Ann Coulter: still shilling for Dembski June 15, 2008
Posted by Evil Bender in Origins, Religion, Science, wingnuts.1 comment so far
You may recall that Ann Coulter hates evolution just as she hates liberals, Muslims, women, gay people, etc. In writing: Godless: My Personal Collection of Logical Fallacies, she relied heavily on Dembski’s “expertise.” Now she’s shilling for his new book.
In my book Godless, I showed that Darwinism is the hoax of the century and, consequently, the core of the religion of liberalism…. Liberals respond to critics of their religion like Cotton Mather to Salem’s “witches.” With this book, two more witches present themselves for burning: Sean McDowell, whose gift is communicating with young people, and Bill Dembski, often called the Isaac Newton of intelligent design. I think Dembski is more like the Dick Butkus of Intelligent Design.
Jesus Christ, Ann–can’t you get through the opening sentence of a blurb for someone else’ book without shamelessly shilling your own? They’ll happily include the book title in the attribution, I’m sure. Did you really have to desperately make this all about you?
I know: yet another silly question from E. B.
Dinosaur Comics’ Latest June 14, 2008
Posted by Evil Bender in Humor, Skepticism.add a comment
It’s totally the perfect comic for me. Check it out at qwantz.com, and witness discussions of zombie ghosts! “pretty frustrated” is a great description, I think.
Mel Gibson: scientific mastermind, naturally! June 13, 2008
Posted by Evil Bender in Origins, Science, language and lit, wingnuts.6 comments
In between his repeated misrepresentations of my points and his busy regimen of consulting forth graders to come up with nicknames for his opponents,* SalCordova takes a moment to approving cite this interview with Mel “It’s the Jew’s Fault” Gibson:
It is worth noting that Mel Gibson has discussed his views of evolution publicly.
>From a July 1995 interview:
Q: Do you believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution or that God created man in his image?
GIBSON: The latter.
Q: So you can’t accept that we descended from monkeys and apes?
GIBSON: No, I think it’s bull—-. If it isn’t, why are they still around? How come apes aren’t people yet? It’s a nice theory, but I can’t swallow it. There’s a big credibility gap. The carbon dating thing that tells you how long something’s been around, how accurate is that, really? I’ve got one of Darwin’s books at home and some of that stuff is pretty d— funny. Some of his stuff is true, like that the giraffe has a long neck so it can reach the leaves. But I just don’t think you can swallow the whole piece.
In bold is the stuff Sal decided to leave out of the quote, without indicating anything had been truncated. Maybe he was actually smart enough to recognize that “how come apes aren’t people yet?” isn’t a great way to accuse science of a credibility gap.
I would have thought even Sal might have been embarrassed by statements as stupid as Mel Gibson’s, but he’s too busy fantasizing about how a Great Flood movie will make everyone believe in Creationism. But he’s not too busy to edit out the most embarrassing parts, obviously.
*He’s apparently settled on “EvilBoneHead” for me. I figure it’s only a matter of time before he makes fun of my glasses and kicks sand in my face.
Score one for the rule of law! June 12, 2008
Posted by Evil Bender in News and politics, constiutional issues, wingnuts.1 comment so far
As I’m sure you’ve heard, SCOTUS rules that terrorism suspects can appeal to civilian courts. Score one for habeas corpus and the rule of law.
Naturally, Scalia jumped in with some insane right-wing talking points of the kind more suited to NRO’s Corner than the reasoned opinion of a SCOTUS Justice:
Of the two dissenting opinions, Justice Antonin Scalia’s was the more apocalyptic, predicting “devastating” and “disastrous consequences” from the decision. “It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed,” he said. “The nation will live to regret what the court has done today.” He said the decision was based not on principle, “but rather an inflated notion of judicial supremacy.”
