Texas and Ohio and the California Shore

The title of the post is a line from an old Phil Ochs song called "Power and Glory" and I can't help having it run through my head as Hillary and Obama prepare for what may be the final showdown in Texas and Ohio.

If Clinton doesn't figure out a way to stop, in those two states, what appears to be developing into an Obama juggernaut over the last ten contests, I think she's toast. I find it hard to believe that the so-called Super Delegates are going to go counter to the apparent will of the Democrat rank and file and give her the nomination. I think that would be the kiss of death against McCain.

So then what? Obama vs McCain, youth and charisma vs age and experience? What's the old saying? Oh yeah, "Age and deviousness will overcome youth and talent every time."

While I don't necessarily hold to that in general, the Republican and Conservative strategists have demonstrated over and over again a talent for manufacturing phoney issues and selling those issues to enough of the American people to tilt national elections. I don't blame the strategists for doing this as much as I blame that segment of the American people who are dumb enough to repeatedly buy this. I guess Lincoln was right when he said that you can fool some of the people all of the time.

Would you like me to take a guess at the manufactured phoney issue this time around? Obama has said that he would, with no preconditions, enter into talks with nations with which the U.S. has been traditionally at odds including Syria, Iran and, just recently, Cuba. Even Hillary Clinton balked at this and criticized Obama for being naive.

I can hear the right wing demogogues already parlaying this into a "placing America at risk" theme as if somehow talking was the same thing as painting a big target on your chest.

The best thing that could happen for the prestige of this country is the election of Barack Obama. I think almost overnight this would repair some of the damage of the Bush years. Repairing the rest of the damage could take decades assuming it can ever be repaired.

Electing a Republican that continues the Bush policies, especially with respect to Iraq, will be an unmitigated foreign policy disaster and, if such an electee pushes forward on things like constitutional amendments banning abortion and gay marriage, the result could well be a domestic disaster as well. I'm not at all certain that this country can survive another Conservative Republican Administration.

Now I’m Really Depressed

Every once in a while just reading through the latest news sends me into a tailspin of depression. The funny part about it is that it’s not usually death and destruction that does it. As terrible as it sounds, I’m used to war, natural disaster and sudden tragedy. It’s usually the little things that get to me.

My philosophy is that it’s the undercurrent of the world that determines whether things are getting better or worse. It’s the little things that determine whether the zeitgeist is proceeding in the right direction or whether we’re rewinding back towards the dark ages.

So, what are the stories that have me in a funk? The first is that Iraq has a new national flag emblazoned with the words “God is Great” in Arabic. Oh yeah, that bodes well for the future.

The second is that the latest AP poll shows Barack Obama barely defeating John McCain and Hillary Clinton actually in what amounts to a dead heat with him. I don’t understand how, after the catastrophe of George Bush, anyone could consider voting Republican in the next election. At least part of the disaster of the Bush administration is the result of a Republican party that has allowed itself to be influenced by a far right philosophy that is incompatible with American Democracy. You elect another Republican before the party re-establishes its moderate roots and you’re just asking for another disaster.

The third is that I read the story on last night’s Emmy Awards and don’t have the faintest idea who these people are that won all of the awards. I must really be getting old.

Ignoring the getting old thing for a minute, civilization seems to be winning on all fronts but one. Religion continues to act like a millstone around our necks that, at the very least, retards progress, and in the worst case scenario threatens to drag us back down into barbarity. The vision of a moral dark age dominated by religions which have access to weapons of mass destruction rather than simply knives, swords, bows and torture devices is truly a depressing one.

What did he Say?

I don’t watch American Idol. My wife does on occasion while she’s marking papers and we were gabbing a bit as the show came on the other night. It was the last audition episode highlighting the failures along with the successes.

The first girl to audition had a fabulous chest and she wasn’t hiding much of it. This caught my undivided attention. I may be over the hill, but I’m not dead. Her voice was pretty good too and she got a ticket to Hollywood.

I mention this because it got me deeper into the show than I would normally get before retreating to my desk and computer. Deep enough to see the second girl to audition, a young black girl telling the camera that she sang in the church choir, that her voice was a gift from God and that God had inspired her to audition.

She repeated the gift from God pitch as she got up in front of Simon, Paula and the black dude whose name I don’t know. The reactions were condescending to say the least. Paula smiled and looked to the side, Simon smirked and the black dude said “Hallelujah sister” in a tone that told you he wasn’t precisely praising the Lord.

Then the girl started to sing a spiritual and I have to admit she wasn’t of the American Idol winner category but she wasn’t completely awful. Well, actually, she was pretty bad, but at least she sort of stayed in tune. When she finished Simon said something to the effect of “Does he have a return policy?”

When Paula asked him what he meant he explained that he wanted to know if God had a return policy because if he had gotten a gift like the girl got he’d want to return it or figure out some way to lose it.

To say the girl looked devastated would be an understatement. Now I don’t know if these things are staged, or the result of creative film editing, but assuming things happened as shown on the show, all I can say is that was an absolutely terrible thing to say to this poor girl.

Just looking at her one could see that she wasn’t the sharpest tool in the shed but she was very sincere. I guess folks who knew better had let her keep her delusion that she had been blessed with a beautiful singing voice. I know Simon’s shtick is to be a nasty so and so, but to my mind there is a limit. They could have let the poor girl down a little easier than that. Does he have a return policy? That was an absolutely horrible thing to say.

I know it's supposed to be entertainment and all that but I don't find the total disregard for simple courtesy to be terribly amusing. This poor girl didn't do anything to deserve that kind of smack in the face. Shame on you Simon and shame on Fox for airing it.

Super Tuesday

I see a McCain-Huckabee ticket in our future. It looks like McCain has pulled ahead but Huckabee has firmly claimed the social conservative right wing of the Republican Party and McCain has no hope in the general election without those voters.

For the Democrats, it’s still neck and neck. Yahoo has Clinton with 630 pledged delegates and Obama with 625 pledged delegates. If you include the so-called Super Delegates, Party Leaders and Elected Officials (PLEO), Clinton’s lead expands to around 820-725. The last thing the Democrats, who are all clamoring for change, want is a candidate ultimately selected by Washington insiders.

I think the script changes for McCain from here on in. Rather than campaigning against Romney and Huckabee, he can attack the Democrats in general and work to repair what appears to be a badly fractured Republican coalition.

The Democrats have to keep on trucking. Their coalition is as badly fractured as the Republicans but they’re in no position to begin repairing it until after the nomination is settled. The danger of course is that a bitter primary campaign could render that fracture difficult to repair for the 2008 election.

Honestly though, I don’t think that’s likely to happen. The differences between Clinton and Obama aren’t all that big.

Personally, I voted for Obama and I have three reasons why I did so. The first, and most important reason, is that I honestly believe he would be a less polarizing influence. I honestly think he has a chance of smoothing out some of the divisions this country has in order to get some things done. I don’t think Hillary can do that or at least won’t be able to do it as often or as well.

My second reason is that her refusal to admit she made a mistake in giving Bush the authorization to use military force in Iraq sticks in my craw. She’s effectively admitted it in every possible way other than say it directly and this really bugs me. She has lots of excuses and rationalizations for why she didn’t screw up there but I’m not buying any of them. I knew it was a freaking BAD idea so why didn’t she?

My third reason is that, when I listen to her speak, and especially about health care, I get the message “I know what’s best, there’s nothing left to discuss, I know what needs to be done.”

My reaction is that’s a dangerous attitude on complex subjects. Under such conditions there is a thin line between certainty and stupidity. You can’t be so certain you’re right that you begin ignoring data that may contradict what you “know” to be correct. This kind of attitude was my major freaking problem with Bush so why should I vote for someone else with that attitude even if she’s a whole lot smarter than Bush (which of course isn’t saying all that much) and has a much better chance of being right?

Clearly if Obama wins the Democratic nomination I’ll vote for him in November. I might even campaign for him. If Clinton wins, I’ll vote for her also because I understand that I’m not simply electing a candidate, I’m electing a political philosophy and I find the Democrat’s political philosophy much more palatable than the Republican’s. The difference is that I would do the former enthusiastically and the latter with some trepidation.

Super Bowl XLII

You can’t make this stuff up. David slew Goliath, Cinderella went to the ball, light overcame darkness and virtue went to the mountaintop. The Perfect Season turned out to be not so perfect and all of us who lacked faith got shown up big time.

The Giants upset the Patriots 17-14. The phrase melts in your mouth like honey doesn’t it? If you had told me that the score at halftime was going to be 7-3, I would have said that you were out of your mind or just didn’t understand football. I would have told you the same thing if you had said the Giants would score only 17 points and win.

On the other hand, if you had offered me 14-10 Patriots with 2:39 left in the game and the Giants first and ten on their own 17 yard line, I would have taken it in a heartbeat. When you’re playing a team with the kind of talent the Pats have, all you can hope for is to be close at the end of the game and your guys have the ball.

That brings us to the final drive. It was one of those drives that make fans on the other side of the ball howl in frustration. It should have been stopped, it could have been stopped, but it wasn’t stopped. First Jacobs converts on 4th and one, then Samuels misses a chance at a game ending interception, then comes the miracle play with Eli somehow escaping the grip of the Patriots pass rush and heaving a hanger in the general direction of David Tyree. Exactly how Tyree caught that ball up against his helmet while falling to the ground should keep physicists busy for the next century or two. I’m certain several natural laws were fractured if not outright broken.

Then it was Steve Smith scooping in a 3rd and 11 pass from Eli and, knowing precisely where he needed to get for the first down, diving across the marker and out of bounds. And then, oh and then, it was the crowning glory, Eli to Plaxico on a slant and go pattern that left a badly beaten Ellis Hobbs wondering where everyone disappeared to.

