREUD'S PERSONALITY STRETCHED SPHINCTER COMPLEX HAS THE INDUSTRY CONFUSED OR SOMETHING.

• Extol the family as an institution. Encourage female subordination and corporal punishment in accordance with the Bible. YES KIDS ARE TUAGHT RIGHT AND WRONG AND PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. IF THEY EXCEL AND DO RIGHT THEY ARE REWARDED, IT WRONG IS DONE, THEY ARE PUNISHED. 6,000 YEARS OF THIS AND YOU ALL OF A SUDDEN GET HOMO SISSYFIED ON THE SITUATION. WHEN PARENTS REFUSE TO DICIPLINE THEIR CHILDREN, THE CHILDREN GROW UP TO BE SPOILED WILD THUGS AND HOOLIGANS. FEMALE SUBORDINATION? IDIOTS! IT'S CALLED THE ROLES OF MALE AND FEMALE AND GOD CLEARLY LAID IT OUT IN GENESIS. THROUGHOUT TIME, THOSE ROLES HAVE BEEN SKEWED AND CHANGED. THE MAN IS SUPPOSED TO MAKE THE LIVING FOR THE FAMILY. THAT IS OUR ROLE. LOOK, GET A LIFE AND STOP TRYING TO CHANGE HUMANITY TO DEVIL WORSHIP COMPLEXITY ISSUE.

• Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of science. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to the glory of god. DARWIN IS DEAD. GOD IS NOT. I AM NOT TEACHING MY CHILD THE GOALS AND WISHES OF A SICK TWISTED DEAD OLD PERVET LIKE DARWIN. HE LOOKS LIKE HE BELONG ON THE CHILD SEX OFFENDER LIST TO ME. EVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TAUGHT IN MY HOME SCHOOL EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT IT IS EVIL, WRONG, AND SOCIALIST IN NATURE.

• Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems. (Heh, I didn't even have to rewrite that one! NO YOU DIDN'T I GUESS THE HEROINE FROM 1969 HASN;T QUITE WORN OFF YET, BUT DOES EXPLAIN SOM MODERN POLICY DECISIONS.

• Subordinate all colonial governments lest native populations become ready for self-government. INDIVIDUAL GOVERNMENTS LIKE STATE GOVERNMENTS ARE NECESSARY FOR FREEDOM TO PREVAIL. A SINGLE GLOBAL GOVERNMENT IS A FAILURE BEFORE IT EVER GETS STARTED.

• Prevent the world court from ever having jurisdiction over American war criminals. GREAT. THE WORLD COURT CAN KISS MY ASS. AMERICANS ARE TRIED IN AMERICA! NOT SOME ISLAMIC BAISED JUGHEAD ON A WORLD COURT. WE ARE NOT A WORLD NATION, WE ARE A SOVERIGN NATION WITH BORDERS. IF THE WORLD COURT WANTS OUT HEROES, THEN THEY CAN COME GET THEM AT THEIR OWN RISK. FUCK THE WORLD COURT AND THE UN. OUR SOVERIGNTY IS BETTER THAN THEIR ISLAMOFASCISM

Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | August 27, 2009 11:10 PM

What the...? Who is this nutcase and why should we give a collective rat's ass about what he says? tl;dr

Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 27, 2009 11:12 PM

Is your caps lock button broken?

Posted by: Rorschach | August 27, 2009 11:13 PM

Priceless.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 27, 2009 11:37 PM

wow

Someone needs a hug.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | August 28, 2009 12:46 AM

Hey CRW, if PZ bans you for continuing much longer to be an insufferable stain on intellectual progress, are you going to claim...ah what the hell. Of course you will.

Posted by: Gilian | August 28, 2009 6:43 AM

I love it how the word socialism is used as a curse and something-which-is-bad-for-you.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 28, 2009 7:18 AM

Yikes! Why is Concerned Right Winger SHOUTING?

Posted by: BlueIndependent | August 28, 2009 11:18 AM

"This is the funniest thing I've read all week. Somebody crank up the T-shirt machine!"