That’s right. We’ve reaffirmed prisoners’ constitutional rights by putting a stop to defining the world as a battlefield and anyone we like as “enemy combatants”/”terrorists”/”really bad folks over in the I-raq” or whatever we’re saying these days, and as a result of standing up for the rule of law we’re all doomed to death-by-brown-people. Now that they know they can go to court, suicide bombers looking to get a prime spot in the afterlife will totally come after us like never before! They’ll say, “oh god, rule of law! I’ve got to get me some of that. Let’s attack!” Then they’ll beat their hands against their mouths and make loud wailing sounds while strapping bombs, anthrax, bird flu, and Obama’s autobiography to their chests.
Seriously, couldn’t we get something from Scalia that didn’t sound like it came right from a wingnut’s basement? Doesn’t the distinguished jurist realize how silly such breathless predictions are, and how much they damage his legacy?
Silly question, I know.
More on this topic as the exact ramifications become more clear.
Midweek poetry June 11, 2008
Posted by Evil Bender in Poetry.add a comment
Go read this story and the poem that goes with it. It’s very, very hard to read, but you won’t regret having read it. (It deals explicitly with rape, so maybe not safe for work.)
My brain just exploded June 11, 2008
Posted by Evil Bender in News and politics, Science, wingnuts.1 comment so far
Republicans in congress are global warming denialists. But you already knew that. What you might not of realized how stupid and/or conscience-rotting they are:
Note this staggering remark from one GOP stalwart: “If there’s one thing poll after poll indicates, it’s that the science is not settled on this issue.”
In related news, the age of the earth in the U.S. is only 6,000 years, but in more educated countries it is 4.5 billion years. This weird poll-created paradox is easily explained: obviously one steps into a different reality when one leaves the U.S.
Actually, now that I think about it, there’s something to that.
Book burning in Louisiana June 10, 2008
Posted by Evil Bender in Morality, Religion, language and lit, wingnuts.4 comments
It seems religious nuts are at it again, this time in Louisiana, burning books which make them uncomfortable:
About 30 people gathered for a regional revival Friday night that included a book burning as a statement to reach out to local residents.
“It is allowed for Harry Potter to be taught in our schools, but not the Bible,” International House of Prayer pastor James Crawford said during the Shreveport Regional Unity of Faith Revival.
That is one reason pastors from several denominations and races ripped pages from “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone.” Those and pages from a pornographic magazine were put into a burn pit and set afire as praises bellowed from the congregation.
Congrats, Pastor Crawford! You just won the Dumbest Statement of the Day award. Come on down to claim your prize!*
No word yet on if Crawford has actually bothered to read Harry Potter, or if he just checked out a selected lists of passages he knew would offend him, though if history is any indication, the former is unlikely.
To borrow a phrase from Dr Henry Jones Sr, Bible thumping morons such as Pastor Crawford should read books instead of burning them. Though, to be fair, if I were these idiots I’d be afraid of ideas, too:
“As I tore the pages, I felt a generational curse of immorality and perversion breaking off my family,” Adriane Banks said. “I felt it.”
[...] Crawford said recent natural disasters are a wake-up call.
The source of the impulse to burn books is clear enough: it stems from the deep, abiding dread that you’re wrong. One who suspects they’re wrong but isn’t willing to admit it has very little choice but to silence opposing viewpoints. Fortunately for us, these Book Burnings only bring attention to the literature they attempt to destroy.
*A year on a desert Island with nothing to do but read books you disapprove of. Hooray!
[edit: h/t to Ed Brayton. Forgot to mention that in my original post!]
More anti-LGBT bigotry from a religious reader June 9, 2008
Posted by Evil Bender in Morality, Religion, bigotry, sex, wingnuts.1 comment so far
I’m shocked! Shocked! Well, not that shocked!
A senior Russian Archpriest has said the country’s Orthodox Church cares for gay and lesbian people and accepts them, but their sexual orientation is a “destructive sin.”
Father Vsevolod Chaplin, in an interview with newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda, added that gay people who say they are happy are lying.
