|
Ann Coulter either ignores our Founding Fathers' wisdom or is ignorant of it. If ignoring it, her book is blatant propaganda. If she is ignorant of our history, then she should be dismissed out right. Her own egotistical review of her own book will save you time and money and there is no need to buy it. Here is the truth:
Hey You, Browsing Godless – Buy the Book or Get Out!
By Ann Coulter
Ann: The long-anticipated book Godless: The Church of Liberalism was finally released this week. If the New York Times reviews it at all, they'll only talk about the Ann Coulter action-figure doll, so I think I'll write my own review.
The Truth: The NY Times did not mention the Ann Coulter action-figure doll. Is there one? Is so, does it speak German? In his review, David Carr does write:
"Deadly Intent: Ann Coulter, Word Warrior
"ONCE again, Ann Coulter has a book in need of flogging, and once again, people are stunned by what a "vicious," "mean-spirited," "despicable" "hate-monger" they say she is."
That is the simple truth, no lie, no spin.
Ann: Godless begins with a murder at the Louvre and then takes readers on a roller-coaster ride through the Church of Liberalism in a desperate game of cat and mouse in which the hunter becomes the hunted – with a twist at the end you simply won't believe! It's a real page-turner – even the book-on-tape version and large-print edition! Who knew a book about politics could make such an ideal gift – especially with Father's Day just two weeks away!
The Truth: egotistic
adjective
conceited, egotistic, egotistical, self-conceited, swollen, swollen-headed, vain; characteristic of false pride; having an exaggerated sense of self-importance; "a conceited fool"; "an attitude of self-conceited arrogance"; "an egotistical disregard of others";
Ann: The main problem with Godless is that I had to walk through the valley of darkness to find it.
The Truth: Prostitutes say the same thing, but they aren't paid as well. That isn't fair. Sorry. But Ann does seem to very much enjoy her tricks.
Ann: You will have to push past surly bookstore clerks, proceed past the weird people in the "self-help" section, and finally past the stacks and stacks of Hillary Clinton's memoirs. If all else fails, ask for the "hate speech" section of your local bookstore. Ironically, if you find Godless without asking for assistance, it's considered a minor miracle.
The Truth: This is supposed to be funny, but in fact the "Godless" book stand was in the front of the store and dominated at the Barnes and Noble I visited. No one was interested either time.
Ann: This is not a book about liberals. I stress this in anticipation of Alan Colmes hectoring the author to name names. (For people who resented being asked to "name names" during the 1950s, these liberals sure aren't shy about demanding that conservatives do the same today.)
The Truth: If no individual actually believes in this so-called liberal religion, then who cares? This is actually a premise to set up the False Dilemma fallacy: "An argument proposes a false dilemma when it presumes that only two alternatives exist when in actuality there are more than two."
Ann: It is a book about liberalism, our official state religion. Liberalism is a doctrine with a specific set of tenets that can be discussed, just like other religions.
The Truth: Obviously, liberalism is a philosophy that can be discussed. The fallacy is jumping to the conclusion that it is a state religion. That is the fallacy of equivocation. Ann uses Equivocation often, as she does below when equating liberalism with masturbation, gay marriage and murderers. Equivocation occurs when a word is used in two different senses in an argument. Here, Ann is trying to equate "liberalism" with "religion" and that makes here entire book a fallacy, as we shall see.
Ann: The Christian religion, for example, frowns on lying and premarital sex. That is simply a fact about Christianity. This does not mean no Christian has ever lied or had premarital sex. Indeed, some Christians have committed murder, adultery, thievery, gluttony. That does not mean there's no such thing as Christianity any more than videotape of Rep. William Jefferson accepting cash bribes means there's no such thing as congressional ethics rules.
The Truth: This argument is so muddled it is difficult to find the illogic in it. The paragraph is set up as the premise "Because Christianity exists, liberalism as a religion exists." First we scratch everything not relevant, like, well, the whole paragraph! Jefferson has nothing to do with the argument, so scratch that. Even if Christianity could frown, that has nothing to do with the argument, so scratch that. And so what if some Christians are sinners? This is a Faulty Analogy: "An argument from analogy claims that things which resemble one another in certain respects resemble one another in further respects."
Ann: Similarly, the liberal religion supports abortion, but that doesn't mean every single liberal has had an abortion. We can rejoice that liberals do not always practice their religion.
