Author archive

I wanted to post a follow up to the Sunday show that created some stir on the Internet this week. The best thing I’ve seen come out of it has been people on threads debating these ideas. Not long ago, I started saying that religion has “The Best P.R. Machine Ever.” No matter what they do or what they teach, they have but to weakly spin it as valuable and good, and like magic, society says it’s valuable and good. And if you point out the problems with it, you are suddenly immoral and wrong. It’s “Through the Looking Glass” all the way. That being said, I see a trend in these discussions that is interesting. Christians are offering “rebuttals” that aren’t rebuttals. Let me use a nonreligious example before I proceed. Me: Oh no, I got a flat tire. Him: No, you just misunderstand what it is that’s happened. See, you drove down this road where they did construction yesterday, and there was a nail left on the road. So, you drove over that, and it got into your tire, causing your tire to deflate. See? Me: How is that different than what I just said? The fact is, Christians often will say they’ve found some way out of Problem of Evil, or Euthyphro’s Dilemma or certain religious paradoxes that have been identified. And when they explain, they haven’t “gotten out” of them at all. They’ve merely started their statement with “You misunderstand,” and then gone on to explain precisely why they are smack dab in the middle of that problem, dilemma or paradox. They then look at you, like they’ve offered more than confirmation the problem, dilemma or paradox is right on target. How do they get away with confirming these problems, dilemmas and paradoxes are valid, while claiming to have trumped them in some way? Is this a Jedi mind trick I could learn? Read more

OK, first article I see in today’s paper, and why it pisses me off: Texas has successfully defuned Planned Parenthood clinics in Texas. Their propaganda point has consistently been “we don’t want tax dollars going to abortions.” However, it has been consistently reported that we already do not allow tax money to go to abortion services, and NONE of the PP clinics in the state funding program offered abortion services. From the article: “Lawyer Pete Schenkkan said Planned Parenthood officials will decide whether to press ahead with that trial in hopes of winning a permanent injunction that would reverse Texas rules excluding Planned Parenthood’s health clinics because they are affiliated with other Planned Parenthood groups that provide abortions or promote abortion rights.”This was *always* the issue—simply punitively punishing the clinics because they have a “PP” shingle over the door. It was never about keeping funding from going to abortions—that was an outright falsehood propagated to gain public support for the action. PP had to demonstrate two points in court. According to the judge, they were able to demonstrate that what the state was doing would harm women in Texas. What they didn’t show is that Texas didn’t have a legal right to do it. From the article: “Planned Parenthood, Yelenosky ruled, met only one of two legal hurdles when it showed that being excluded from the health program would probably cause harm to the organization and the low-income women it serves. However, he added, Planned Parenthood failed to show that it would likely prevail in a full trial on its claim that state law doesn’t give Texas officials the authority to exclude the organization from the program.” Texas had tried to say that other clinics will take up the slack for PP, but here is what the local paper found when they tried to set up an appointment with another clinic: “An American-Statesman spot check of 29 of 186 doctors and clinics...
Read more

Main caller wants to talk about morality. Show archive can be viewed here. Addendum: Raw Story has reported on this episode. And it appears we made Alternet as well. New Addendum: And today, we made Huffington Post.

I forgot to post an open thread for the show yesterday, and am doing so now. Feel free to post your thoughts on calls like “I Just Wanna Talk about Matt,” “Alternative Medicine,” and “How Do I Get My Theist Mother to Get Me?” Or talk about anything else we discussed that strikes your fancy.

I just wanted to put this initiative on the community radar and wish FFRF good luck with this. Churches have been ramping up electioneering and becoming more and more open about their pushes for candidates and parties. They use a very simple code that should fool no one. They swap out “Intelligent Designer” for god. They claim “god” on the money and in the Pledge are just traditional hat tips to deism (but after they win, argue it demonstrates we’re a Christian nation). They use “family values” for anti-gay and anti-women. And it’s been this way ever since they discovered it can sometimes work to subvert church-state separation. The judge in Dover called them out on it and said that it’s not sufficient to simply use code for “god” and “creationism.” And I hope the judge in this case sees the same wisdom. “Bible” and “Biblical values” as code for “Republican” should fool nobody who follows religious blogs or sites. And neither should it be allowed as legal means to subvert tax exemption laws. Good luck, Dan and FFRF, in your latest case.