He is deputy head of the Moscow Patriarchate department for external church relations.
“Such people are deeply unhappy,” he told the paper.
“I know it from confessions and numerous life stories.
“It’s not by chance that they die earlier and there’re more suicides, drug addicts and alcoholics among them.”
Yes, it must be lifestyle that makes gay people unhappy. It couldn’t possibly shit like this, that the good Father gets to later in the same piece:
“Morality is either absolute or it does not exist. If you excuse homosexuality, why not excuse paedophilia?” he said in an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegal.
Wow, bigoted non sequitur and slippery slope all at once! Fuck this asshole: going around calling people evil sinners because they’re attracted to members of the same sex, and then saying he worries for them because they’re so unhappy.
Disgusting.
Lesbian refused treatment because doctor didn’t approve of her orientation? June 8, 2008
Posted by Evil Bender in Religion, bigotry, constiutional issues, wingnuts.1 comment so far
You’ve probably already seen this, but a horribly busy week hasn’t dulled my fury over it, so I’ll mention it anyway It seems being gay is reason enough for to be turned down for treatment in at least some doctors’ eyes:
[...] a case coming before the California Supreme Court, brought by a woman refused in vitro fertilization (IVF) by her doctors because she is a lesbian, serves as a reminder that medical discrimination is still a real threat for many Americans. Guadalupe Benitez of Oceanside, California, went to a local medical practice that was covered by her insurance to receive treatment for polycystic ovarian syndrome. In 1999, she was finally ready to attempt to get pregnant through artificial insemination. That’s when her doctors, citing religious objection to aiding lesbian parenthood, refused to perform the procedure.
The doctors’ attempts to cover their asses isn’t exactly wonderful, either:
In sworn declarations Benitez’s attorneys said that her doctors stated that they refused her IVF based on their Christian beliefs, which they said prohibited them from providing the treatment to lesbians. However, in later depositions the doctors claimed that their beliefs prohibited them from providing the treatment to any unmarried couples regardless of their sexual orientation.
Oh, that’s much better! Descriminating against unmarried heterosexuals otally makes up for discriminating against homosexuals (rolls eyes)!
Jill has a great response, which is worth reading in its entirety. Go ahead, I’ll wait.
Jill is right on. I’ll just add one thing: your religious beliefs do not make it okay for you to refuse to provide medical care because you disapprove of your patients. What gender your patient is attracted to is none of your fucking business. Neither is it your business if they happen to be married. Your job is to provide a much-needed service, and you don’t get to use that as an excuse to discriminate.
I find it un-fucking-believable that I even need to say that.
Jill discusses the role of conscience clauses in medicine, and I agree they have a place. But just like I don’t get to decide not to teach students whose personal lives I don’t approve of, there is absolutely no place in medicine for refusing care to a patient because their lives offend your moral sensibilities. If there is not a legitimate medical reason to refuse treatment, then you have no business refusing that treatment.
Doctors should not have the right to use their personal judgments about morality to refuse to do their jobs. If you’re not willing to provide IVF treatments to patients who you don’t approve of, you should find a different line of work. You don’t get to use bigotry as an excuse not to do your job.
I might feel differently is these doctors were being asked to provide a service they do not usually provide, or if they had referred the patient to a different (easily accessible) doctor at the same location. But saying “no thanks; go home and do it on your own, you icky lesbian” is simply not acceptable. If your conscience won’t let you fulfill a primary responsibility of your job, you have recourse: quit. What you don’t get to do is refuse to do your job, refuse to accommodate your clients, and hide behind religious objections as an excuse to avoid your responsibilities.
The role of conscience clauses does not extend to refusal to perform the necessary function of your job. If your religion tells you you can’t work on Sundays, don’t seek work as an NFL player. If you can’t the writing of those you disagree with, don’t take a job evaluating student writing. If your hate-filled religious beliefs tell you you can’t help lesbians reproduce, don’t take a job helping people reproduce!