The Truth: Suddenly, due to a completely illogical paragraph about the existence of Christianity, we have "proof" there is a liberal religion, and we are supposed to now take that for granted. This is, in fact, a Hasty Generalization: "You are guilty of hasty generalization, or jumping to conclusions, when you draw a general conclusion about all things of a certain type on the basis of evidence concerning only a few things of that type."
Ann: Godless examines a set of beliefs known as "liberalism." It is the doctrine that prompts otherwise seemingly sane people to propose teaching children how to masturbate, allowing gays to marry, releasing murderers from prison and teaching children that they share a common ancestor with the earthworm. (They haven't yet found the common ancestor...but like O.J., the search continues.)
The Truth: Forget the ad hominem personal attack about "sanity," Ann may indeed be proof that we evolved from the earthworm, but if we look up "liberalism" in any dictionary, we won't find anything about masturbation, gay marriage or murderers.
The Oxford Companion to Philosophy defines liberalism as:
"One of the major political ideologies of the modern world, liberalism is distinguished by the importance it attaches to the civil and political rights of the individuals. Liberals demand a substantial realm of personal freedom--including freedom of conscience, speech, association, occupation, and more recently, sexuality--which the state should not intrude upon, except to protect others from harm.
"Liberalism first emerged as an important movement in Europe in the sixteenth century. Today, particularly after the decline of communism, it is the dominant ideology in many parts of the world... On one view, liberalism grew out of the recognition that toleration was the only alternative to the Wars of Religion. After innumerable wars, both Protestants and Catholics accepted that the state could not assume or impose a shared devotion to a single faith, and that the only stable basis for a political regime was to separate Church and State. Liberalism has simply extended this principle from the sphere of religion to other beliefs about the meaning and purpose of life. A liberal state does not seek to resolve these conflicts, but rather provides a 'neutral' framework within which citizens can pursue their diverse conceptions of the good life. Liberalism, on this view, is the only humane response to the inevitable pluralism and diversity of modern societies.
"Legal guarantees of individual freedom of conscience have provided ample protection for a wide range of religious groups, while preventing the corruption and discrimination which often accompany state-sponsored religion...
"Dire warnings about liberalism's instability to contain the centrifugal tendencies of individual freedom can be found in every generation for the last three centuries, yet it appears that liberal societies have managed to endure while various forms of monarchy, theocracy, authoritarianism, and communism have come and gone."
See, nothing about masturbation, gay marriage or releasing murderers. Either Ann doesn't know the definition of "liberalism" or she is intentionally trying to deceive us. Does it matter which?
Returning to Ann's paragraph:
Ann: Godless examines a set of beliefs known as "liberalism." It is the doctrine that prompts otherwise seemingly sane people to propose teaching children how to masturbate, allowing gays to marry, releasing murderers from prison and teaching children that they share a common ancestor with the earthworm. (They haven't yet found the common ancestor...but like O.J., the search continues.)
There are many fallacies in this paragraph. Here are some:
Appeal to Ignorance: "The appeal to ignorance comes in two varieties: using an opponent's inability to disprove a conclusion as proof of the conclusion's correctness, and using an opponent's inability to prove a conclusion as proof of its incorrectness."
Even if some liberals support sex education - which is what is really meant with "teaching masturbation" (wording it like that is another fallacy in itself: "loaded words") - the implication is that those liberals who believe in sex education are bad for children. The truth is liberals may care very much about children because studies show students with a forthright sex education are less likely to suffer teen pregnancy or STDs.
Ann also commits Begging the Question: "An argument begs the question -- or argues in a circle -- when its conclusion is used as one of its premises." Her argument begs the question because it assumes these specific issues in fact define liberalism, and therefore that makes it a religion. Ignoring for a moment that Ann commits the fallacy of "the part equals the whole," she argues that because these issues exist, that is proof the liberalism is a religion - begging the question.
Ann: The demand that their religion be discussed only with reference to specific individuals – who is godless? are you saying I'm godless? – is simply an attempt to prevent us from talking about their religion. This tactic didn't work with Slander or Treason, and it's not going to work now.
The Truth: My head hurts with all this illogic. Again, it is begging the question. Because someone wants to know who specifically practices this "religion" the fact that they ask is somehow proof the religion exists. That is a False Dilemma: "An argument proposes a false dilemma when it presumes that only two alternatives exist when in actuality there are more than two."
Ann: It's not just that liberals ban Reform rabbis from saying brief prayers at high-school graduations and swoop down on courthouses and town squares across America to cart off Ten Commandments monuments. The liberal hostility to God-based religions has already been copiously documented by many others. Godless goes far beyond this well-established liberal hostility to real religions.
