American = Republican. Also: Latinos are ignorant, promiscuous criminals.

Posted on by
Reply

Remember the other day when we regaled you with our fond memories of corresponding briefly with conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly?   She’s BAAAAAACK:

Yesterday, the New York Times reported on new census data which showed, for the first time, that non-white births made up over 50 percent of all births in the United States last year.

It marked an important milestone, indicative of a changing United States that has long been considered the world’s melting pot. Or, if you’re the conservative, Phyllis Schlafly-backed Eagle Forum, it’s a clarion call that America is in grave danger of being overrun by uneducated, un-American brown people:

It is not a good thing. The immigrants do not share American values, so it is a good bet that they will not be voting Republican when they start voting in large numbers.

[...]

Instead, the USA is being transformed by immigrants who do not share those values, and who have high rates of illiteracy, illegitimacy, and gang crime, and they will vote Democrat when the Democrats promise them more food stamps.

That’s right, people: it is simply un-American to vote for anyone other than Republicans.  Republicans, you see, are those admirable Real Americans who would never under any circumstances offer people food stamps.  EAT YOUR BOOTSTRAPS, KIDDIES!

Note that the Times article referenced in the quote is about children who were born here, otherwise known as U.S. citizens.  But no matter: they’re still “the immigrants.”  And illiterate, illegitimate ones at that.  This is obviously their own fault, because Republicans have always lavishly funded our world-renowned school systems, and yet these brown kids simply refuse to learn to read.  In those same sparkling schoolrooms we teach them all the joys and wonders of abstinence-only sex, and yet they persist in having more brown children out of wedlock.  I tell you, it’s an outrage.

I have to wonder:  have these conservatives ever actually met any American Latinos?  A good friend of mine — let’s call him Juan — immigrated from Ecuador as a child, and he and his family became U.S. citizens.  Juan owns his own home in Queens, and works long hours at two jobs to support his wife of twenty years and their children.  His oldest son attends a prestigious public high school in Manhattan, one that specializes in math and science and is exceedingly difficult to get into.

Another friend I’ve known for many years — let’s call her Ana — is a second-generation Puerto Rican.  She escaped a horribly abusive first marriage (to a native-born Caucasian) with her young son, and juggled multiple jobs for many years to raise him on her own into the hard-working young man (and gifted writer) he is today.

Neither Juan nor Ana went to college—but they sure as hell want their kids to go.

In fact by far the hardest-working people I see on a daily basis are Latinos, mostly men, hauling food and freight around town, bussing tables and washing dishes in restaurants, mopping floors in white uniforms, and removing construction debris wearing papery masks that seem wholly inadequate to the task of protecting them from anything.

These people are an inspiring, living embodiment of the American Dream.

On the other hand we have the Phyllis Schlaflys of the world, who parade around the wingnut welfare circuit ludicrously railing against feminists (and “immigrants”), lucrative careers only made possible by feminist activism.

Phyllis Schlafly.

More from Think Progress:

Setting aside for a minute the offensive way in which the Eagle Forum dismisses all of “the immigrants” as thoughtless criminals, it’s telling that The Eagle Forum views this as simply a political problem. The Eagle Forum’s political allies have long insisted on treating immigrants as second-class citizens, and rather than pivot their policy proposals to better accommodate the nation’s shifting demographics, the group seems instead to want to curb minorities’ procreation.

HEY!  How about offering them free birth control and abortions?  Oh, right.

The Eagle Forum doesn’t dwell on the fringes of the conservative movement either. The group still wields considerable influence in conservative circles, and has achieved more than a few legislative victories, like derailing the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s and staunchly opposing bills aimed at protecting a women’s right to choose.

The post goes on to accuse immigrants–and, for reasons passing understanding, The New York Times for reporting on this–of seeking to “destroy the American family,” arguing that immigrants do not share American values.

Immigrants are American values, you insufferable nitwits.

Yeah, I think I’ll cast my lot with the “immigrants.”  The sooner Mrs. Schlafly and her ilk are relegated to an insignificant minority, the better off everyone will be.

Good news.

Posted on by
Reply

Good:

U.S. Issues Far-Reaching Rules to Stem Prison Rape

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department on Thursday issued the first comprehensive federal rules aimed at “zero tolerance” for sexual assaults against inmates in prisons, jails and other houses of detention.

