Hovind saga continues

"I know it doesn't sound very Christian, but especially good Christians are exempt from the principles that define good Christians, as we all know."

A guy not paying his taxes, that hates government, loves money, armed with semi-automatic weapons, doesn't sound "Christian" to you?

And all this time PZ, I thought you lived in the US...

But...but...but all the Christians say that their religion is one of peace and love and humility. They also say that Christians don't lie, so obviously they can't be lying to me.

During an IRS raid at the home, agents found cash stashed "all over the place." About $42,000 was seized.

Hey, I have a can at home where I toss the loose change, I'll bet everybody does. So Dr. Dino just uses a 55 gallon drum for his...

But quork, then that would be stashed "in one place", and not all over.

OK then, maybe he uses empty ammo containers. He's probably got dozens of them sitting all over the house, and didn't even realize how many coins were building up in them.

Guns stashed Threats against authroity figures? Delusions? Criminal activity? The only differences between tese guys and Taliban guys are the religion, and perhaps baseball caps instead of a turbans...

I find it hard to regard a country as civilized when it allows children and mentally ill people access to guns.

About $42,000 was seized. During the search, more than a half-dozen guns were discovered at the Hovind's home, including an SK-S semiautomatic.

Sounds like what one would find in a house being used to make illegal drugs like marijuana.

Lawyers, guns, money ...

Lawyers, guns, money ...

Throw in some porn and prostitutes and you've got the full "GOP Family Values" package. I think it comes as a kit.

All Christians are equal under God, but some are more equal than others.

Well, if I am not too much mistaken, then Hovind is Christian Identity (see my comments on the last thread to see the connection), and they have a rather twisted idea of what Christianity is.

i think if people want to be separated from the rest of the country like that, they should be allowed to. just without any benefits of the collective state. no electricity unless they generate it themselves. no commerce without paying the tarriffs and taxes necessary. no living in areas protected by state activities, ie areas reclaimed by levees. no fire, police, or ambulance protection unless you offer acceptable currency. hell, no currency. why should hovind get access to American banking systems, currency, etc? well, i guess lots of other insufferable assholes get it, but still.

what else would he not have access to? I can imagine the cash he has "stashed all over" would disappear shortly from constant attacks from thieves and brigands of various stripes. i would guess his employees would be a little hesitant to show up, what with no police or ambulance access....

it would be an interesting experiment. how many people would rally i wonder? and how long would they last?

i think if people want to be separated from the rest of the country like that, they should be allowed to. just without any benefits of the collective state...

In Hovind's case, I'd vote for the full physical separation package: put him in a rowboat without oars, with a couple days supply of food and water, and of course a "WWJD" hat to keep the sun off, and with the current drifting towards cuba.

So, what are people's votes: delusional or scam artist?

Why, both. A delusional scamster. (All it takes is a little doublethink, and he's already proved himself expert at *that* by being Christian at all...)

Here is a new cause for ID'ers, from a parody in the Onion.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28308/print/

Been covering this over at The Atheist Experience as well. Talk about schadenfreude!

What's "schadenfreude"?
Is that that Bavarian sausage made with pig's kidney, onions and pineapple bits?

mmmmmmm...schadenfreude...

Of course nothing is said about the several good Christians who testified against him including Dr. Gibbs.

But is does not matter the good Christian's condemnation of the whole thing, it only matters that the bad ones are noted.

That's why secular professors are more prone to propagandize than they are to teach.

PZ: I don't know if I'd call myself a 'Good Christian' as the previous poster did, but I scratch my head in puzzlement that anyone would think that Kent Hovind is a good Christian. He lies, he cheats, he steals. He apparently not only didn't get the memo about turning the other cheek, he's also a little unclear about that whole 'render unto Caesar' thing.

For what it's worth, I vote for 'scam artist' rather than 'delusional' but regardless of where you think Hovind lies, he clearly (ahem) 'lies' somewhere outside of the fringe, Christian or otherwise. Though I suppose some of you folk feel that all self-professed believers are either scam artists or delusional as well, it being just a question of degree. Peace....SH

What's "schadenfreude"?