The Truth: At last we get to an almost real argument. But we aren't supposed to ask, which liberals "ban Reform rabbis" or which liberals "swoop down on courthouses and town squares." But I'll tell you: the ACLU. Do all liberals equal the ACLU? Even if they did, would that be a religion? And what about the ACLU fight to allow someone to wear a cross necklace? So even if the ACLU is a religion, is it anti-Christian? Is pro-Founding Fathers anti-Christian? Our Founding Fathers were well aware of the danger of a state religion because they knew well the repression of The Church of England. Did that make them anti-Christian? If the ACLU follows the Founding Fathers' logic and fights for their same reasoning, does that make the ACLU anti-Christian? Even if the ACLU is a liberal religion, isn't it the same religion our Founding Fathers preached?
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" (See The Treaty of Tripoli). Does that mean our country was founded on the "liberal religion"? Even if so, the Constitution is the foundation, and the ACLU fights for the Constitution. Is Ann saying everyone who fights for their understanding of the Constitution is waging a religious war? Is that projection? Is SHE waging a religious war?
Ann: The thesis of Godless is: Liberalism is a religion. The liberal religion has its own cosmology, its own explanation for why we are here, its own gods, its own clergy. The basic tenet of liberalism is that nature is god and men are monkeys. (Except not as pure-hearted as actual monkeys, who don't pollute, make nukes or believe in God.)
The Truth: What is this cosmology? Could it be the founding of the nation? Is that religious? Are our gods the Bill of Rights? Is that religious? If our clergy are intellectuals, news anchors and pundits, is that religious? Is Ann a god?
Ann: Liberals deny, of course, that liberalism is a religion – otherwise, they'd lose their government funding. "Separation of church and state" means separation of your church from the state, but total unity between their church and the state.
The Truth: Ann tries to hide a major fallacy behind a joke. Another joke would do just as well: "Do you still beat your wife?" That is what this agrement amounts to. It is impossible to prove a negative, and so liberals of course cannot prove liberalism is not a religion. However, by definition, it IS a philosophy, so there is no need to prove it is not a religion. Again, Ann Appeals to Ignorance.
Ann: Two months ago, the 9th Circuit held that a school can prohibit a student from exercising his First Amendment rights by wearing a t-shirt that said "Homosexuality Is Shameful."
The Truth: Homosexuality was not the issue, nor was religion. The issue was safety in schools and the potential of violence. Is Ann saying the schools do not have the right to keep children safe? In fact, the t-shirt read, “BE ASHAMED, OUR SCHOOL EMBRACED WHAT GOD HAS CONDEMNED” handwritten on the front, and “HOMOSEXUALITY IS SHAMEFUL” on the back. The case is Harper v. Poway Unified School Dist. The court found these facts:
"Poway High School (“the School”) has had a history of conflict among its students over issues of sexual orientation. In 2003, the School permitted a student group called the Gay-Straight Alliance to hold a “Day of Silence” at the School which, in the words of an Assistant Principal, is intended to “teach tolerance of others, particularly those of a different sexual orientation.”
During the days surrounding the 2003 “Day of Silence,” a series of incidents and altercations occurred on the school campus as a result of anti-homosexual comments that were made by students. One such confrontation required the Principal to separate students physically."
Those were the facts before the Court. The Court therfore ruled:
"It is also clear from the record that the primary effect of the School’s banning of the T-shirt was not to advance or inhibit religion but to protect and preserve the educational environment and the rights of other members of the student body. Nor can there be any question in this case of excessive government entanglement in religion. Finally, as we have already discussed, there is no evidence in the record that school officials attempted to change Harper’s religious beliefs."
Is Ann Coulter lying when she makes her 9th Circuit claim? That would be extreme. Instead, let's call it what it undoubtedly is, an Appeal to Fear: "To use the threat of harm to advance one's position is to commit the fallacy of the appeal to fear. It is also known as swinging the big stick." The fearful false threat (to religious fredom) is even a False Cause: "The fallacy of false cause consists of supposing that two events are causally connected when they are not."
Ann: Even the Left's pretend-adoration of "free speech" (meaning: treason and pornography) must give way to speech that is contrary to the tenets of the church of liberalism on the sacred grounds of a government school.