The regulations, issued after years of discussions among officials and prisoner advocacy groups, address a problem that a new government study finds may afflict one out of every 10 prisoners, more than twice as many as suggested by an earlier survey.

Congress passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act in 2003, and the rules to carry it out are the first to address federal, state and local prisons and jails, including institutions holding juveniles.

The standards are binding on federal prisons, and states that do not comply could lose 5 percent of their federal financing.

…

Jamie Fellner, an expert on the subject with Human Rights Watch, said the costs would not be very high for any single facility, except perhaps those where very little has been done to address the problem.

“If states don’t want to pay the costs, then they have to reduce their prison populations,” she said. “If you are going to put them in prison, you have to keep them safe.”

The private prison industry in the United States is an evil blood-sucking menace.  As long as it is profitable and growing — and it is — the nation’s jails will be kept chock full in a country that already has the largest prison population in the world, with no fewer social problems or less criminality to show for it.  Innocent people are jailed and killed, and the lives of millions of non-violent low-level drug offenders are recklessly ruined.  But all of that is a subject for another post.

The rape of jailed inmates is unconscionable.  It does not matter what they may have done.  It is a sick mind that holds that rape is an appropriate punishment — for anything. Because that view is a cultural problem more than anything else, I was glad to see this:

The standards focus on prevention, supervision and changing the prison culture, not on setting numerical standards for results.

“In popular culture,” said a summary of the rules issued on Thursday, “prison rape is often the subject of jokes; in public discourse, it has been at times dismissed by some as an inevitable — or even deserved — consequence of criminality. But sexual abuse is never a laughing matter, nor is it punishment for a crime. Rather, it is a crime, and it is no more tolerable when its victims have committed crimes of their own.”

I urge everyone to read “Rape Culture 101” at Shakesville for a sense of the enormity of the problem, and not just in prisons.  Here are just a few points:

Rape culture is a militarized culture and “the natural product of all wars, everywhere, at all times, in all forms.”
Rape culture is 1 in 33 men being sexually assaulted in their lifetimes. Rape culture is encouraging men to use the language of rape to establish dominance over one another (“I’ll make you my bitch”). Rape culture is making rape a ubiquitous part of male-exclusive bonding. Rape culture is ignoring the cavernous need for men’s prison reform in part because the threat of being raped in prison is considered an acceptable deterrent to committing crime, and the threat only works if actual men are actually being raped.

(See also: this recent post at Manboobz to crush any remaining hope for humanity you may still have this morning.)  Today’s news is only a small step of course, but it is a step in the right direction nonetheless.

Lesson three.

Posted on by
5

You know the old saying:  Another day, another Conservative Personality Disorder volunteer research subject.  Yes, loyal readers, the Palace once again has the good fortune to have a live specimen walk through our gorgeous gates, and selflessly offer herself up for the benefit of our important research.  Last evening, a heretofore unknown person who goes by “Georgia Dixon” commented on a post of mine from last August regarding Nancy Wake.  Ms. Wake, a.k.a. The White Mouse, was a war hero who had died while I was in London, on August 7, 2011, at the ripe old age of 98.  My post was, among other things, a gushing hagiography to her extraordinary accomplishments.  Nine months later, Georgia Dixon wrote this:

I am a female warrior and a U.S. veteran, trained as a counterintelligence officer. Understandably, my background as a woman in miltary intelligence led me to admire her incredible exploits and selfless valor. I also happen to be unapologetically conservative, and risked my life so that you and other foul-mouthed misinformed pagans can spew your one-sided, hate-filled brand of godless liberalism. The next time you use your website to attempt to debase others whose only fault in your self-righteous eyes is to disagree with your skewed world view, you should at least rely on facts and realize that conservatives have given their very lives and spilled their blood so that you can rant against them. Oh, and did I mention I am from Texas, too, which produced more medal of honor recipients in WW II than any other state.

Gosh, where to begin?  Let’s just take it from the top, shall we?

I am a female warrior and a U.S. veteran, trained as a counterintelligence officer.

You sound awesome, Georgia  Welcome to the Palace!  I am sure I speak on behalf of my many tens of loyal readers when I say it is an honor to have you here, and that we very much admire and appreciate your service to the United States.

Understandably, my background as a woman in miltary intelligence led me to admire her incredible exploits and selfless valor.

Yes, I can certainly see how it would.  Nancy Wake was absolutely amazing.  I wish more people knew who she was.