All I could say at that point was “omigod, 35 seconds.” Tom Terrific had 35 seconds and three timeouts plus we had to cover the kickoff, something that hadn’t gone all that well in the first quarter.

This time however the Pats could only manage a return to the 25 yard line. Brady’s first pass fell incomplete and then, and then, wonder of wonders, the Giants’ 5th sack of the evening pushed the Pats back, took time off the clock and forced them to burn a timeout. All that was left was time for two desperation Hail Mary passes, both of which were scary as hell, especially the first one which could very well have been a TD to Moss if Brady could have gotten a little more on it, but the football gods had other ideas and both were swatted away harmlessly by Giant defenders.

Wow! Apparently this was the most watched Super Bowl ever with 107 million people watching the shootout in the 4th Quarter.

Now I have to listen to all the so-called experts analyze the thing to death. Let me tell you what I think.

I think that if the 2007 Pats aren’t the best NFL team of all time, they’re up there in the top five. One loss does not make them into a mediocre team. Personally I think they would have been better off losing to the Giants at the Meadowlands in game 16. I suspect that the pressure of being 18-0, going for 19-0, had almost as much to do with the loss as the pressure from the Giants’ pass rush. No one else can know how it felt because no one else has ever been in that position. I saw it in the Patriot defenders eyes on that last drive. You know they were thinking “Oh no, this can’t happen to us. We can’t go undefeated all season and then lose the Super Bowl.”

I also think Brady was hurting. He’ll never admit it, but he didn’t look like the Brady I saw at the Meadowlands.

Of course none of this takes anything away from my Giants and all the superlatives do apply simply because the stakes have never been this high before. This was the greatest Super Bowl game, this was the greatest Super Bowl upset, Eli to Tyree was the greatest Super Bowl play and the Giants’ winning drive was the greatest Super Bowl drive.

But do you know what the really good news is? Someday all of these “greatests” will be surpassed.

South Carolina Part 2 and Florida

Barack Obama easily won South Carolina by a margin of 55%-27% over Hillary Clinton. John Edwards placed third with 18% of the vote. The Democratic beauty contest (because no delegates were at stake) went to Clinton over Obama by a margin of 50%-33% and again Edwards was third with 14%.

In the Republican Florida primary Rudy Giuliani, much to his chagrin, proved the political experts right as his Florida strategy failed big time. John McCain led with 36%, followed by Mitt Romney with 31% and then Rudy with a paltry 15%. Mike Huckabee came in with 13%.

The immediate fallout is that John Edwards has announced his withdrawal from the race. Therefore, barring some unforeseen catastrophe of monumental proportions, the nominee for President of the United States from the Democratic Party in 2008 will either be a woman or a black man.

On the Republican side, the expectation is that Giuliani will withdraw and endorse John McCain, but that hasn’t happened as of this moment. As for Mike Huckabee, some of whose staff was reported as going without pay, no indication as yet as to his plans. Unlike Giuliani, for whom Florida was considered a make or break primary, Huckabee didn’t really expect to do that well there. However I do think his 2nd place finish in South Carolina was something of a disappointment to him.

So now it’s on to Super Tuesday where 21 states will choose Republican delegates and 22 states will choose Democratic delegates. Included will be such huge states as California, New York and Illinois.

I don’t think the make-up of the Super Tuesday states is very conducive to Huckabee doing well. I suspect that he’s going to get his clock cleaned in most of the states especially if Giuliani endorses McCain so I doubt his candidacy will survive the next round, but I’ve been wrong before so we’ll see.

With Edwards gone it becomes a two way race on the Democratic side. Hillary still has the inside track because she appears to hold a significant lead in the so-called Super Delegates (party leaders and elected officials) and I doubt that Obama has made a sufficient impact outside of the states that have already held primaries and that gives Clinton the advantage.

I get to vote Tuesday, for joy, for joy. I think I’m registered as an Independent but I’m not sure. In any event you can declare at the polling place in New Jersey so I think I’ll declare Democratic (it would be a cold day in hell before I ever voted Republican anyway) and I think I’ll pull the handle for Obama.

Is the Bible Human or Divine?

I tripped over an internet article entitled “The Bible: Human or Divine” by Hank Hanegraaff explaining what Christians should know in order to effectively defend the faith from skeptics. The author uses the mnemonic MAPS, which stands for Manuscripts, Archaeology, Prophecy and Statistics as a way to remember the recommended apologetic points.

The Manuscripts argument states “...the Bible has stronger manuscript support than any other work of classical literature-including Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, and Tacitus.”

I could argue with this statement because “quantity” is not necessarily “quality” and while I can’t imagine any conceivable reason for someone to purposely modify the contents of Tacitus or Homer while copying it, there were lots of reasons during the early Christian orthodoxy struggles why someone might “clarify” a manuscript to make it, to paraphrase Bart Ehrman, more obviously say what he already knew it meant.

However, even if I don't argue the point, textual accuracy does not necessarily mean textual truth. I’m pretty certain my copies of “Mein Kampf” and “Das Kapital” are textually accurate but I would hesitate to call them “true” other than they may reflect the actual opinions of the authors.

The M argument also states that “Secular historians--including Josephus (before A.D. 100), the Roman Tacitus (around A.D. 120), the Roman Suetonius ( A.D. 110), and the Roman governor Pliny the Younger ( A.D. 110)--confirm the many events, people, places, and customs chronicled in the New Testament.”

Wow, I’d have to say that is an EXTREME overstatement. These historians certainly confirm SOME of the fairly mundane events, people, places and customs but none of the critical ones. They certainly don’t confirm such key events in the Gospels as the census of Augustus that forced Joseph and Mary to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem, the slaughter of the innocents in Bethlehem, the Virgin Birth, the Sermon on the Mount, the trial of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus nor even that Jesus did in fact actually exist (although one can argue that last point with respect to Josephus).

The Archaeology argument asserts that “Over and over again, comprehensive field work (archaeology) and careful biblical interpretation affirms the reliability of the Bible.”

Depending upon which part of the bible one is talking about, this is more or less a true statement. The problem with Archaeology is that it requires a lot of interpretation. The ancients didn’t leave detailed and complete records so one is often faced with the task of filling in the pieces and the filled in portions often seem to be in the majority.

Still, one can’t deny that most of the historical content of the bible from 1 Kings on is very likely to be about as reliable as any other ancient document and perhaps even more reliable because the text has been so carefully preserved. But so what? The novel “Gone with the Wind” is pretty historically accurate as well. That doesn’t mean it’s entirely true. Or do you think there was a real Scarlet who lived on a real plantation called Tara?

As for the earlier books such as Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, Judges and 1& 2 Samuel, the consensus of scholarly opinion seems to be that these are more mythology, folklore and, in the case of Joshua, concerted political spin doctoring to justify territorial ambitions than history.

The fact is that even the term “Biblical Archaeology” has, in many circles, been dropped in favor of the term “Syro-Palestinian Archaeology” because so much of the bible is now considered generally unreliable.

As for the New Testament, again, clearly the Gospels and Epistles often depict real places, real people and real events but that doesn’t mean that ALL of the places, people and events depicted are real. Remember “Gone with the Wind.”

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Do you know of any physical virgins that have conceived and given birth? Is there any evidence that the stories of a virgin birth described in Matthew and Luke, and totally ignored in Mark, John, the Epistles and the later chapters of Matthew and Luke, actually happened beyond the claims of Matthew and Luke? Why should one accept it as historical then?

That bring us to Prophecy and Statistics. The Statistics argument is simply that “It is statistically preposterous that any or all of the Bible's specific, detailed prophecies could have been fulfilled through chance, good guessing, or deliberate deceit.”

So it really depends upon the Prophecy argument. If there are a large number of “specific detailed prophecies” then the Statistics argument is very strong. But are there? Let’s look at the Prophecy argument then shall we?

The article states that “Predictive prophecy is a principle of Bible reliability that often reaches even the hard-boiled skeptic!”

It would have been more accurate to include an “IF” somewhere in that sentence. I don’t know of any “hard-boiled skeptic” that thinks the bible has ANY predictive prophecies. All of the so-called prophecies are relegated to either misinterpretation (Isaiah 53), mistranslation (Isaiah 7:14 ) heroic interpretation (Psalm 22) or adaptation after the fact (the nativity in Bethlehem and the flight to Egypt).

Let’s see what I mean shall we.

The article states “Since Christ is the culminating theme of the Old Testament and the Living Word of the New Testament, it should not surprise us that prophecies regarding Him outnumber all others.”

While Jews would debate that “Christ is the culminating theme” of the Hebrew Bible and I’m not certain such prophesies outnumber all the others, but they certainly would be considered, by Christians at least, to be the most critical. Therefore I’m perfectly happy to consider those prophecies the article says “would have been impossible for Jesus to deliberately conspire to fulfill.”

Perhaps, but not impossible for Christians to misinterpret, mistranslate or heroically interpret. Let’s go though the article’s list shall we.

His descent from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Genesis 12:3 17:19);

In Genesis 12 God is telling Abram to "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you.”

As a reward for following his instructions, God makes two promises.

Genesis 12:2 - I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing.

Genesis 12:3 - I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you."

Note that in Genesis 12:3 God is talking about Abram and not Jesus. Even if one wanted to claim that this described Jesus and therefore was a prophecy of Jesus, this would only be true if one accepts that “all the peoples on earth will be blessed through” Jesus. This may be a part of Christian dogma but it’s also sort of begging the question. Only if I already accept Christianity as TRUE would I recognize this as a prophecy. But if Christianity is TRUE then by definition the bible is divine. In other words I have to accept the conclusion as a given in order to prove the conclusion. This is the familiar circular argument fallacy that makes so many skeptics dizzy when they talk to an Apologist.