The Truth: The key words here are "treason" and "pornography." Ann here commits the fallacy of Hasty Generalization: "You are guilty of hasty generalization, or jumping to conclusions, when you draw a general conclusion about all things of a certain type on the basis of evidence concerning only a few things of that type." Worse, she basis this conclusion on lies, er, false premises, based on the case of Harper v. Poway Unified School Dist., as we saw.
Ann: How might the ACLU respond if a school attempted to ban a t-shirt that said something like "Creationism Is Shameful"? We'd never hear the end of warnings about the coming theocracy.
The Truth: At last Ann mentions who she means by "the church of liberalism," and it too is a false premise. In fact:
Recent ACLU Cases Defending the Constitutional Rights of Christians
Rhode Island ACLU (2006) filed an appeal in federal court on behalf of an inmate who was barred from preaching during Christian religious services, something he had done for the past seven years under the supervision and support of prison clergy. The prisoner, Wesley Spratt, believes his preaching is a calling from God. Prison officials cited vague and unsubstantiated security reasons for imposing the preaching ban on Mr. Spratt. The ACLU argued that the ban violates Mr. Spratt’s religious freedoms guaranteed to prisoners under federal law.
The ACLU of Nevada (2005) defended the free exercise rights and free speech rights of evangelical Christians to preach on the sidewalks of the Strip in Las Vegas .
The ACLU of New Mexico (2005) joined forces with the American Family Association to succeed in freeing a preacher, Shawn Miller, from the Roosevelt County jail, where he was held for 109 days for street preaching. The ACLU became involved at the request of Miller’s wife, Theresa.
The ACLU of New Jersey (2005) filed a a motion to submit a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Olivia Turton, a second-grade student who was forbidden from singing “Awesome God” in a voluntary, after-school talent show. The only restriction on the student’s selection for the talent show was that it be “G-rated.” The case, filed in federal court, is Turton, et al. v. Frenchtown Elementary School , et al.
The ACLU of Michigan (2005) filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Joseph Hanas, a Catholic, who was criminally punished for not completing a drug rehabilitation program run by the Pentecostal group. Part of the program required reading the Bible for seven hours a day, proclaiming one’s salvation at the alter, and being tested on Pentecostal principles. Staff confiscated Mr. Hanas’s rosary and told him Catholicism was witchcraft.
The ACLU of Louisiana (2005) filed suit against the Department of Corrections on behalf of a Mormon inmate, Norman Sanders, who was denied the right to practice his religion by being denied access to religious texts, including The Book of Mormon, and Mormon religious services. “Mormons should receive the same accommodation of their beliefs as do individuals of other faiths,” said Joe Cook, Executive Director, ACLU of Louisiana. “Fair and equal treatment means they deserve the right to a place to meet, have a minister and discuss their beliefs like other groups.”
The ACLU of Pennsylvania (2005) won a battle against Turtle Creek Borough that repeatedly denied an occupancy permit to a predominantly African-American church, Ekklesia, which had purchased the church building from a predominantly white parish. The case is Ekklesia Church v. Borough of Turtle Creek. The case was settled.
The ACLU of Oregon (2004-05) filed suit on behalf of high school basketball players from an Adventist school against the Oregon School Activities Association, which administers competitive athletic and artistic competitions in Oregon high schools. The ACLU argued that the Adventist basketball players who have made it to the state tournament should not be required to play tournament games on Saturday, their Sabbath. The case, argued in Oregon courts, is Nakashima v. Board Of Education.
The ACLU of Nevada (2004) represented a Mormon high school student, Kim Jacobs, who school authorities suspended and then attempted to expel for not complying with the school dress code and wearing T-shirts with religious messages. Jacobs won a preliminary victory in court where the judge ruled the school could not expel her for not complying with the dress code. The First Amendment issue of student expression is before the Ninth Circuit.
The ACLU of Washington (2004) reached a favorable settlement on behalf of Donald Ausderau, a Christian minister, who wanted to preach to the public on Plaza sidewalks.
The ACLU of Virginia (2004) interceded with local authorities on behalf of Baptist preachers who were refused permission to perform baptisms in the river in Falmouth Waterside Park in Stafford County .
The Indiana Civil Liberties Union (2004) filed suit against the city of Scottsburg for their repeated threats of arrest and/or citation against members of the Old Paths Baptist Church for demonstrating regarding various subjects dealing with their religious beliefs.