I also happen to be unapologetically conservative, and risked my life so that you and other foul-mouthed misinformed pagans can spew your one-sided, hate-filled brand of godless liberalism.

Now, Georgia, I am sensing some hostility and resentment here.  And that seems really strange, considering that you were not drafted into military service: you freely chose it.  So for the life of me, I cannot understand why you would resent defending the Constitutional principles of free speech and religious freedom on behalf of your fellow citizens, who may or may not share your political views or religious delusions.  That makes no sense.  Surely you can see that there would be no value in having the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment if they only apply to people who agree with you.  That isn’t any kind of “freedom” at all, is it?

Furthermore, the value of free speech — especially political speech — is foundational to our democracy and vitally important to the affairs of our nation.  Indeed, that is the very reason why we engage in it.  So, for example, if you were to support the U.S. government taking a particular course of action and I disagreed with you, I would have not just the right but the duty to say so.  I would explain why I think you are wrong and the reasons I believe what I do, and I would offer facts and evidence to support my position.  You might then consider my case, and either reconsider yours or counter with your own evidence and reasoning.  This kind of discourse is absolutely essential to a functioning democracy. 

But that is not what you are doing here, Georgia.  Not by a long shot.  You have not pointed to a single fact that I got wrong or failed to consider, either in the Nancy Wake post or elsewhere on this blog.  Nor have you made any argument about why you think I am wrong, about anything.  As far as I can tell, your only point is that you object to very existence of godless liberals.  And that is some seriously fucked-up un-American shit, right there.  It’s as if you believe people who do not agree with you personally about gods, guns and gays (or whatever) are undeserving of basic rights in their own country.

You have called me a “foul-mouthed misinformed pagan” spewing a “one-sided, hate-filled brand of godless liberalism.”  Now I certainly do cuss a lot, Georgia.  I’ll give you that.  But it’s a bit of a red herring here, is it not?  This is my fucking blog and I will fucking say whatever I fucking want however I fucking want.  If your delicate “female warrior” sensibilities are offended by that kind of language, by all means feel free to go elsewhere. The Internet is a big place.  You can even start your own fucking blog and use it to complain about all the naughty words over at Perry Street Palace.  But the reason I say this “foul-mouthed” complaint of yours is a red herring is because it has absolutely nothing to do with any argument I’ve made, only the way in which I’ve made it.  I’ve noticed that this complaint arises a lot with conservatives, especially some of the creationists over at Pharyngula.  It’s as if they actually believe they have a superior argument simply because they didn’t drop any f-bombs.  Well, here’s a newsflash:  some very ugly things can be expressed in the most innocuous of terms.  Here’s another:  you do not automatically win an argument by scolding your opponent for their language like some uptight old school marm.

In short:  “foul-mouthed?”  Guilty as charged.  So what?

But then you call me “misinformed,” and yet you fail to point out where I am mistaken.  About anything.  I mean, in the general sense I am surely misinformed about a lot of things — we all are — so without some further clarification on your part by, say, pointing out to me the error of my ways, I’m afraid I’ll just have to dismiss this charge as baseless.  But even if it were true, wouldn’t a better response be to, you know, inform me?  It’s almost comically ridiculous to hurl out “misinformed” at someone, and then not bother to inform them.

Then there is the charge of “pagan,” which I will provisionally accept if the definition is either the second or third one here:

  1. one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion, as the ancient Romans and Greeks. Synonyms: polytheist.
  2. a person who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim. Synonyms: heathen, gentile; idolator; nonbeliever.
  3. an irreligious or hedonistic person.
  4. a person deemed savage or uncivilized and morally deficient.

You are free to deem me “savage or uncivilized and morally deficient,” but then of course the burden would fall on you to prove that this is indeed the case.  And failing that…well, then you’d just look like kind of an asshole.  But the thing about your use of “pagan” as an epithet is that it strongly implies that you are not a pagan yourself: that is, you are a Christian, Jew, or Muslim.

Let me take a wild guess which one.

I’m kidding, of course!  Because it matters not a whit which one, for the purposes of this discussion anyway.  You do know that there are pagans and atheists in the U.S. military, right Georgia?  That’s right: pagans and atheists have fought and died for your freedom to believe and say whatever cocked-up bullshit you want to.  There are also — are you ready for this? — liberals in the military.  It’s true!  Liberals have fought and died for your right to proudly announce your embarrassing conservatism on this very blog, and to hurl (frankly substandard) insults in my general direction.  Given that so many godless and liberals (and probably even godless liberals) have served in the U.S. military, whatever point it was that you were trying to make only shows that you are spectacularly full of shit.