Genesis 17 is about the covenant of circumcision between God and Abraham. In verse 19 God tells Abraham “your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.”

Abraham then goes on to circumcise himself (at age 99) his family and all his slaves. I’m sort of at a loss as to why one would list this as a prophecy of Jesus especially considering Paul’s insistence that the covenant of circumcision no longer applied, at least not for Gentiles. About the only thing I can imagine is that the last sentence, taken out of context, is claimed as a prophecy of the so-called New Testament.

Even if you ignore the heroic interpretation only made possible by taking the sentence completely out of context, this is only a prophecy, even by those far fetched standards, if you already believe that God established a New Covenant through Jesus. In other words, you have to accept Christianity, which means by definition the bible is divine and so on and so forth. In other words, it’s another circular argument.

The piercing of His hands and feet on the cross (Psalm 22:16);
The soldiers’ gambling for His clothes (Psalm 22:18);

I don’t consider a phrase pulled out of context a prophecy simply because that phrase resembles some other person or event. Psalm 22 is a lament where, ostensibly King David, is asking why, despite being faithful, he has seemingly been abandoned by God.

Verses 12 through 18 are a litany of woes that have befallen the singer. Verses 16 and 18 are simply a part of that litany.

Psalm 22:16 - Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced (tore at) my hands and my feet.

Psalm 22:18 - They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.

Taken out of context the verses are certainly suggestive, but in context they’re just two more of the laments. There is nothing to suggest prophecy here other than the resemblance to similar events that supposedly happened to Jesus. Even then, there’s no mention of dogs surrounding the cross in the gospels nor is it likely that crucifixion was done by nails through the hand. The bones in the hand aren’t strong enough to support the weight. Far more likely is that the victims were tied to the cross or that the nails were driven through the wrist bones.

If these verses are prophecy, then why not the other five verses as well? How about this one?

Psalm 22:13 - Roaring lions tearing their prey open their mouths wide against me.

You see any mention in the gospels about lions enjoying a meal during the crucifixion? Nope, I don’t recall that either, or how about the one right in between?

Psalm 22:17 - I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me.

You recall anything about Jesus not eating all that well for an extended period of time so that he could count all his bones? Nope, me neither.

If you’re going to claim that Psalm 22:16, 18 are prophecies of Jesus, why not also claim that Psalm 22:13 is a prophecy that Christians will be martyred by being thrown to the lions and that Psalm 22: 17 is a prophecy of any of the numerous famines that have occurred around the world. It makes just as much sense.

The piercing of His side and the fact that His bones were not broken at His death (Zechariah 12:10; Psalm 34:20);

Calling Psalm 34:20 a prophecy is even more absurd than calling Psalm 22 a prophecy.

Psalm 34:20 - he protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken.

It’s not even a complete thought. You need the previous verse to even make sense of it.

Psalm 34:19 - A righteous man may have many troubles, but the LORD delivers him from them all;

Psalm 34 is simply a list of the benefits that God bestows on the righteous and the faithful and this is just one more benefit. If protecting a man’s bones from being broken sounds like an odd thing to include, consider two things. First, in that climate at that level of medical knowledge, broken bones could easily be a death sentence and second, Psalm 34 is an acrostic poem. The verses begin with the letters of the Hebrew alphabet so form might have been more important than content.

Now let’s consider Zechariah 12:10 which says:

Zechariah 12:10 -"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son."

Notice the “And.” The first part says:

Zechariah 12: 9 - On that day I will set out to destroy all the nations that attack Jerusalem.

At least Zechariah 12 is indeed a prophecy. It’s a prophecy promising that God will protect Judah and Jerusalem when “all the nations of the earth are gathered against her.”

The bottom line is that God will come to aid of Jerusalem and Judah in their darkest hour, when destruction seems unavoidable, and then they’ll repent and feel sorry that they were unfaithful to their God.

When the Romans besieged Jerusalem in 70 CE it would probably have been a good time to make good on this promise unless the forces stacked against the city just weren’t overwhelming enough. Not likely it’s going to happen in the future either since as a part of this God is going “to strike every horse with panic and its rider with madness.”

Anyone ever again expect to see an army marching against Jerusalem with a contingent of horse cavalry? I know, I know, it’s figurative. The cavalry will actually be tanks and the “riders” will actually be the tank drivers. In any event, I don’t see this as a very convincing prophecy of Jesus simply because the word “pierce” is used. After all, that could also be figurative like in “you pierced my heart.” Have you ever noticed how literalists fall back upon text being "figurative" as soon as someone points out that it's in error?

His birth in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2);

This is one of the more interesting so-called prophecies.

Micah 5:2 - But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.

Two things are certain. The first is that the name “Bethlehem” is used and the second is that the word “ruler’ is used. Apparently this is enough for the faithful to declare this verse a prophecy of the Messiah, claim that he will be born in Bethlehem and, since Jesus was born in Bethlehem, he must be the Messiah and therefore this is a prophecy of him.

My reaction is whoa Nelly, slow down. That’s a leap of faith that deserves to have all of its letters capitalized.

For the moment, let’s accept that this is a prophecy of the Messiah and that it declares he will be born in Bethlehem. How do we know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem?

Other than the nativity stories presented by Matthew and Luke there is no evidence that he was. There is even some evidence that he wasn’t. Outside of the nativity stories, which are completely ignored in the gospels of Mark and John, Bethlehem as a birthplace for Jesus is never mentioned. He is always identified as a Galilean from Nazareth.

In John 7, as the people are arguing over who Jesus is, the nay sayers make the argument "How can the Christ come from Galilee? Does not the Scripture say that the Christ will come from David's family and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?"

If Jesus really was born in Bethlehem, this wouldn’t have been much of an argument but neither John, nor Jesus nor anyone else ever take the time to correct the error. Nor can one argue that this is a literary device wherein the reader recognizes the fallacy even though the characters in the story are left ignorant because John NEVER identifies Jesus’ place of birth.

Now let’s look a bit closer at what Micah 5:2 actually says and also place it in context. Is the verse even talking about the town of Bethlehem and is it really talking about a leader that will emerge some 700 years in the future?

Notice the word “clans.” Some folks argue that “Bethlehem Ephrathah” actually refers to a clan of Judah and not a place. In 1 Chronicles 2 one can find a list of the early descendents of Judah including Caleb, descended through Perez the son of Judah and Tamar, who married Ephrathah. Her eldest was named Hur and one of his sons was Salma who was the father of Bethlehem (1 Chronicles 2:50,51).

Even if you accept that Bethlehem refers to the town and that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, is Micah 5:2 really a prophecy about something that won’t happen for 700 years or is it a bit more contemporary?

To put things in perspective, Micah is writing in turbulent times. The United Kingdom of David and Solomon has split into the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the Southern Kingdom of Judah. Make no mistake which was the upper dog in this pair, it was clearly the Northern Kingdom of Israel which rose to prominence under the Omride Dynasty.

You remember the Omrides don’t you? The most famous king of that dynasty was Ahab who married the Canaanite Jezebel. The Kingdom of Israel was polytheistic, supporting alters to Baal and Asherah and probably many others. Its prosperity would undoubtedly have driven the Prophets crazy.

But then, suddenly it all becomes clear as God’s wrath descends upon Israel in the form of the Assyrians. Samaria is destroyed, Israel ceases to exist as a nation and its people are driven into exile or slavery while the, relatively, faithful Judah still stands.

Refugees from the more cosmopolitan Northern Kingdom stream into Judah, and especially Jerusalem, most likely bringing with them their polytheistic practices. To make matters worse, the Assyrians have marched south and are knocking at the doors of Jerusalem.

Micah expresses the belief that the Northern Kingdom got what it deserved, Jerusalem is about to get what it deserves, but if the common people of the countryside of Judah will just stay true, God will protect them against the Assyrians. A leader will arise from the least of the clans and shepherds will defend Judah because all things are possible with the help of God. Ultimately this leader would reestablish the Kingdom of Israel.

The timeframe in which Micah expects all of this to happen is a little unclear, at least in the English version.

Even if you ignore the questions of does this really relate to a place, where was Jesus actually born and what’s the anticipated timeframe, this verse still fails as a prophecy of Jesus because Jesus never became “ruler over Israel” and I’m not about to buy a spin which says with the new covenant this now means Christianity and Jesus is clearly ruler nor the spin that this will happen in the second coming.

His burial among the rich (Isaiah 53:9);
His crucifixion with criminals (Isaiah 53:12);

I saved these two for last because they are part of the “Suffering Servant” description which runs from Isaiah 52:13 through the end of Isaiah 53.

Now here’s a strange thing, even my left eyebrow goes up when I read the Suffering Servant. I’m not sure why the MAPS author isolates these two verses as the entire body of the Suffering Servant is claimed, by Christians, to be a prophecy of Jesus.

Clearly Jews disagree. Their current position is that this isn’t a prophecy of the Messiah at all but rather a description of the sufferings of Israel. The Suffering Servant is claimed to be the Nation of Israel. Christians claim that this interpretation is a relatively recent change and they point to ancient Jewish texts which argue that this is in fact a Messianic Prophecy.