The ACLU of Pennsylvania (2005) won a battle against Turtle Creek Borough that repeatedly denied an occupancy permit to a predominantly African-American church, Ekklesia, which had purchased the church building from a predominantly white parish. The case is Ekklesia Church v. Borough of Turtle Creek. The case was settled. With the help of the ACLU of Pennsylvania Greater Pittsburgh Chapter (2004), the Church Army, an Episcopal social service group, was able to keep its program of feeding the homeless running. The ACLU convinced the County Health Department to reverse a decision that meals served to homeless people in a church must be cooked on the premises, as opposed to individual homes. Had the decision not been reversed, the ministry would have been forced to cease the program.
The ACLU of Pennsylvania (2004) was victorious in its arguments that government had to accommodate Amish drivers who used highly reflective gray tape on their buggies instead of orange triangles, to which the Amish objected for religious reasons.
The ACLU of New Jersey (2004) appeared as amicus curaie in opposition to a prosecutor’s act of striking potential jurors from a jury pool based on the fact that the prosecutor perceived those individuals to be “demonstrative about their religion.” One potential juror was a missionary; the other juror was wearing Muslim religious garb, including a skull cap. The ACLU-NJ argued that such an action violates the religion clauses of both the United States and New Jersey Constitutions. It also argued that not only is it inappropriate for jurors to be struck because they are demonstrable about their religion but, in addition, such a basis will often amount to a removal based upon a particular religious belief or affiliation and will lead to discrimination against identifiable religious minorities. The case is State v. Fuller (NJ SCt 2004).
The ACLU of Pennsylvania (2004) settled a lawsuit on behalf of Second Baptist Church of Homestead, a predominantly African-American church that had been denied a zoning permit to operate in a church building purchased by a white congregation. The occupancy permit was awarded in 2002, and in 2004, the Borough of West Mifflin agreed to pay damages and compensate the church for its loses. The case is Second Baptist Church of Homestead v. Borough of West Mifflin.
The ACLU of Massachusetts (2003) intervened on behalf of a group of students at Westfield High School who were suspended for distributing candy canes and a religious message in school. The ACLU succeeded in having the suspensions revoked and filed an amicus brief in a lawsuit brought on behalf of the students against the school district. Students who were suspended include Daniel S. Souza, Stephen J. Grabowski, Sharon L. Sitler and Paul Sitler.
The ACLU of Rhode Island (2003) interceded on behalf of an interdenominational group of carolers who were denied the opportunity to sing Christmas carols on Christmas Eve to inmates at the women’s prison in Cranston , Rhode Island .
The Iowa Civil Liberties Union (2002) publicly supported a group of Christian students who filed a lawsuit against Davenport Schools asserting their right to distribute religious literature during non-instructional time. The ICLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the suit on behalf of the students.
The ACLU of Massachusetts (2002) filed a brief supporting the right of the Church of the Good News to run ads criticizing the secularization of Christmas and promoting Christianity as the “one true religion” after the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority refused to allow the paid advertisements to be posted and to sell additional advertising space to the church.
The ACLU of Virginia (2002) joined the Rev. Jerry Falwell in winning a lawsuit arguing the Virginia Constitution’s provision that bans religious organizations from incorporating is unconstitutional.
The ACLU of Michigan (beginning in 2001) represented Abby Moler, a student at Sterling Heights Stevenson High School , whose yearbook entry was deleted because of its religious content.
The ACLU of Massachusetts (2000) defended inmate Peter Kane’s right to exercise his religious beliefs when prison officials confiscated his rosary beads. The rosary beads were black and white and prison rules allow only solid-colored beads.
The ACLU of Virginia (2000) represented Charles D. Johnson, a street preacher who was convicted under Richmond ’s noise ordinance. The Virginia Court of Appeals reversed his conviction in 2000. The case is Johnson v. City of Richmond, 2000 WL 1459848 (Va. App. 2000).
The ACLU of Virginia (1999) filed suit against the Department of Defense and the Office of Personnel Management on behalf of Michelle Hall, a Jehovah’s Witness who was fired from her job as a produce worker at Ft. Belvoir commissary because she refused to sign a loyalty oath. Ms. Hall objected to a phrase in the oath, that she would “bear true faith and allegiance to” the Constitution, because it contradicts her undivided allegiance and faithfulness to Jehovah. The ACLU argued the oath violated Ms. Hall’s freedom of religion and speech rights. In a settlement, Ms. Hall was reinstated and given back pay.