And what’s with this “one-sided, hate-filled brand of godless liberalism”?  I don’t know where you’re going with that.  I suppose it’s fair to say that I have a “one-sided” opinion, but doesn’t everyone?  Yes, I admit it:  I do indeed have my own point of view.  But “hate-filled”?  It’s true that I hate things that I find hateful.  Unnecessary suffering comes to mind.  Injustice.  Misogyny and bigotry.  Willful ignorance.  Non-defensive violence.  On the other hand, I have a tremendous amount of love and compassion for my fellow creatures on our little blue planet.  I write a great deal in defense of liberalism precisely because I love my country, and I have watched in horror as conservatives have sought for decades to unravel the social progress of women and the economic progress of the New Deal.  I am godless (and so are you, actually) because there is precisely zero evidence for any gods.  You can try to convince me that I am wrong of course, and I would welcome having that discussion.  But you know what?  You’re going to have to do a whole lot better than you’re doing.

The next time you use your website to attempt to debase others whose only fault in your self-righteous eyes is to disagree with your skewed world view, you should at least rely on facts and realize that conservatives have given their very lives and spilled their blood so that you can rant against them.

Now Georgia, that is just not fair.  The Palace is not in the business of debasing anyone: our best-selling product is mockery—not debasement.  It says so right there at the top of the page.  But putting that aside, once again you have leveled some serious accusations that are entirely unfounded.  For example, if I do indeed have a “skewed world view” (so saith the conservative “warrior” monotheist), I cannot help but wonder exactly where I’ve gotten things wrong.  I try, as best I can, to ensure that my views about the world track reality, at least as well as I can know it.  Sometimes of course I will get things wrong, and when I do I enthusiastically welcome correction so that I have a more accurate understanding of things going forward.  You, on the other hand, just toss out “skewed world view,” as if that makes it so.  It doesn’t.

Further, your statement that conservatives’ “only fault in your self-righteous eyes is to disagree with your skewed world view” is just flat-out wrong.  In my self-righteous eyes, conservatives have many faults that are far more problematic than disagreeing with my world view (skewed or not).  Hell, anyone who picks up a newspaper can see that: homophobia, misogyny, racism, narcissism, bullying, delusions, dogmatism, denialism, corruption, greed, obstructionism, economic incompetence, social Darwinism, cruelty, hypocrisy — I mean, the list goes on and on.  Let’s face it: if conservatives just sat around disagreeing with my world view, we certainly not be in the messes in which we presently find ourselves.  We might have a top-notch single-payer health care system, for instance, like every other advanced Western civilization.  We could have a decent education system, and maybe even a sane energy policy that does not rely on bombing and occupying countries in the Middle East.  Perhaps someday, even clean water and air.

So I have to say you really missed the boat on that one.  But where you really go off the rails is when you suggest that (a) I do not rely on facts, and (b) that it has somehow escaped my comprehension that conservatives have fought in the U.S. military.  What facts am I missing?  Interestingly (okay not really) you do not say.  And OF COURSE I KNOW conservatives have fought in the U.S. military.  And yes, at least some of them likely did so in defense of, among other things, the principle of free speech (which would by definition include my little blog rants).  It works the same way as the ACLU defending human shitstain Rush Limbaugh on principle, even though he loathes everything they stand for.  It’s the principle that matters.  Putting aside the pompous arrogance of your ‘splaining to me what I “should” do on my own blog, you really have no understanding of this whole “free speech” thingy, do you?  Or why it is vitally necessary in a democracy.

Oh, and did I mention I am from Texas, too, which produced more medal of honor recipients in WW II than any other state.

Honestly, I have no idea what your being from Texas has to do with anything.  It just sounds like a total non-sequitur.  I mean, good for Texas that it had so many medal of honor recipients in World War II.  On the other hand, Texas also produced George W. Bush. So, you know, there’s that.

In any event, you have not made any real argument that I can discern, beyond “I really do not like godless liberals, and they are unworthy and undeserving of the U.S. military’s protection and Constitutional rights.”

If that’s it, then the only appropriate reply is this one:

FUCK YOU.

Thanks for stopping by.  And have a nice day.

The Palace Inbox.