As far as past disagreements among Jews themselves as to whether this is a Messianic Prophecy or not, I sort of find this irrelevant. In the past there were significant disagreements within Christianity as well. Would any Christian apologist accept as a counter argument to the divinity of Jesus the fact that some early Christian sects viewed him as purely human? I doubt it, so I don’t see how past conflicts among Jews with respect to the Suffering Servant are meaningful either. The current orthodox thinking among Jews with respect to Isaiah 52 & 53 is that it describes the nation of Israel and they have two very strong arguments to back that position up.

The first is that in Isaiah God consistently refers to the Patriarch Jacob and the people of Israel as his servants. Examples include:

Isaiah 44:21 - "Remember these things, O Jacob, for you are my servant, O Israel. I have made you, you are my servant; O Israel, I will not forget you.”

Isaiah 49:3 - He said to me, "You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will display my splendor."

The second is that much of the text of the Suffering Servant is in the Hebrew past tense. Why would a prophecy of something that won’t occur for 700 years be in the past tense? More likely Isaiah is describing the past trials of the nation of Israel than the future trials of the Messiah.

However, even with all that being said, if the Suffering Servant passage was being proposed as the sole prophecy of Jesus, I might give it more credence. Some of the verses are VERY reminiscent of the story of Jesus as savior. Consider Isaiah 53:5 and 53:6

Isaiah 53:5 - But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.

Isaiah 53:6 - We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

What weakens the argument is the silly overkill claim by Christians that there are hundreds of prophecies in the Hebrew Bible about Jesus. If all the other claimed prophecies are nonsense, then it’s very likely that this one is as well.

How about we try this one on for size? Since the gospels were written 700 years after the book of Isaiah, maybe the story of Jesus was written based upon the Suffering Servant and simply overlaid onto the political realities of the 1st century?

You can argue this stuff for ages with little or no movement on either side. I’ve had true believers try to sell me on the accuracy of biblical prophecy and, at least so far, they’ve had no success. But on the other hand, I haven’t had much success convincing them that all these so-called prophecies are nonsense either.

Over the years I’ve noticed a fundamental difference in the mental outlook of believers and skeptics. It’s been my experience that believers are satisfied with a possible explanation as long at that explanation supports their beliefs. Skeptics tend to look for probable explanations.

Is it possible that all the Christian Apologists are right about everything? Sure it is, but the probability of that being so is so low that’s it’s about as close to zero as it can be. Same thing with the bible prophecy thing, I’ve yet to see one for which a compelling case can be made. To claim an event was prophesized hundreds of years before it occurred is an extraordinary claim and, as we all know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence or at least compelling evidence.

The NFL Conference Championship Games

Gee, I was never so happy to be wrong in a prediction as I was with the Giants and Packers. Too bad I lost the lottery for Super Bowl tickets as I think I would have gone. After all, this will probably be my last chance.

In the AFC, no real surprise as the Patriots moved to 18-0 and positioned themselves for the perfect 19-0 season. The Las Vegas odds makers have them as a 14 point favorite.

If the world was ruled by the result with the greatest drama, the Patriots would fall to the Giants in Glendale. Unfortunately the world is ruled by cold reality and there is no way I can see the Pats losing.

Although I’ll be rooting against them all the way, the Patriots win Super Bowl XLII to cap off a perfect 19-0 season. I just hope the Giants keep it close.

Speaking of cold reality, I cannot even begin to imagine what it was like watching the Giants and Packers in -4 degree whether. That must have been nuts. I don't blame Tynes for running off the field as soon as he saw that his kick was good.

Nevada and South Carolina Part 1

In Nevada it was Hillary Clinton with 51% of the vote leading Barack Obama with 41% of the vote (although Obama got 13 delegates to Clintons 12) and Mitt Romney swamping the Republican field with 51% of the vote, well ahead of the surprising 2nd place Ron Paul with 14% and the third place John McCain with 13%. Mike Huckabee and Fred Thomson were way behind Romney each with around 8% of the vote.

In South Carolina, John McCain squeaked out a victory with 33% of the vote. Huckabee was second with 30%, followed by Thompson with 16% and Romney with 15%.

So who’s winning? I have no idea. On the Republican side Romney looks like he could encounter problems in any state with a fair percentage of Evangelical Christian voters. Now let’s face facts shall we; a Republican candidate without the support of Evangelical Christians is probably doomed.

McCain’s win in South Carolina indicates to me that he is the most viable candidate capable of appealing to all segments of the Republican base and some moderate Independents.

I think Florida will tell the tale. If McCain wins Florida he’ll be hard to head off. If somehow Giuliani manages to win, that will put things back into a jumble again.

For the Democrats, I don’t have a clue. It could still go either way and I don’t see things clearing up until after Super Tuesday if even then.

The Michigan Primary

Well Mitt finally won one. Actually that’s not really true since he also came out on top in the Wyoming caucuses which everyone sort of ignored. The win gives Romney the current lead in delegates, for whatever that means, with 42, Huckabee is second with 32 followed by McCain with 13.

The next biggie for the Republicans is South Carolina where folks go to the polls on Saturday January 19th. The current polls show John McCain with a slight lead over Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney is third with Fred Thompson not far behind. If McCain or Romney win South Carolina I think the Republican campaign will have a legitimate front runner, but if either Huckabee or Thompson win, things will remain muddled until Florida on January 29th.

On the Democrat side, the Michigan Primary was basically a no contest due to the Party’s discipline of Michigan for moving up its primary. For what it’s worth, Hillary got the majority of the votes there.

The next biggies for the Democrats are Nevada, also on January 19th, and then South Carolina on January 26th.

A Plea to Evangelicals – from an Evangelical

No, that’s not me obviously. The title is that of an Op-ed piece written by David P. Gushee, a Professor of Christian Ethics at Mercer University and president of Evangelicals for Human Rights.

I’ll resist the temptation of calling “Christian Ethics” an oxymoron and consider the article itself.

To be honest, the message of the article isn’t all that clear because the author seems to be struggling with himself about exactly what he wants to say. I think he’s warning conservative evangelicals to be careful about how they present “values.” At the same time Gushee appears to be pleased that Christian “values” have considerable influence but appears concerned about a possible backlash if the conservative position comes across as too extreme. Some quotes from the op-ed with commentary.

“Evangelical politics matter to the general public, which is affected by what conservative evangelicals believe and "value." In the past seven years, we have seen that laws are written based on these values. Supreme Court justices are named based on these values. Executive-branch appointments are made based on these values. And presidential campaigns now seem to advance or collapse based on these values.”

I can’t really argue with this statement as it’s pretty much accurate. Certainly the current administration tends to make its appointments based upon an appointee’s position on issues such as abortion and gay rights and some states have passed laws related to the same topics.

As to whether presidential campaigns “advance or collapse” based upon these “values” remains to be seen as well as whether candidates towing the conservative evangelical line benefit or get hurt from doing so.

“So the general public has come to understand that what conservative evangelicals believe and do matter an awful lot to everyone in this country. Many people are furious about it. But these beliefs and values also matter to other Christians, especially other evangelicals like me. Our reputation is at stake, our voice in the culture, and the health of our religious communities. If the most vocal evangelicals get this wrong, it damages all evangelicals — all religious believers, really.”

Am I missing something here? Are you saying that they have it wrong or not? I assume that the “most vocal evangelicals” accurately represent Christianity as a whole because I never hear any Christians contradicting their positions. Are you saying this ain’t necessarily so?

“If there are people who reject God or the church, Christianity or religiously inspired moral values because of what conservative evangelical political activists do, this is disastrous from a Christian point of view. There are many such people. Here we are at the very heart of our religious mission, and it is getting fouled up by our politics.”

Let’s see, I think he means if the politics of conservative evangelicals drive people away from Jesus, then those politics are counter productive. That’s a real hoot ain’t it? How many of us flaming liberals do you think would suddenly decide to accept Jesus as our savior and buy into all that silly Christian nonsense if only conservative evangelicals didn’t oppose gay marriage?

Yeah sure, the Virgin Birth, The Trinity and miracles would automatically become more rational if we didn’t have all these political disagreements.

“Specifically for Christians, we (should) know that the mission of the church is to be Christ's faithful people, and to do its core work of preaching, teaching and serving our neighbors.”

Teach? What is it that you think you’re going to teach me? And try preaching to me and you’ll more than likely get a laugh in the face. Christian preaching only works with the stupid, the ignorant or the desperate and I’m none of the above.

“As one aspect of our God-inspired love for our neighbor, we can ask the state and its leaders to do justice, protect life and advance the common good.”

Of course that’s your opinion of justice and the common good isn’t it? I assume when you speak of justice you’re talking about justice which “makes sense biblically,” a term which you use when referring to voting. Just what does “makes sense biblically” mean when we’re talking about “justice?” I’ve read the bible and there are lots of rules and laws that the educated among us find downright barbaric. In addition to calling for the execution of homosexuals, your bible commands believers to kill all non-believers and stone to death women raped in a city that don’t call out for help. You will excuse me if I doubt that your bible is much of a blueprint for a just society or the common good.

Oh yeah, by the way, please don’t love me. I’d be much happier if you hated me.

“But we dare not identify the work of any state, any political party or any politician with the work of God or the task of the church.”

Since when? Religion has been focusing on getting a stranglehold on the state in order to be able to “teach” its doctrines through physical force and coercion since man first invented it. Seems to me that’s a major goal of the Christian Right and if you’re looking for an issue that makes people “furious” as you put it, this is probably the one. If you’re making a pitch for the separation of church and state, rather than the form of Christian Theocracy being pushed by your co-religionists, why don’t you just say so?

If you want to know what infuriates me, it’s not conservative evangelicals trying to push their values. This is a democracy and they are entitled to do so. What infuriates me is someone trying to force their religion on me and Christians who think they need to “teach” me. Trust me, I know as much as I need to about Christianity and, like I said before, I’m neither stupid, ignorant nor desperate so its absurdity doesn’t appeal to me.