Actually, it's pie.

"Dark. Rich. And oh so bittersweet"

It should be noted that this is the same Gibbs who represented the Schindlers in the Terri Schiavo case and who has consistently lied about the facts in that case. I wouldn't believe anything he says as he has no more credibliolity then has Hovind.

It should be noted that this is the same Gibbs who represented the Schindlers in the Terri Schiavo case and who has consistently lied about the facts in that case. I wouldn't believe anything he says as he has no more credibility then has Hovind.

to scot and good christian:
here's the problem: there seem to be VERY few of what you call true or "good" christians. Of what percent of a group must some subset be for you to consider it the base line for judgement about that group. as far as i can see good christians make up about 45-60% of all those who claim to be "Christian". thus, i will call Hovinds behavior unsurprising.

Of course you could always make a new sect of christianity that maybe this time will stay true. But i doubt it will work.

I also think it a bit odd, that "God" isn't exactly to upset about all these people falsely representing themselves as "Good Christians".

Cat of Many Faces:

That's sort of a misleading argument. The vast majority of Christians would condemn Hovind's conduct, if they knew about it. Does it surprise me to see that there are folk like Hovind, who essentially are milking fundamentalist Christians by appealing to their earnest but simple-minded theology? Not at all, but it is worth remembering that these hucksters have never been able to get the Catholics or the mainline Protestant churches to explicitly endorse their views, even in the US.

I don't claim, by the way, to be a better Christian than anyone else. What I am saying is that Hovind's conduct (and his interpretation of the Bible) are simply way outside the mainstream, even among evangelicals....SH

Apparently, most evangelicals (at least the ones I know) haven't even heard of Mr Hovind.
Though, sometimes, I wonder if they're actually ignorant of his existance, or if they're feigning ignorance out of shame of even knowing about him.

The vast majority of Christians would condemn Hovind's conduct, if they knew about it.

Apparently, most evangelicals (at least the ones I know) haven't even heard of Mr Hovind.

I feel like there is a connection between this sort of willful ignorance and the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. I've run into this sort of response in conversations with Christians who vehemently deny that Hitler was Christian because what he did was, "so unlike what a REAL Christian would do."

I think it's a problem with labels. Anyone can say they are a skeptic or a Christian; labeling yourself carries little weight. But a group may bestow their own label on an individual in the belief that the individual exemplifies the values of that group.

Hovind wasn't a Christian because he called himself a Christian; he was a Christian because a large amount of Christians believed that they shared the same values under their understanding of Christianity. And if he had some odd ideas on guns and taxes, well, that could be ignored. But as soon as facts from the trial started coming out, Hovind's status as a "True Scotsman" was revoked.

I find it troubling that people in the Christian mainstream never heard of Hovind - this to me says that their leadership endorsed Hovind through their silence, through their failure to teach their congregations.

I find it troubling that Christians who have heard about Hovind, have only heard what Hovind would like them to hear, and not about the many documented ways in which he was deceitful.

I find it especially troubling that prominent religious leaders have said little, if anything, against Hovind and his shaky ethical position in mainstream media. This speaks volumes about a religion that espouses morality. (It also says a lot about American media!)

It isn't surprising that Christianity has bad apples in the barrel. It's the same for any group. But Christians like to pretend they don't have any bad apples. Christianity is powerful because Christians form a unified front, but in doing so they are forced to cover up or minimize the antics of kooks that are doing otherwise useful Christian work.

It's no wonder that Secular people attack Christianity as a whole, and not just kooky or immoral individuals. We see Christianity as an enabler at best, and complicit at worse.

A Christian is someone who accepts Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. All else is just handwaving. Whether he brandishes weapons, cheats on his taxes, or buggers little boys is irrelevant. If you think those behaviours are inconsistent with said belief, people like Hovind standa as factual evidence to the contrary. I realize thinking tends to unsettle your predjudices, but there it is.

So giving yourself a label bestows automatic authenticity? Does that mean that the woo woos over at the Skeptical Investigators website are all real skeptics? Does that mean that I'm a Doctor if I call myself one?

