What is in the water on C Street?

Some epidemiologist ought to investigate this. There is a building on C Street in Washington DC which houses the offices of a fervent evangelical Christian contingent of conservative politicians, who are all, of course, paragons of probity. Except…something funny has been going on. Three of them have been publicly humiliated for their inability to keep their pecker in their pants.

Leisha Pickering said in the lawsuit filed this week that her husband and the woman dated in college, reconnected and began having an affair while he was in Congress and living in a building where several Christian lawmakers reside on C Street near the U.S. Capitol. Chip Pickering is the third Republican with ties to the building at 133 C Street SE to find his personal life making headlines in recent weeks, after Nevada U.S. Sen. John Ensign and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford.

…

He cast himself as a defender of decency, particularly on television and the Internet, and was among House members urging then-President George W. Bush to declare 2008 “the National Year of the Bible.”

Another lawmaker who lived at the C Street house, Ensign, a member of the Christian ministry Promise Keepers, stepped down from the Senate Republican leadership in June after admitting he had an affair for much of last year with a woman on his campaign staff.

Just days after the story broke, South Carolina Republican Gov. Mark Sanford admitted an affair with a woman in Argentina. He apparently never lived in the house, but has said he turned to “C Street” for counsel and solace while having the affair.

They’re Christians, so it is simply inconceivable that they could have lapsed so far from the strict morality of their faith unless something underhanded is going on: some liberal probably spiked their water supply with Viagra, or sprayed aphrodisiacs into the air ducts.

Rehabilitating Mr. Wiggles

One nice thing about being the most evil blogger on the interwebs is that I can occasionally trick my kids into thinking I might be just a little bit cool. My son Connlann introduced me to the black humor of Mr Wiggles (my kids have inherited a weird sense of humor!), and the author, Neil Swaab, offered me a copy of his latest compilation, Rehabilitating Mr Wiggles. I mentioned that it was my boy who led me to Mr Wiggles, and so Neil generously sent me a second copy, autographed for Connlann. See the effect?

i-74effcef1fe46628b454a7254679154f-connlann_wiggles.jpeg

If you don’t know Mr Wiggles, you’re probably going to spend the next few hours browsing in appalled fascination.

BioLogos sans Collins

Francis Collins will be stepping down from his role at the BioLogos Foundation, as part of the process of becoming the head of the NIH.

This is only a minimal step, however, and it really doesn’t address any of my objections to the guy. The foundation and its web site will still be going on, and you know that once he finishes his tenure at NIH, he’ll just step back into it. I’m more concerned about whether he’ll be injecting religion into his politics on the job.

Ben Stein sinking ever lower

Several people have notified me that this ugly mug is appearing in the ads on this site:

i-128301787d009edf1aff3fa19cb48515-stein_ad.jpeg

Yep, Ben Stein is hawking “free” credit reports on my site. Only…they aren’t free. They aren’t useful. And Ben Stein is being an exploitive douchebag.

A few points are worth noting here. First, the score itself is not very useful to consumers. What’s useful is the report — if there’s an error on the report, then the consumer can try to rectify it. Secondly, and much more importantly, if you want a free credit report, there’s only one place to go: annualcreditreport.com. That’s the place where the big three credit-rating agencies will give you a genuinely free copy of your credit report once a year, as required by federal law.

You won’t be surprised to hear that freescore.com is not free: in order to get any information out of them at all, you have to authorize them to charge you a $29.95 monthly fee. They even extract a dollar out of you up front, just to make sure that money is there.

Stein, here, has become a predatory bait-and-switch merchant, dangling a “free” credit report in front of people so that he can sock them with a massive monthly fee for, essentially, doing nothing at all. Naturally, the people who take him up on this offer will be those who can least afford it.

The level to which Stein has now sunk is more than enough reason — as if the case for the prosecution weren’t damning enough already — for the NYT to cancel Stein’s contract forthwith. It’s simply unconscionable for a newspaper of record to employ as its “Everybody’s Business” columnist someone who is surely making a vast amount of money by luring the unsuspecting into overpaying for a financial product they should under no circumstances buy.