Conservative evangelicals will continue to be considered the yardstick by which all evangelicals, and possibly all Christians, will be judged as long as those of you who are uncomfortable with their presentation of “values” are silent about that discomfort. Most people interpret silence as agreement.

You can’t continue to try and have your cake and eat it too. You can’t remain silent in the hope that conservative evangelicals will manage to get their “values” codified yet stand ready to say “hey, not all evangelicals agreed with them” when the inevitable backlash occurs which is what I get the feeling you’re trying to do. Christian ethics indeed.

Crow is Good

Actually when you cover it with breadcrumbs and lightly brown it using a non-fat cooking oil it’s excellent. I should know, I get to eat enough of it after making any kind of NFL or political prediction.

I got one out of four of the NFL playoff games right last weekend. A goat choosing randomly by stomping on placards would be expected (68% probability) to get at least two right!

Ok, I was being a wise guy picking Jacksonville over New England but I honestly thought the Colts would take the Chargers and, as much as I love them, didn’t give my Giants much of a chance against a rested and healthy Cowboys team. I guess in this situation it wasn’t as much rested as it was rusty.

So now we move on to the Championship games and, as I still have some crow left over, I thought I would take this opportunity to embarrass myself again.

Tom Brady has made me a believer. An offense led by Brady can afford a shaky defense simply by putting more points on the board than the defense can give up. What’s the old saying? Oh yeah, the best defense is a good offense.

The best shot for a letdown was the first playoff game. The chances dive bomb from there. New England sends San Diego home and moves on to the bowl.

That brings me to the Giants and Packers. Every piece of logic says that Brett Favre and the Packers should easily brush aside the Giants and head for a showdown with New England. Favre must be licking his chops over the chance to play against the battered and bruised Giant secondary. Hell, they had a practice squad guy named Geoffrey Pope, who had been cut by the 1-15 Miami Dolphins for Pete’s sake, playing during the 4th quarter in Dallas. They’re also expecting temperatures to be in the single digits and Manning is not at his best in the cold (which could a problem playing in Northern New Jersey). Then again is anybody at his best is near zero temperatures? That kind of cold can be a great leveler. Add to those worries the fact that Green Bay, as opposed to a Dallas team which didn’t look sharp at the end of the season, looked like razor blades against the Seahawks. Anything can happen in the cold, but there are too many factors against them for the Giant’s road show to continue, I have to go with Favre and the Packers.

That would mean a Packers vs. Patriots Super Bowl headlining possibly the two best quarterbacks in NFL history. That would be a game for the ages. I’ll take the Packers.

Let’s Talk Some Football

Given my limited time to play with my blog, I didn’t bother with the NFL this season. That doesn’t mean I stopped being a fan. I dutifully was at all the Giants home game including the final barn burner against New England. If only we could have recovered that onside kick…

But now we’re into the second round of the playoffs and I feel absolutely obligated to embarrass myself once again by trying to predict the winners and losers.

In the NFC, Dallas ends the season for my Giants and Brett Favre and the Packers send the Seahawks home as well.

In the AFC, the Colts handle the Chargers and, here it comes folks, Jacksonville upsets the Patriots.

Why do I say that you ask? I watched the Pats from the stands which is very different from watching their on TV. Their offense is an unbelievable machine but their defense is soft. It’s their Achilles Heal. They also put a lot into beating the Giants. I think they left a lot of it on the floor of the Meadowlands making it 16-0 and their going to come out flat against Jacksonville.

Offense wins games, but defense wins championships, the Jaguars surprise everyone and beat the Pats.

In the Championship games, the Cowboys end Brett Favre’s Cinderella season and the Colts beat the Jaguars. Jacksonville can’t beat the two best quarterbacks in football on consecutive weekends.

In the Super Bowl, it’s the Cowboys.

What do you figure the odds are I got all four of the first games wrong? Three of the four? Half of them? Excuse me while I go put in a stock of crow just in case.

The New Hampshire Primary

Roll up your sleeves and settle in because we’ve got ourselves a horse race, two of them in fact.

Despite the media’s quick jump to conclusions that Hillary Clinton was a dead duck, she won New Hampshire so now who’s the front runner?

On the Republican side McCain big win emphasizes Huckabee’s limited appeal and Romney’s inability to convince folks that he’s the right man for the job. I wouldn’t write off Mitt yet though. Let’s remember that he came in second to two different opponents in two very different contests with two very different electorates. He also ran away with the Wyoming caucuses which no one seems to want to mention.

I’m beginning to wonder if the Republicans are capable of producing a majority candidate before the convention. The Democrats may not be able to either if John Edwards can manage to hang in there although this is looking more and more doubtful.

Next is Michigan which should be Romney friendly country although neither McCain nor Huckabee appear to be conceding the state.

Thoughts on Mike Huckabee's Win in Iowa

Let’s talk about the Republican winner, Mike Huckabee. I like Mike Huckabee, I really do. He strikes me as an honest guy that couldn’t help but be true to his beliefs. Unfortunately I don’t share a lot of his beliefs. There’s also such a thing as being too nice a guy. I think a good leader needs a healthy dose of evil, deviousness and larceny in his soul to be successful.

I also have doubts about the way Huckabee arrives at decisions.

How about we try to learn from our mistakes? The single biggest problem with the Bush Administration has been its refusal to accept facts which clashed with its pre-conceived notions or wishful thinking.

I have this fear that this may be a characteristic that Bush and Huckabee share. I’m having a hard time accepting as a candidate for President someone who hasn’t figured out that the science of evolution is a lot more likely to represent reality than the metaphor of Genesis.

As a side note, I might also point out that the political organizing done in Iowa by Christian pastors on behalf of Huckabee comes perilously close to violating the rules which allow churches to maintain their tax exempt status. Pastors and their Christian congregations can do anything they want as individuals but when tax exempt pulpits are used to endorse political candidates (as has been reported as occurring in Iowa recently on behalf of Huckabee) then the separation of church and state is undermined. If these reports are true, since clearly Huckabee went along with these activities, what does that say about his commitment to the separation of church and state?

Personally I’m sick and tired of Evangelical Christianity constantly attempting to force its so-called morality (opposition to a woman’s right to choose and gay marriage), its opinions (teach creationism alongside evolution) and its artifacts (displays of the Ten Commandments) onto the country in general and me in particular. Evangelical Christians appear to believe this is a Christian country and should be brought into line with biblical principles (see Pew Forum survey on Religion & the Law) but the rest of us don’t.

The bottom line is I don’t trust Huckabee not to treat the Presidency as the First Pastorship. He’s too far on the right wing (just as Hillary Clinton is too far on the left wing) and would be a polarizing agent just as Clinton would be a polarizing agent.

Neither Huckabee nor Clinton can heal the damage of the last years. If either of those two is elected we’ll see the Blue States become more blue or the Red States become more red in reaction and that’s not going to solve anything.

The Iowa Caucuses

Ok, so I'm almost as bad at predicting political races as I am NFL football.

Huckabee's support in Iowa turned out to be more reality than illusion and he won the first round. At least I got the Democratic side right with Obama taking first place there.

Now it's on to New Hampshire and what will be a rockier road for Huckabee. If he does well in New Hampshire I may have to reconsider my prediction that Romney will ultimately take the nomination. I doubt Huckabee's Evangelical Christian tune will play as well in New Hampshire but the guy appears to be a straight shooter and that will go over well with New England voters.

For the Democrats, if Hillary can't reverse the results in New Hampshire her campaign might be in big trouble.

We shall see what we shall see.

Happy 2008 (I think)

2008 is here so let the games begin! Actually they began what seems like forever ago. Of course I’m complaining about the Presidential race.

Tomorrow, January 3rd, Iowa does its thing and the race will have officially begun. The first heat will identify the two top dogs and then we can get on to the main event which again promises to be something of a barn burner. I think it’s safe to say that the early hopes for a Democratic run away have all but evaporated because the damn Democrats can’t seem to identify the right dog for the race.

How anyone other than an Evangelical Christian could vote for another Right Wing fruitcake after experiencing Bush the Unhinged is beyond my comprehension. Yet two of the three front runners on the Republican side, Romney and Huckabee, appear to fall into that category. The problem is they’re both likable kind of guys, just like Bush came across as a likable guy, so both could do well.

On the Democratic side I don’t think Hillary is as assured of the nomination as folks once thought. Obama and Edwards are still very much alive.

So let’s talk predictions for Iowa and predictions and hopes for the long haul. As far as Iowa is concerned, I doubt a lot of Republicans there will finally decide what they’re going to do until they’re in the voting booth, but my money is still on Romney to win with McCain second and Huckabee a disappointing third. I think Huckabee’s surge is more illusion than substance. People will “support” him when it doesn’t cost anything but I suspect when it counts, that support will weaken and folks will go for Mitt or John.

I also think it’s going to be Romney and McCain fighting it out in the long haul. I don’t think Giuliani’s strategy of focusing on the later primaries is going to work. Momentum coming out of Iowa and New Hampshire is too important especially if the same guy wins both.

In the end I believe that Mitt Romney will win the nomination. Ultimately McCain’s age is going to work against him.

For the Democrats I think Obama will squeak out a win over Hillary with Edwards coming in a close 3rd. In the long haul I think this three way horse race continues with Obama vs. Clinton continuing to be the focal point and Edwards staying in the game but a tad behind the two main actors. Realistically, Edward’s only real chance may be as a compromise candidate if no one establishes a majority prior to the convention.