Posted on by
Reply

As you might imagine, the Palace gets a lot of email from friends, enemies, frenemies, and assorted conservatives of various stripes.  Apparently we have landed ourselves on some really weird mailing lists, perhaps as a result of all those years dedicated to researching Conservative Personality Disorder.  One time, a few years back when the Palace lab had not yet collected all the overwhelming evidence in support of the hypothesis that right wing conservatives are intractable narcissists, I emailed Phyllis Schlafly to see if by simply appealing to her outsized ego I could get a quick response.  Phyllis Schlafly, for the blissfully uninformed and/or understandably disinterested, is a Sarah Palin prototype:  an ultraconservative anti-feminist wingnut icon.  Her biggest claim to fame was launching a conservative juggernaut to kill the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s (because OMFG co-ed bathrooms!—which, for what it’s worth, are pretty much the norm in NYC).  Nowadays, the 87-years-young Mrs. Schlafly stays relevant by doing all sorts of other important things, like supporting Michele Bachmann for president.  I wrote:

Dear Mrs. Schlafly:

Although I’m sure you hear this often – and from far more esteemed people than myself – I write to let you know what an inspiration you are to me. In my view, your most powerful legacy is the indisputable proof that one woman can indeed make a profound difference in our country. For this more than anything else, I thank you.

Sincerely,
-Iris Vander Pluym

* * * * *

From: Phyllis Schlafly <phyllis@eagleforum.org>
Subject: Re: Thank You

Thank you.
-Phyllis Schlafly

(Works every time, by the way.)

For whatever reason, this month we have been inundated with unusually strange missives.  Here is one:

Dear Iris:

A North Carolina pastor has made national news with a sermon calling on parents to physically abuse gay children.
With only days remaining before a statewide vote on a constitutional amendment banning all legal recognition of same-sex unions, Pastor Sean Harris of Berean Baptist Church told his congregants: “Dads, the second you see your son dropping the limp wrist, you walk over there and crack that wrist. Man up. Give him a good punch.”
Once the sermon came to public attention, Harris tried to retract some of his remarks. But for the families of LGBT youth who heard his tirade, the damage has already been done.
So we’re organizing a short statement assuring LGBT youth that faithful Christians are appalled by Pastor Harris’ tirade and that anti-gay violence is never justified by Christian teaching. Can you help us reach 10,000 names so we can release it to the media and show that Pastor Harris doesn’t speak for Christianity?
Add your name and help us disavow anti-gay violence and hate.
Thanks!
– Michael, Nick, and the whole Faithful America team

[Emphasis in original.]

Dear Michael, Nick, and the whole Faithful America team:

What is wrong with you?  OF COURSE ANTI-GAY VIOLENCE IS JUSTIFIED BY CHRISTIAN TEACHING.  See, e.g.:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
-Lev. 20:13.  [See also: here.]

Just because you, personally, may have the commendable moral sense to ignore some of the more vile commandments in your silly book does not mean that everyone else does.  The fact is that Pastor Harris does indeed speak for Christianity.  So unless and until you disavow Christianity, you should expect to be painted with the same brush as the violent bigots you rightfully condemn.

The Bible says what it says.  Deal with it.

Have a nice day.

A Candidate Without A Prayer – A Book Review

Posted on by
1

I think secular Israelis and secular Palestinians might be able to resolve the Middle East crisis. Unfortunately, land for many religious Jews, Muslims and Christians is more important than peace because of God’s ‘promise.’ God shouldn’t be in the real estate business, especially since he promised the same territory to different people.

Herb Silverman during a visit to the Middle East as part of a College of Charleston-sponsored Hebrew Bible study trip in 1999.

Introduction: High Expectations

I expected to enjoy Herb Silverman’s autobiography, given that the author and I have much in common besides non-belief in gods and active devotion to separation of religion and government. We both grew up in Philadelphia, rejected family religion, lived for years in Charleston and sought public office while under the influence of non-belief. These personal connections seemed appealing at first, but soon into the reading of Candidate Without A Prayer, I found more compelling attractions.