Who in their right mind would accept economic advice from Ben Stein, anyway?

Required reading for the day

Two things: the first is Sean Carroll’s discussion of what kinds of questions science can answer, and what the answers tell us about the universe.

And, without fail, the scientific judgment comes down in favor of a strictly non-miraculous, non-supernatural view of the universe.

That’s what’s really meant by my claim that science and religion are incompatible. I was referring to the Congregation-for-the-Causes-of-the-Saints interpretation of religion, which entails a variety of claims about things that actually happen in the world; not the it’s-all-in-our-hearts interpretation, where religion makes no such claims. (I have no interest in arguing at this point in time over which interpretation is “right.”) When religion, or anything else, makes claims about things that happen in the world, those claims can in principle be judged by the methods of science. That’s all.

Well, of course, there is one more thing: the judgment has been made, and views that step outside the boundaries of strictly natural explanation come up short. By “natural” I simply mean the view in which everything that happens can be explained in terms of a physical world obeying unambiguous rules, never disturbed by whimsical supernatural interventions from outside nature itself. The preference for a natural explanation is not an a priori assumption made by science; it’s a conclusion of the scientific method. We know enough about the workings of the world to compare two competing big-picture theoretical frameworks: a purely naturalistic one, versus one that incorporates some sort of supernatural component. To explain what we actually see, there’s no question that the naturalistic approach is simply a more compelling fit to the observations.

This is why religion is a failed explanation for the world. It just doesn’t line up with the evidence, at all.

Your second reading for the day is Dan Dennett explaining why we don’t even need religion as a social construct.

I am confident that those who believe in belief are wrong. That is, we no more need to preserve the myth of God in order to preserve a just and stable society than we needed to cling to the Gold Standard to keep our currency sound. It was a useful crutch, but we’ve outgrown it. Denmark, according to a recent study, is the sanest, healthiest, happiest, most crime-free nation in the world, and by and large the Danes simply ignore the God issue. We should certainly hope that those who believe in belief are wrong, because belief is waning fast, and the props are beginning to buckle.

If religion has no useful explanatory power, and if we don’t need it to make our lives better and richer, why not just toss the whole ball of fluff out?

Stupid editorial, stupid poll

Polls are bad enough, but the editorial that went with this one is something else. A group is lobbying to slap a bunch of religious phrases on the US Capitol Visitor’s Center, and their rationale is inane.

The engravings will cost less than $100,000 of the center’s total $621 million price tag. Fighting this silly lawsuit will probably cost more than the engravings themselves.

One hundred thousand dollars isn’t peanuts, and the argument that nobody should oppose them because it will cost even more money is ridiculous — if economy is a concern, then don’t vandalize the building in the first place! No engraving costs, no legal expenses, we’re all happy.

But this guy hasn’t quite hit his stride yet. Let’s bring on the tired old “freedom of religion, not freedom from religion” argument.

Let’s start by pointing out the First Amendment doesn’t grant freedom “from” religion, just freedom “of” religion. It doesn’t ban religion, it provides freedom for all so that one denomination doesn’t dominate or become the official state religion. Whether you practice a religion or not is up to people’s preferences.

No one is forced to worship because they saw the motto on a $20 bill. Or because they recited the Pledge of Allegiance. It’s pretty innocuous.

All right, I say this fellow needs to put his money where his mouth is. Let’s add “Praise be unto Allah”, “No gods, no masters”, and “Hail, Xenu!” to the center and to our money — think he’ll argue that it is all innocuous then?

Now that he has convinced you of the quality of his arguments, go vote.

Should the national motto, “In God We Trust,” be engraved on the Capitol Visitor Center or other government buildings?

Yes: Our motto reflects America’s religious heritage and should be displayed.
62.5%
No: The slogan is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and should not be used for state purposes. 37.5%