To be honest with you, I’m not sure any of the three Democrats can win but I’m beginning to believe that Obama has the best chance. We could be looking at the John Kennedy of the early 21st century here. If he gets the nomination, his smarts and charisma might win the day if he can overcome the criticism of inexperience and the endemic racism which exists in this country.

As far as Edwards and Clinton are concerned, I’m concerned that too many people view the former as a lightweight and the latter as a disciple of Satan himself. Hillary won’t get the nomination because ultimately people will be concerned that she will be a polarizing influence and I think most people instinctively understand that the country needs a leader that will heal the disaster of the current administration. Obama can do that, Clinton can’t.

A race between Romney and Obama may well bring out the worst that this country has to offer but, in the final analysis, it might be an eye opening experience for a lot of folks. With any luck we might see the Radical Right Wing self destruct during the process because neither candidate is acceptable to it. This could allow the Republican Party to restore its Moderate Conservative roots.

In the Best Case scenario, the Radical Right breaks off and offers it’s own Conservative Christian candidate (not Huckabee though, Mike’s too smart for that) who gets hammered by both Romney and Obama but who siphons off enough votes in enough swing state for Barack to establish a solid electoral mandate.

Then we can establish Camelot II and begin to clean up the mess of the last eight years.

Christmas Eve, 2007

Well, here we are again on Christmas Eve.

Sigh, a time to commune with the Ghosts of Christmas Past, a time to try and enjoy the Ghost of Christmas Present and a time to try not to worry too much about the Ghosts of Christmas yet to come.

I'm looking forward to the Patriots vs. Giants game at the Meadowlands Saturday night. Hopefully it won't be too cold and either way, it's a once in a lifetime opportunity. Here's hoping the Giants figure out a way to stop the Pats.

In the 2008 Presidential race, who the hell knows what's going to happen. I think the country needs someone who will draw the people closer together and not be a polarizing agent. In other words we need a moderate that a wide cross section of the country can trust and who will do what is necessary to repair the damage of the Bush years.

I can't see Hillary Clinton in that role. Barack Obama and John Edwards yes, but not Hillary. On the Republican side Mitt Romney's reaction to Mike Huckabee's criticism of the Bush Administration was to chide him for being disloyal. This, in a nutshell, is the problem with the Republican Party, loyalty is more important than integrity.

Yet, Huckabee did tell it like it is about the failures of this administration. He may have his head up his ass about evolution but the man's not afraid to tell it like he sees it and one has to admire any politician that does that.

I guess that we shall see what we shall see.

New Jersey Ends Death Penalty

The Coliseum in Rome is lit today in golden lights celebrating the outlawing of the Death Penalty in the Sovereign State of New Jersey.

Governor Corzine signed the bill passed by the legislature making New Jersey the first state since the Supreme Court reinstated the Death Penalty in 1978 to abolish it.

Hopefully this is only the first domino.

New Jersey Senate Votes to End Death Penalty

The State of New Jersey is on the verge of eliminating its death penalty statute. On Monday, December 10th the New Jersey Senate voted for abolition by a margin of 21-16. The Assembly will vote on Thursday and is also expected to approve abolition.

Governor Corzine has indicated that he will vote the bill, which replaces the Death Penalty with Life without Parole, into law. When that occurs, New Jersey will become the first state to legislatively abolish the death penalty since it was reinstated by the Supreme Court in 1978. As of January 1st 2007, there were 11 inmates of Death Row in New Jersey whose sentences would automatically be commuted to Life without Parole. New Jersey has never executed anyone under its current death penalty statute.

Let’s hear it for the Blue State of New Jersey. Use of the death penalty is on the decline in the U.S. and a majority of Americans now prefer Life without Parole over the Death Penalty. Someday the presidential candidates, all of whom support the death penalty, might even look into why that’s the case.

The Golden Compass

I haven’t seen the movie and I didn’t read the books. As a matter of fact I had never heard of the books until the Christian fruitcakes started howling about an atheist conspiracy.

Given the flap and baggage surrounding this movie it’s hard to put much credence in the reviews around the internet, including the reviews by the professionals. Hey, my faith in the media is way down so why should I believe even the lowly movie critics are being honest with me?

As far as I can tell though, the movie sounds like a bit of a dud. Too much of it appears to have been left on the cutting room floor and, supposedly, it’s hard to follow and feels rushed. At least that’s the impression I’m getting from reviews that strike me as uninfluenced by the religious squabbling.

What I find funny is the number of Christians posting venomous attacks on the movie simply because they’ve been led to believe its anti-Christian and anti-God. Some of the faithful have even called for a boycott. This simply causes me to ask again why Christians are afraid to place their “truths” in direct competition with other “truths” that contradict their beliefs. Always their initial reaction is to try and silence anyone that has a different slant on reality. What are they afraid of? Are they afraid that Christianity might be shown up for the nonsense that it is?

As far as Phillip Pullman and his books are concerned, based upon what I’ve learned, the man is a definite atheist and an outspoken critic of C.S. Lewis and his Narnia books. The “His Dark Materials” trilogy, of which “The Golden Compass” is the first book, appears to be a sort of anti-Paradise Lost where those fighting on the side of Hell are the good guys. The church and religion are portrayed as an evil dictatorial duo that would fit right into Orwell’s 1984.

Now there seems to be universal agreement that the more controversial points from the books are very much downplayed in the movie. But, according to the fruitcake crowd, that’s where the conspiracy comes in. The downplaying in the movie is a trick to lure young, innocent, and unsuspecting minds into reading the books which will shatter both their belief in Christianity and their faith in God.

Gee, all of a sudden Christians are worried about warping young minds. The same minds that they wash repeatedly with Christian dogma as soon as the poor things learn language. If I remember correctly, weren’t churches hiring busses to take the kiddies to see “The Chronicles of Narnia” and weren’t even some renting the movie and giving shows in the church? Weren’t too worried about warping young minds then were you?

Ok, enough anti-religious venting. I can’t really judge Pullman’s books without reading them but I suspect that his atheistic world view shows through loud and clear. I wouldn’t expose pre-teens to these kinds of ideas because they’re just not intellectually ready for them. As for teenagers, it would depend upon the maturity and intelligence of the teen. When they’re ready, they should be exposed to these ideas and left to decide for themselves where the truth lies. Didn’t a Jewish philosopher one time say something to the effect that if it is of God, you won’t be able to prevent it from winning and if it’s not of God, you won’t be able to prevent it from losing?

So Christians, why are you so afraid of ideas that might not line up with your theology?

Sherri Shepherd of the View

Ignorance I can forgive. Stupidity is a little harder to take. I define stupidity as not realizing that you’re ignorant.

Sherri Shepherd is a moron who should be prevented from continuing to pollute the airwaves. First she didn’t know whether the earth was round or flat and now she argues that Christianity predates ancient Greece.

Don’t we have enough problems with education in this country? Our so-called “students” lag behind every industrialized nation in every category yet we continue to allow bozos like Shepherd to broadcast their ignorance daily.

PLEASE, get this moron off the air.

Romney’s Mormon Speech

Mitt said all of the right things if he wanted to assuage the concerns of Evangelical Christians. He said all of the wrong things for those of us that would prefer a purely secular government but, then again, very few of us are going to vote Republican anyway.

If I had a major problem with anything Romney said, it was his statement that “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.”

I would agree that religion requires freedom but freedom clearly does not require religion. As a matter of fact I think it’s safe to say that freedom is a whole lot safer without religion. Just look at the Theocracies of the world and tell me which of them are “free?”

But in terms of why I’m not going to vote for Romney or Huckabee this is all sort of beside the point. If I was going to disqualify a candidate because they claim to be religious I wouldn’t be able to vote for anyone. I disqualify Romney because I think that his insistence that he accepts his Mormon faith has to include accepting the Book of Mormon as true. In my opinion, the overwhelming scientific evidence is that the Book of Mormon is a load of nonsense made up by a fast talking con man. To my mind accepting the truth of the Book of Mormon in the face of the evidence demonstrates horribly unreliable judgment.

You have to be willing to re-evaluate your beliefs based upon new evidence! If you’re not willing to do so you don’t deserve to be the President of the United States. Hell, you don’t deserve to have your own hot dog cart. This is one of the major problems with the current administration. Bush and his cronies continue to believe what they believe regardless of mounting evidence that they are freaking WRONG!

We saw this demonstrated with Global Warming, we saw it demonstrated with Iraq and now we’re seeing it demonstrated with Iran. When are we going to figure out that this is a REALLY bad way to run anything but especially a really bad way to run a country? And we want to elect someone else that thinks this way?

Is it possible I'm wrong about the Book of Mormon or the direction the evidence points? Sure it is, but if I can't make decisions based upon my own ability to reason and analyze questions, what can I base them upon?

Huckleberry Hound has the same freaking problem with evolution. Read the lips of every reputable scientific organization in the country. Evolution is a fact and Intelligent Design is religion and not science. Even the court in Dover Pennsylvania made it clear that ID was just warmed over Creationism yet Huckabee still takes the position that ID should be taught as an alternate scientific theory.

This is the same problem on a different topic. We don’t need any more of this we really don’t. How about we start to grow up and at least try to make decisions in this country based upon the facts, regardless of how unpleasant we might find those facts to be.

Would I overlook these idiosyncracies if I didn't disagree with these two guys on just about every other question? I doubt it. Rightly or wrongly I consider the questionable judgment displayed by these two points of critical importance.

“Under God” and “In God we Trust”

Here we go again. Michael Newdow, a doctor AND a Lawyer from California, is continuing his crusade to get “Under God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance and “In God we Trust” off of U.S. currency.