My expectations were also raised from scanning the high encomium in blurbs by freethinker luminaries, such as:

  • … the autobiography is … an inspiring tale of one atheist’s travels through life in one of America’s most religion-drenched regions. Barry Lynn
  • An entertaining and informative look at America’s culture war… Steven Pinker
  • Silverman captures the essence of what it means to realize that you think differently from those around you–including the people who brought you into this world. Susan Jacoby
  • … honesty and … reasonableness are combined with … a sweet disposition and a wonderful sense of humor. Rebecca Newberger Goldstein
  • His story of running for governor of South Carolina as an open atheist is laugh-out-loud funny and worth reading for anyone who ever loved and/or hated the bizarre but hopeful theater that is American political life. Greg Epstein
  • Dr. Silverman is certainly unique for Charleston, maybe even unique for anywhere. When he came down here as a fine math professor but a cultural fish out of water, he simply created a flood of reason in which his newly discovered fellow infidels could swim. Herb presents a rational and persuasive alternative to those of faith, both with his words and his behavior. Judge Alex Sanders
  • Iconoclastic atheist, humorist, and mathematician Herb Silverman takes you on an entertaining tour of his irreverent life, so far. Wendy Kaminer

Herb Silverman

All promising, indeed, as is a five-page Foreword by the secular authority on god delusions, Professor Richard Dawkins. The first sentences seem to offer the best of all the blurbs: If a man is going to publish his life story, he had best take the precaution of leading an interesting life first. Or at least of being a very funny writer or of lacing his pages with wittily unconventional wisdom. Or even of being just an exceptionally nice person. Fortunately, Herb Silverman ticks all these boxes, and more.

Overall Impression

I can summarize my assessment of “Candidate” by noting that not a single word in the dust jacket kudos or in Professor Dawkins’ Foreword were over-the-top. “Candidate” is everything these distinguished Herb Silverman admirers attest it to be.

Highlights

The book contains 21 chapters (the 21st being a two-paragraph reflection on death, legacies and last words), plus an index. Surprisingly, only a single chapter concerns Silverman’s decision to run for governor of South Carolina. “Candidate” is, after all an autobiography and there is a great deal more to know about and learn from the life and philosophy of Dr. Silverman than his quixotic quest to bring reason to the state best known for hosting the first shots of the Civil War, or what folks down there call the War of Northern Aggression. But, the chapter entitled Candidate Without A Prayer is a very compelling and enlightening part of the book. It seems hard to believe that an American state, even a Bible Belt Southern outlier province with the sorry history of South Carolina, could have had such a benighted, grotesque and obviously unconstitutional provision as late as 1990 when Herb learned about it. Yet, it did. Specifically, the South Carolina Constitution excluded eligibility for the office of governor to any person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being. In retrospect, this absurdity became a watershed career opportunity for the author, albeit not as a gateway to one in public office.

This title episode in Silverman’s life story (to date) does not appear until chapter seven. When readers get this far, they know a lot about Herb’s parents (especially his mother), what it was like growing up Jewish in Philadelphia in the middle of the 20th century and how the author’s interests, skills and morals were influenced by jobs/girls/and family—and that’s just the first chapter.

The other chapters leading to the run for governor are devoted to religion (God thoughts), college life, leaving home (at last) and attendant encounters with the real world (e.g., politics, dating), learning important lessons while teaching and protesting and the transition to life in the American south (Southern Exposure). At this point, the reader learns why and how Silverman dealt with the South Carolina Constitutional obstacle to his becoming governor of that state. It’s a delightful tale, as is the story about his fallback strategy. This concerned a challenge to another South Carolina atheist exclusion. Realizing this goal proved to be almost as daunting. However, it had a more satisfying outcome—fulfilling a lifelong dream of becoming a notary public.

The rest of the book, the longest part, is devoted to chapters about local and national secular activism, memorable discussions and debates with believers, excerpts from Silverman’s commentaries on the subject, travels for research and discovery and, for good measures, a short course on the nature and uses of his erudite field—mathematics.

It’s quite a tour de force.

Specific “Takeaway” Features

The book is fun to read and, as Dawkins remarked, Silverman is witty and wise, has a wonderful sense of humor and has done much for the cause of reason and secularism. Some features I most enjoyed included:

  • The advice to closeted or otherwise quiet (i.e., polite and deferential) secularists to come out of the apathy closet. If more of us do so, the negative attitudes will change and the faithful will recognize the presence of non-believers in their midst as kind and ethical as those under divine supervision.
  • Silverman’s propensity to question what passes for normal. Initially sensed in college, this skepticism about normalcy grew over time from personal observations of normal people taken in by charlatans guiding folks to learn about their past life experiences, gaining advice from channelers of the dead and evangelists performing at revivals and crusades.
  • His pithy assessment of lessons to be found drawn from one experience or another. In one interview, he said:  I couldn’t resist pointing out that the state considered me qualified to be a professor of mathematics at a public institution (the College of Charleston) but deemed me lacking enough ethical and moral standards for the office of notary public. Perhaps the value placed on religious indoctrination over reason and scientific inquiry might help explain the dismal condition of education in South Carolina today, where SAT scores have been among the lowest in the nation for many years.