Inconsistent behavior is irrelevant in the label a person chooses for him or her self. Labeling becomes more relevant when it is bestowed.

My point isn't that Hovind called himself a Christian against the wishes of mainstream Christianity; my point is that the majority of Christians and Christian leadership agreed that Hovind was a Christian, either actively or through their silence. Only now, when Hovind has embarrassed them publicly, do they revoke his label as a "True Christian".

I think that the Christians who are now abandoning Hovind are hypocritical.

"A Christian is someone who accepts Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior."

From Latin, Christian and Cretin are the same thing. I have no argument with that.

"It should be noted that this is the same Gibbs who represented the Schindlers in the Terri Schiavo case and who has consistently lied about the facts in that case. I wouldn't believe anything he says as he has no more credibliolity then has Hovind."

Yes. He is good when he speaks out against Kent Hovind, but he is not good when he speaks for the life of an individual.

Anyone reading this blog, would think that the only liars in this world are Christians.

Atheist's definition of a liar:

Anyone who does not agree with me.

Sounds more like propaganda.

"I also think it a bit odd, that "God" isn't exactly to upset about all these people falsely representing themselves as "Good Christians"."

Let me guess. You do not want God to judge you but you want God to judge the bad Christians. Sounds a bit hypocrital. Bad or good, at least they acknowledge him; which is more than one can say for the majority of the people here.

But I suppose that the fact that he is got caught and that other Christians are speaking out against him does not constitute as judgement!

Hmmm... the simple things escape you I presume.

"Christianity is powerful because Christians form a unified front, but in doing so they are forced to cover up or minimize the antics of kooks that are doing otherwise useful Christian work."

Right.... I guess you have not heard of the 50 plus denominations.

So what's better:

Being an inconsistent Christian?

Or being a consistent immoral pagan?

Dear Common Sense,

What difference is there between being an inconsistent and immoral Christian, and being an inconsistent and immoral pagan? None.

What's better: Being moral, or not? Why not strive to do what Jesus is said to have urged, instead of drawing false and misleading dichotomies? What would Jesus have urged?

Use some common sense. Fighting paganism is no excuse for acting like pharisees.

Why should Hovind get any excuse from acting morally? What special pass does Christianity urge for anyone to act contrary to the law, contrary to the code of morality Christians are called to? There is none described.

Hovind is a carbuncle on America, regardless his claimed faith, regardless whether he lives his claimed faith.

Use some common sense. Sheesh!

He is more delusional than scam artist, IMO. I've watched every video of his on Youtube and Google video, and while his actions certainly show him to be greedy, I really can't see him as *only* a scam artist; some things just can't be explained unless he believes his own crap. For example, if he's just in it for the money, why does he call smoking, drinking, and all sorts of other things "sinful"? He also criticizes things such as watching football/sports, which would have to annoy at least half his audience. Why alienate your audience and possibly lose sales, especially when it is completely irrelevant (if he's lecturing on or debating creation/evolution)?

And then there are his jokes, he's been using the same jokes ("This isn't my wife. It's just a picture of her") for decades. Wouldn't a scam artist be a bit more willing to freshen up his scam at least every once in a while? To me, his schtick seems perfectly like the fundies I've been around: it's like they are trapped in some type of bubble which prevents them from learning anything (other than what supports their beliefs) and thwarts all growth.

"Sounds like what one would find in a house being used to make illegal drugs like marijuana."

Try meth, it's a better analogy (hint: Pot is grown).

Of course nothing is said about the several good Christians who testified against him including Dr. Gibbs.

But is does not matter the good Christian's condemnation of the whole thing, it only matters that the bad ones are noted.

That's why secular professors are more prone to propagandize than they are to teach.

So what's better:

Being an inconsistent Christian?

Or being a consistent immoral pagan?

Of course nothing is said about the several good Christians who testified against him including Dr. Gibbs.

But is does not matter the good Christian's condemnation of the whole thing, it only matters that the bad ones are noted.

That's why secular professors are more prone to propagandize than they are to teach.

So what's better:

Being an inconsistent Christian?

Or being a consistent immoral pagan?