Twice now Newdow has gotten Federal courts to acknowledge that “Under God” in the pledge in unconstitutional because it violates a child’s right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God." The case stalled the first time around when the Supreme Court ruled that Newdow did not have standing to bring the lawsuit.

On “In God we Trust,” a Federal court has ruled that it does not violate Newdow’s right to be an atheist and Newdow has appealed. A Federal appeals court will hear both cases and regardless of the decisions, both questions will probably end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

This question is not that obvious. Who is this “God” that the phrases refer to? It could be the Christian God; it could be the Islamic Allah; it could even be Zeus, Odin or the Universe I guess.

It could be, but we really know that isn’t how it’s intended.

The intent is that it’s the Christian God. In a pinch Christians will allow Jews to share that God and they may even allow Muslims to join the party but polytheists such as Wiccans, Hindus and followers of Asatru probably need not apply.

One might be able to argue that the phrases do not apply to a given religion, but they clearly apply to a class of religions and they certainly acknowledge a belief in God over a non-belief in God.

Now here’s where it gets tricky. Does the establishment clause require strict neutrality between belief in God and non-belief in God? There is a difference between religion and a belief in God. One can believe in what I call the secular God. Basically a belief that we’re more than a cosmic accident and there is some reason for our existence beyond the vague genetic imperative implied by natural selection, but that rejects all religions as false.

Some folks call this philosophy Deism. But Deism also attempts to define the nature of God. Deism believes God wants humans to act “morally” but leaves the definition of “morally” somewhat open. To my mind then Deism is a religion, a somewhat fuzzy and vaguely defined religion perhaps but a religion nonetheless.

Personally I always fall back upon a militant agnostic outlook. I don’t know if there’s a God, but if there is, he hasn’t given me any revelations so why should I believe he’s provided them to anyone else?

But I digress. I think this is a case where intent matters and the intent was, I believe in both cases, clearly intended to honor the Christian concept of God. That being the case, I believe that “Under God” and “In God we Trust” both do in fact violate the first amendment. I also think the case is far stronger with “Under God” due to the coercive argument.

That being the case, both should be declared unconstitutional, but, given the current Supreme Court membership, they won’t be.

The entire attempt is ill considered and is just going to end up giving those who would like to staple the label “Christian Country” onto the U.S. another argument in their favor and an opportunity to declare victory. Besides, we have a hell of a lot more important things to worry about like a war in Iraq, universal Health Care and an educational system that has American teens lagging behind the rest of the industrialized world in science and math.

A Teddy Bear Named Muhammad

A British school teacher in the Sudan allowed her class, of mostly Muslim students, to name a stuffed Teddy Bear they were using as part of their school lessons. The students choose the name “Muhammad,” according to one report after a popular boy in the class.

Incredibly, police showed up at the school shortly afterward to arrest the teacher on blasphemy charges for insulting the Prophet Muhammad, charges which carried with them a potential six month prison term and 40 lashes. Severe diplomatic pressure from Britain and others led the religious court to reduce the charges to insulting religion and it sentenced the teacher to 15 days in prison.

This wasn’t good enough for the faithful however who turned out in force demanding the woman’s execution.

Yes, you heard me right, they wanted to execute this lady for allowing her class to name a Teddy Bear Muhammad.

You will excuse me, but who’s insulting the Prophet more, children who want to include him in their education or the whackos asking for the execution of a teacher that allowed them to do so? Here's another example of why religion, any religion, cannot, under any circumstances, be allowed any legal authority.

In the past I’ve made comments to the effect that we’re going to have to share this world with Islam so we might as well figure out how to co-exist peacefully. After this, I’m not sure it’s possible. Maybe the only answer is to kill them all and let Sky Daddy sort them out.

Anyone want to take any bets on how long it will be before someone offers a Teddy Bear on the Internet wearing a “Muhammad” T-shirt? I might buy one of those.

Explain to me again why I'm supposed to "respect" religion? Is it supposed to be out of fear? You will excuse me again but I don't do fear.

A Rape in Saudi Arabia

A woman in Saudi Arabia was kidnapped and gang raped by seven men. The men were convicted and sentenced to prison. Unfortunately, at the time the woman was kidnapped she was in a car with a male friend who was not a relative.

That, according to the medieval thinking prevalent in Theocracies, violates Islamic Law and therefore the woman was also convicted and sentenced to six months in jail and 90 lashes. She appealed the verdict and the Saudi General Court increased the sentence to 200 lashes!

That’s a lot of lashes. That could be an effective death sentence depending upon how the lashes are applied and with what.

And these are the “Good Muslims,” the so-called “Moderate Muslims.” Tell me again how Islam is a religion of peace?

There was an international hue and cry over the verdict but the Saudi court defended it by simply saying that the charges were “proven.” That’s not the point you morons! The point is you might want to consider crawling a little closer to the 21st Century!

The reaction from our State Department was, given the attitude of the Bush Administration toward religion and women and the financial ties of the Bush family with Saudi Arabia, muted beyond all acceptability.

Clearly trying so hard to be “respectful” of the Saudi’s religion, the closest the State Department came to criticizing the verdict was a statement by one spokesman that the verdict "causes a fair degree of surprise and astonishment."

DUH, ya think? Well, I don’t have to be respectful. This is beyond barbaric. Do you really need any additional evidence that Islam is the religion of barbarism and intolerance? Do you really need any additional indication of the horrors that can occur when religion is given any kind of power whatsoever?

Religion needs to be relegated to the margins of society and not only in this country, but everyplace. If we don’t manage to make this happen, the future is going to be a very unpleasant place.

Blacklisted by History?

That’s the claim made about Senator Joe McCarthy in a book by M. Stanton Evans. Ann Coulter, who has also defended McCarthy, is all giddy about the book since it provides the "pretense of scholarly throat-clearing and objectivity" that the Los Angeles Times pointed out was missing in her defense of McCarthy.

Coulter is missing the point of the L.A. Times critique. Even if your unjustified assertions and accusations happen to be right, that doesn’t justify the unjustified assertions and accusations. Evans, by producing a scholarly work, doesn’t justify your washer woman approach to history.

As for Evans’ book, it’s hard to say because I haven’t read the book although I am tempted to do so. My hesitation is based upon the book descriptions I’ve read which lead me to suspect that the book primarily says (1) the Communist threat in the late 1940s and early 1950s was really something to be concerned about and (2) McCarthy has been unjustly accused of a lot of things.

Neither of these two positions particularly surprises me. As a matter of fact, I probably could have you told you that would be the case.

Anyone familiar with the history of the period could see that Soviet Communism was a real threat especially with a Western Europe still prostrate after WW II.

Anyone familiar with human nature knows that once a villain, justly or unjustly, becomes identified, he gets the blame for all kinds of things. I’m surprised McCarthy wasn’t accused of killing Cock Robin as well all the other stuff flung in his direction.

Neither of these two things are the issue. The issue is whether McCarthy, in trying to offset the Communist threat, didn’t become by virtue of the methods he used, a bigger threat to American liberties than the Communists he was so worried about.

Does this sound familiar? Hasn’t the Bush administration been a greater threat to American liberties than all the Islamo-Fascists ever spawned?

If there is a fundamental difference between Liberals and Conservatives, it may well be that Liberals are willing to trade security for liberty while Conservatives are willing to trade liberty for security.

Saying No to Baby Jesus

The Detroit suburb of Berkley has for decades, acording to Michigan papers, displayed a crèche outside of city hall during the Christmas season. Last year, after the ACLU pointed out that the nativity only display probably violated the law, the city council gave the display to the local clergy association which agreed to put up the display at city churches.

Sounds like a reasonable compromise right? Take it off public property but save the tradition by having the display rotate through the churches in the area.

At least it seemed reasonable to everyone but a group of local Christians. You know the kind I mean, the kind that thinks preventing Christians from forcing their religion on everyone else is a violation of their rights and persecution equivalent to being tossed to the lions.

These folks managed to get enough signatures to force a vote on a city charter amendment that would require the city to display, at a minimum, a Mary, Joseph and infant Jesus on city hall property.

More rational heads prevailed however and the measure was defeated 55-45.

And so, another round of the so-called Christmas wars has ended.

I guess I‘m a little confused as to why they didn’t simply expand the holiday display with a Menorah, Santa and his reindeer and a Frosty the Snowman. Adding the secular elements, assuming they were as prominent as the crèche, would have shifted the display into the legal realm. Perhaps it was an issue of cost or space or perhaps they didn't want to sully the local tradition. I can understand that. At my age, tradition is important.

In any event, I can’t imagine anyone dumb enough to try and REQUIRE the town to display a nativity scene. I mean, an amendment saying it was ok might have had a fighting chance.

At least there are some folks in Michigan that appear to understand what is meant by the separation of church and state. This is another indication that Christopher Hitchens’ hypothesis that there are a lot more “nominal Christians” than “real Christians” in this country might have something to it.

To Die in Jerusalem

I watched the HBO Documentary “To Die in Jerusalem” over the weekend. The special is about the efforts of the mother of a seventeen year old Israeli girl, killed in a suicide attack, to arrange a meeting with the mother of the seventeen year old Palestinian girl that carried out the attack.

The attack was a cover story on Newsweek and got coverage on 60 Minutes II when it occurred in 2003. The HBO Documentary follows the attempts of the Israeli girl’s mother to set up a “mother to mother” dialogue.

They finally met, not face to face but via a satellite TV hookup. I wish I could say that the meeting was a success, and that at least the two mothers managed some degree of closure and solidarity, but that wasn’t the case.