In an interview, Silverman was asked a question about debating with religionists, something that gets a lot of attention in the book. He advised a focus on the audience rather than the debater (whose mind is made up), to give the open-minded in attendance a few new perspectives to ponder and to exhibit a sense of humor. It helps to be a likable person in debating about religion, though he admits that charm is meaningless in his chosen career—solving math problems.

This book is loaded with charm, along with wonderful speeches and other reflections by a very good man leading an interesting life of importance to our prospects for a more effective democracy that protects the rights of all.

Highly recommended.

President Obama is sort of a lukewarm marriage equality ally!

Posted on by
1

It’s hardly his most soaring rhetoric, but the President of the United States said this:

I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.

Gosh, ya think some folks in North Carolina sure could have used that support YESTERDAY?

Pam at pamshouseblend has had about enough:

Honestly, at this moment, I don’t give a crap. Being jerked around, constantly seen as an ATM, and the man can’t even state the obvious, and his surrogates continue this tap dance of stupidity over what is or isn’t an affirmation that the President believes in full equality for gay and lesbian couples. His own campaign couldn’t even lift a digital finger to tell people to vote against discrimination here in NC. The President can’t even sign an executive order barring employment discrimination against LGBTs in federal contracts.

If this is some sort of debutante debut on the marriage equality scene for dramatic effect, it’s kind of pathetic. If it’s another Lucy and the football moment, it’s time to stop the too-cute-by-half routine. Our lives have been treated like a political football by purported allies as well as professional anti-gays.

It’s sickening to see our humanity diminished over and over for shiz and political giggles by people untouched by the discrimination.

Still, let us not lose sight of something significant here.  As Liss at Shakesville put it:

I mean, I don’t want to give too many cookies for saying what is self-evidently the most obvious statement of basic decency, but holy shit the US president just came out in favor of same-sex marriage, y’all!
Good. Now we demand action.

I just told longtime loyal reader Mr. Born that I for one cannot wait for the President to give an equally tepid statement in support of reproductive rights and women’s equality.

The Crouches and Other TV Evangelists

Posted on by
1

Paul and Janice Crouch are no oiler or more grotesque and absurd than run-of-the-mill Elmer Gantry’s such as Richard (son of Oral) Roberts, Jerry Falwell (deceased), Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, Ted Haggert, Jimmy Swaggart, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson and the rest of that ilk. But, the Crouch’s made headlines this week in revelations about their self-indulgence, so while details of such are on my mind, let me focus on them.

The Crouches and other TV preachers spend a lot of time convincing their audiences that the fastest way to get rich is to give away their money – to them. It seems that God desperately needs money and they, the Crouches, know how God wants it spent by the Crouches – on his behalf. The Crouches, apparently, know a great deal about hell and can describe what its like in detail. They are good at profiling those likely to end up in hell – basically, everyone who supports the homosexual socialist liberal agenda and uses the internet to visit places like this Palace. They tell their viewers that, to boost their chances for answered prayers and miracles, send love offerings – operators always seem to be standing by.

Before getting to the Crouches, I should mention something else about the media preacher business.  God must really love those called to this ministry, for all TV preachers appear to be as prosperous as Mitt Romney. On rare occasions when a media preacher business comes to grief, it’s not because donors got wise but because preachers got caught. They got caught doing what they condemned – doing things without clothes on with homosexuals (some of whom might also have been socialist liberals). Alas, most of the time TV preachers don’t get caught, in good part because the vile acts that they commit every time they go on the air are perfectly acceptable and legal, namely, selling snake oil (nonsense about miracles, eternal life, answered prayers and the like). It ought to be a crime – against the laws of common sense, but such laws have not been invented yet. Worse, what they do to finance their lavish lifestyles is socially acceptable and even honored, not just with earthly riches but with honors. Who will ever forget the appalling appearance of Rick Warren at the Inauguration of President Barack Obama. To paraphrase Andre Breton, Everything that is doddering, squint-eyed, vile, polluted and grotesque is summoned up for me in these two words: television evangelists!

But, let me get to the Crouches.