As vile a knuckle-dragger as CRW is, that *was* very funny. Part of me thinks CRW is a really good Poe, but then I try to come up with some of the stuff s/he says and I can't. I'm not brainwashed to the point of TSM, total societal malfunction.

Posted by: Walton | August 28, 2009 11:48 AM

Some CURRENT AUTHORITARIAN THEOCRATIC GOALS... • Extol the virtues of free trade among all nations regardless of the effects on U.S. citizens.

I will never understand leftist opposition to free trade. It's bizarre, and completely incompatible with the principles of internationalism which many left-wingers espouse.

Yes, more protectionism, tariffs and subsidies in the US would certainly defend the jobs of American workers from overseas competition - which would be good for the labour unions. But think about the other side of the coin. Protectionism, by advantaging domestic producers compared to foreign ones, prevents workers in the developing world from getting those jobs, denying them a fair chance to work their way out of poverty. Why is an American worker more important to you than an Indian or Chinese or Thai worker? Why is it that, while rejecting nationalism and jingoism in other areas, you subscribe to the notion that the job of the US government is to protect American workers at the expense of foreign workers?

(Not to mention that protectionism inevitably makes goods more expensive for the consumer - hitting working-class consumers disproportionately.)

The worst atrocities committed by Western governments today - more destructive by far than any war since 1945 - are the US Farm Bill and the EU Common Agricultural Policy. These bills - by protecting inefficient European and American agri-business, while excluding competition from the developing world - literally force children in Africa to starve to death in vast numbers. Having (through the World Bank and IMF) compelled developing countries to dismantle their trade barriers, we hypocritically continue to protect our own wealthy farmers.

Nor is it even necessary. New Zealand - despite suffering setbacks when Britain, once its main export partner, joined the EEC - dismantled all its farm subsidies and tariffs in the 1980s, yet still has a thriving agricultural export industry.

But it's pretty obvious to me why American left-wingers rail against free trade - because of the power of the labour unions in the Democratic Party. And, of course, farmers are an immensely powerful group in both parties, hence why Democrats and Republicans alike vote to renew the Farm Bill year after year. What is needed is some political courage and principle. Trade protectionism needs to be ended NOW, and ended completely.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 28, 2009 11:54 AM

Walton, you are maybe the most BORING person I have ever had the displeasure to come into contact with. You constantly derail threads to say the same BORING things over and over and over when we've asked you to stop.

Please fuck off.

Posted by: Fred Mounts | August 28, 2009 12:03 PM

Sadly, the only comments I make here lately are begging for Walton to be cast off. I shared his views once upon a time, whilst in college, but then I grew up. He and his type always get in the way of progress; I'd much rather be discussing how socialist we want to be, rather than if people deserve a basic level of humane treatment. Oh, but wait; that might mean that some asshole can't buy a vacation home or a bigger boat.

The republicans, libertards, and christofascists truly deserve each other.

Posted by: Walton | August 28, 2009 12:12 PM

My understanding was that, thanks to "Concerned Right Winger", this thread was already a political discussion. I don't see that my comment was particularly off-topic; but if no one else wants to talk about free trade, I will of course defer to their wishes. Yet I do think it's important.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 28, 2009 12:23 PM

your should be you're

grumble

Posted by: raven | August 28, 2009 12:35 PM

Concerned Right Winger isn't a True Libertarian(tm) and you wouldn't be calling him a paranoid lunatic if he was a Moslem.

This thread is so derailed, might as well go all in.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | August 28, 2009 3:20 PM

KI, what I think the free traders like Walton see is, ironically as Walton pointed out, a total global capitalist system where everything is largely the same across all borders and there are very few stark legal contrasts when trading with foreign countries. In effect, I think he is describing a grand world market that would feasibly be the ultimate end of an almost totally free world in the economic sense. I don't know if I'm describing that well, but I have some sympathy for this vision in the sense that, from the opposite side politically, I look forward to a time when oppression is largely gone and social mores and norms of the West are more widespread and consistent for most of the globe. Mine is a somewhat less confectionary version of what Woody Guthrie described in his music decades ago. I think Walton is expressing the conservative version of the same thing, but applying it to today is to make such a vision quite a bit less practical.