The divide there is so deep that even two mothers, both of which had lost teenage daughters, couldn’t find any common ground.

This was a very depressing experience. The two girls were the same age as my youngest daughter. They should have been mall hopping with their friends and giggling about boys, clothes and music, not dying in a Jerusalem supermarket.

If you look at their pictures side by side, they could have been cousins. It sounded as if they had similar personalities and perhaps even similar interests. If they had met under peaceful circumstances they might even have been friends. Perhaps working together they could have helped heal the wounds. Instead they both lie cold and still in the damp earth, their laughter silenced forever, and whatever they may have accomplished lost to the world.

I can see no road leading to a solution in Palestine. In Iraq there is a road, it may be a bloody one, but it’s still a road. In Iraq the U.S. pulls out and the Iraqis fight their civil war. Hopefully it will be short and localized. Once it’s over, the Iraqis can rebuild and, eventually, move on.

In Palestine, I have no idea what you do. How do you solve the problem of two people trying to occupy the same space?

I’m not even sure you could solve the problem by carving out a Palestinian state. I suspect there would be so much disagreement over which parcels of land went to who that it would never be accomplished.

Then there’s the whole religion thing.

I don’t think religion is the root cause, land is the root cause and the Palestinians claim that they are the victims of an occupation by a foreign power. They don’t view the suicide attacks as terrorism, they view it as resistance. Allow me to suggest that the Palestinians consider the idea that men should be fighting their battles against other men and not children against children, and they also consider directing their “resistance” at the Israeli military and political structure rather than at a 17 year old running an errand at the supermarket.

When you attack an Israeli Humvee and armed soldiers, you can call it “resistance” and “courageous;” when you attack a supermarket and an unarmed teenage girl, I call it “terrorism” and “cowardly.” When you use a teenage girl to perform the supermarket attack, I call it “contemptible.”

If Allah exists, how do you think he would view a contemptible and cowardly act of terrorism against a child? I know that Saladin would weep for both girls.

This is not to say that all the blame rests at the doorstep of the Palestinians, far from it. They are victims, victims of the world not getting off its collective butt and helping to work out a solution for this problem.

Just because I don’t see a solution doesn’t mean there isn’t one. There are lots of people in this world a lot smarter than I am. I blame the international community; I blame the United Nations; I blame the so-called superpowers for not having helped to solve this problem twenty years ago.

It all comes home to roost. If the world had solved the Palestinian problem, there would be no Al-Qaeda, the World Trade Center would still stand, there would be no war in Iraq and perhaps Iran’s nuclear ambitions would be more clearly focused on peaceful usages.

In other words, I suspect that when all is said and done, history will identify the troubles in Palestine as the great failure of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Hopefully that failure won’t lead to catastrophe, but after watching this show, I’m not all that optimistic.

Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week

If you weren’t paying attention, you missed it. It was actually held between October 22 and October 26 at 114 College and University campuses. According to its sponsors it was “the largest, most successful campus demonstrations by students not associated with the anti-American left in the history of campus protest.”

Think about that statement for a second; two Young Republicans standing on the Quad and saying in unison “I hate Hillary” could qualify for that title as well. Given the gnashing of teeth there appears to be among conservative commentators, and the total silence about the event in the mainstream media, I suspect my mythical Young Republicans would have had a bigger impact.

So what was the point supposed to be? Well, apparently the objective was “to confront the two Big Lies of the political left: that George Bush created the war on terror and that Global Warming is a greater danger to Americans than the terrorist threat.”

Uh-huh, and beyond that it was “a national effort to oppose these lies and to rally American students to defend their country.”

One has to wonder what these folks have in mind when they say they want “students to defend their country?”

Are they supposed to throw textbooks at the jihadists or what?

Let’s talk about the claims that George Bush created the war on terror or that Global Warming is a greater threat to Americans than terrorism.

George Bush didn’t create the war on terror nor does the political left, of which I am an upstanding member, say that. Oh, ok, some dummies may, but nobody is taking that seriously; this is a conservative straw man. What we are saying is that Bush doesn’t understand WHY we have a war on our hands, because he doesn’t understand why, he doesn’t understand how the war needs to be fought and because he doesn’t understand how the war needs to be fought, the war may take longer than necessary and lives will be lost that could have been saved.

His “they hate us because of our freedom” position is naïve to the point of being criminal. Clearly there is an element in the Islamic World that is going to hate our guts as long as we reject Fundamentalist Islam. The question is would this element have any real power if it weren’t for other factors?

Would a radical organization like HAMAS be in power if Palestinians weren’t faced with extreme poverty and a belief that they have been disenfranchised? I doubt it. While they may not hate us for “our freedom” they are understandably envious of our wealth and our lifestyle. A lifestyle that radical leaders tell them is built upon their poverty. People with a comfortable life style don’t usually strap bombs on and splatter themselves all over restaurant walls.

This is literally a war of cultures and lifestyles, our western affluence versus their eastern poverty. You don’t win this kind of war with bullets and bombs. You win it by giving the other guy hope that they can drag their lifestyle up to a tolerable level. We didn’t win the cold war with bullets or ballots; we won it with blue jeans and rock and roll.

That brings us to Global Warming. In the short term terrorism, and especially nuclear terrorism, is clearly the greater danger. However, read my lips, we are going to win the war on terror. The issue is not if, it’s when and at what cost. In the long term however, Global Warming has the potential of wrecking havoc on all of civilization. Granted, it’s a little hard to worry about quicksand when you’re fighting off alligators, but we can’t afford not to figure out how to do both. It’s quite possible there is a Red Line associated with Global Warming that once passed, will make it impossible to head off catastrophe.

The really bad news is we don’t have a clue where that line might be, so we’d better figure out how to win the war on terror and reverse, or at least halt, Global Warming at the same time. The last time I looked, dead is dead and it doesn’t make any difference how you got that way.

This brings me to Ann Coulter. It was reading her column that got me to talk about Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week. Clearly she’s a great supporter of the event and she is entitled to her opinion.

However, allow me to quote from her column on this topic.

“College liberals are in a fit of pique because various speakers are coming to their campuses this week as part of David Horowitz's Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week… Apparently liberals support Islamo-fascism.”

Is that why people are upset? Or are they upset because Horowitz is tending to group into this Islamo-Fascist bucket all Muslims. Hey, I’m suspicious of Islam too, just like I’m suspicious of Christianity. I’d like one big happy secular alliance but I’m smart enough to realize that’s probably not going to happen any time soon. Since practically speaking I’m going to have to share this planet with Islam, I think we’d better figure out how to get along.

“Liberals believe in burning the American flag, urinating on crucifixes, and passing out birth control pills to 11-year-olds without telling their parents.”

I used to really hate Ann Coulter, but statements like this have gotten her a warm spot in my heart. I think it was Isaac Asimov that said the Bible was the best evidence against theism he ever saw. Well, Coulter is the best evidence against right wing conservatives I’ve ever seen. I simply do not believe that any individual with an ounce of decency would want to belong to any club which would have her as a member.

“College campuses across the nation are installing foot baths to accommodate Muslims' daily bathing ritual, while surgically removing the Ten Commandments from every public space in America. Maybe the Ten Commandments could be printed on towels and kept next to the foot baths.”

I see, so it’s college campuses that are removing the Ten Commandments from public space and not the direction of the U.S. Supreme Court, a direction driven by the desire to adhere to the intent of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. People who claim to be patriots but have disdain for the rule of law upon which this country is founded have always baffled me.

As for college campuses accommodating Muslim religious practices, isn’t that proper in a multi-cultural and multi-religious country? Of yeah, that’s right, I forgot, Coulter thinks everyone should be converted to Christianity at the point of a gun. Luckily for the rest of us, that pesky 1st Amendment gets in the way again.

If you want my definition of un-American, its people that want to discard principles, such as freedom of religion and religious tolerance, which Americans have been dying to protect for over 200 years.

It’s beyond me what the two 1st Amendment issues have to do with using the Ten Commandments as foot wipes.

“Liberals claim to be terrified that the Religious Right is going to take over the culture in a country where more than a million babies are exterminated every year, kindergarteners can be expelled from school for mentioning God, and Islamic fascists are welcomed on college campuses while speakers opposed to Islamic fascism are met with angry protests.”

I will give her credit for one thing, she can create more straw men is a paragraph than most people can in a year of columns. I will concede that Abortion Access is a complex issue which, I at least, am not going to attempt to address in a single phrase. To do so would be to trivialize the very babies she claims to be concerned about.

As for kindergarteners being expelled for mentioning God, dear old Ann is letting her imagination run away again and once again provides evidence that right wing conservatives have a club that no decent person would want to be a member of.

As for the so-called angry protests, that was simply people that disagreed with the position espoused by Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, and especially disagreed with the notion that all Muslims should be lumped into a single bucket because the whole concept of Islam is rotten to the core, exercising their 1st Amendment right to tell you that they think you have your head up your ass. What’s wrong with that?

I’ll defend your right to have and to express your opinion, but that doesn’t mean I give up my right to tell you that I think your opinion sucks.

I assume when she talks about the welcoming of Islamic fascists to college campuses, she is referring to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s talk at Columbia. Now here’s a funny thing, I hold Americans to a higher standard than those who aren’t weaned on the Constitution and the rule of secular law. We’re all the creations of our environment. How do you understand someone from a different environment if you don’t start a dialogue?

On the other hand, why shouldn’t I hold in total contempt so-called Americans who are betraying the very principles this country is based upon and who are comfortable engaging in absurdly exaggerated rhetoric? How do I know right wing conservatives do this? I know because I have Ann Coulter as an example.