What accounts for the success of TV evangelists like the Crouches and the others who pull in mind-boggling sums from viewer donations and tax-free earnings? I have a theory. I think it is due, more than anything else, to the degree to which the nation neglects quality public education. Only a population poorly educated in the application of reason and consequent respect for science, a people innocent of rational, evidence-based decision-making, can explain the propensity of viewers to donate money to such characters.

What do the Crouches and the gaggle of televangelists offer in return for responding favorably and generously to pleas for donations that make up about 98 percent of their ministry programming? Basically, they offer improved odds of winning the eternal lottery – a ticket to a kingdom in the next life.

Assume for just a moment that there is no such kingdom, that there is no god and that the Crouches and other TV folks have no more capability of arranging miracles or having prayers answered than the woman in the moon, the old guy behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz or, for that matter, me. Wouldn’t that shed a new light on all these characters preaching prosperity gospels?

But, as I mentioned before, this is about the Crouches. Ah, the Crouches – ya gotta love em. They were featured in news accounts all over the country because it seems the Crouch family is fighting over how to spend the loot gained from faithful audiences trying to help God do good. According to a feature story in the New York Times (See Erik Eckholm, Family Battle Offers Look Inside Lavish TV Ministry, New York Times, May 4, 2012), the Crouches have a lot of God’s money on hand to fight over. Their TV enterprise consists of a multitude of stations with satellite signals that reach millions of worshipers all over the world.

Here are a few examples of their own prosperity, made possible by tax-exempt income (donations) all faithfully consistent with the gospel prosperity:

* In 2010, Mr. Crouch received $400,000 as president, Mrs. Crouch $365,000 as first vice president.

* They own his-and-her five to six million dollar mansions in New York City.

* They own a large ministry house near Orlando.

* They own a theme park in Orlando called the Holy Land Experience.

* They own another home in the Holy Land itself (i.e., in the theme park, not in the Middle East).

* They own high value properties in Texas and Tennessee (on the former Conway Twitty estate).

* They own corporate jets valued at $8 million and $49 million each.

* They enjoy dinners costing thousands of dollars.

* They provide lavish homes or “parsonages” for staff.

All of these facts came out because of dueling lawsuits within the Crouch family, though it’s not clear if the battles are fueled by greed or from hearing different messages from God on how best to help the poor and downtrodden. Besides lavish spending, charges of embezzlement and varied financial crimes are being hurled about. A defender of the family business explained: the spending that some call opulent is necessary to convey the ministry’s position of accomplishment.

The Crouches have plenty of accomplishment booty to fight over. Their prosperity gospel brought in $93 million in 2010 alone, plus $64 million in additional income from selling airtime and $17 million from investment income. Apparently, it takes a lot of cash to do the Lord’s work. Doing the Lord’s work, however, seems to build quite an appetite. One of the lawsuits contain allegations that the Crouchs (and their son) each ran up meal expenses of at least $300,000 per year.

So, what kinds of reforms might be in order to rein in such seemingly dubious ways to spend charitable contributions?

Here are a few ideas I’d like to see discussed in the years to come, assuming this country does not become a theocracy wherein such conversations would be considered blasphemous and thus illegal:

  • Fund a national crash program in public education that emphasizes critical thinking skills. Hopefully, this would render TV ministries less attractive to vulnerable, easily-exploited citizens by prosperity gospel preachers and other charlatans offering spiritual pie-in-the-sky with all the trimmings.
  • Tax all church property and religious business enterprises.
  • Develop enforcement capabilities to identify reasonable versus extravagant uses of charitable contributions and industrial- strength record keeping and public disclosure of all charities.
  • Create a national secular board or agency with the power to identify, study and, if appropriate, prosecute mountebanks who run scams under the umbrella of religion.

What a sweet deal the Crouchs and other TV evangelists have at present. They do not and could not guarantee their product – believers can never prove they were Madoffed with promises of wildly improbable returns on investments. After all, those who experience less, not more prosperity for their donations can’t seek refunds. And, when they die, they don’t even discover that it was all balderdash. No heaven or hell, no gods or devils and no judgments. They’ll never know it was all BS. They’ll never know they were duped.

There ought to be a law – lots of laws or at least a more sensible tax structure to discourage donations to people like the Crouches and others mentioned.

But, I’ll settle for massive reforms in the educational system at all levels to encourage more critical thinking because the rest is as unlikely as prosperity from supporting the Crouches.