The ACLU of Eastern Missouri (1999) secured a favorable settlement for a nurse, Miki M. Cain, who was fired for wearing a cross-shaped lapel pin on her uniform.
The ACLU of Virginia (1997-1999) represented Rita Warren and her mission to erect a crèche on Fairfax County government space that had been set aside as a public forum. The ACLU argued restricting the use of the public forum to county residents only was an unreasonable restriction. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the ACLU.
The ACLU of Iowa (1997) represented Conservative Christians in Clarke County and won the right to force a county referendum on gambling.
The ACLU of Pennsylvania Greater Pittsburgh Chapter (1997) represented Carlyn Kline, a fundamentalist Christian woman who challenged the legality of a mandatory divorce-counseling program conducted by Catholic Charities. Her religious beliefs prohibited her from attending “non-Christian” counseling.
The ACLU of Pennsylvania Greater Pittsburgh Chapter (1997) intervened on behalf of a Mennonite nurse and prevented his firing for refusing to shave his beard for religious reasons. The employer demanded the nurse shave his beard so the state-issued mask to guard against tuberculosis would fit tightly despite the employee’s offer to purchase a more expensive mask that would is approved for work with T.B. patients and that would fit properly with his beard intact. After receiving telephone calls and letters from the ACLU, the state employer agreed to accommodate the nurse’s religion.
Amish farmers benefited from the ACLU of Pennsylvania Greater Pittsburgh Chapter’s letter threatening a lawsuit if the Elk Lick Township rescind a municipal ordinance that prohibited farm tractors with steel wheels from traveling on or over the township's roads. Amish religious beliefs dictate that they maintain steel wheels on their tractors and the ordinance prevented Amish farmers from moving their tractors from one farm to another, and in some cases from one part of their property to another. The township rescinded the ordinance in 1995 and dropped all charges against the various persons charged under the ordinance.
The ACLU of Pennsylvania Greater Pittsburgh Chapter (1995) represented a 17-year-old foster child who was being forced to attend her foster family’s church. The foster child was Methodist and the church she was being forced to attend was not of the Methodist faith. After the ACLU threatened to sue the county allowed the child to attend a Methodist church and placed her in a different foster home.
The ACLU of Pennsylvania Greater Pittsburgh Chapter (1995) secured the right of a minister from the United Methodist Church to hold meetings in the Harmony Township Borough building that was open for use by community groups.
Iowa affiliate of the ACLU (1995) represented and vindicated the free speech and religious expression of a conservative Christian activist, Elaine Jaquith of Waterloo , who had been denied access to broadcast her message on public television.
The ACLU of Texas (beginning in1995) represented Catholic and Mormon Santa Fe High School students who opposed the proselytizing prayers offered by the school’s student council chaplain over the public address system prior to home football games. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed that public schools should not be used to proselytize on behalf of religion. Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000)
The ACLU of Vermont (1994-95) represented evangelical Christians Freda and Perry Hollyer, who were denied Medicaid and food stamp benefits because they refused to obtain social security numbers for their children. The Hollyers believed that obtaining social security numbers for their children ran contrary to their understanding of the Book of Revelations. The ACLU appealed the denial to the state’s Human Services Board. The Board ruled in favor of the Hollyers holding that the state’s legitimate interests in preventing fraud could be achieved without use of a social security number. The Board’s ruling is on file with the ACLU’s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.
The ACLU of Utah (1990s) represented an evangelical Christian ministry that had been evicted and denied future access as a vendor at a state fair because fair-goers objected to the religious content of the message.
Ann: In fact, students are actually required to wear "Creationism Is Shameful" t-shirts in Dover, PA, where – thanks to a lawsuit by the ACLU – the liberal clergy have declared Darwinism the only true church, immunized from argument. Ye shall put no other God before it. Not one.
The Truth: A Google of this "case" only found Ann's False Dilemma. No where is there a case where a students are actually required to wear "Creationism is Shameful" t-shirts. Ann may wish there were such a case, so she could rant about it, but it does not exist. However, other Google quotes have it "How might the ACLU respond if a school attempted to ban a T-shirt that said something like "Creationism Is Shameful"? That is still a straw man fallacy.
Ann: Liberals believe in Darwinism as a matter of faith, despite the fact that, at this point, the only thing that can be said for certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for 1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for 2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of 1).
The Truth: Another joke trying to hide the premise "Liberals believe in Darwinism as a matter of faith." The definition of faith:
faith (fa-th) pronunciation
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
Because Ann is vague, we do not and cannot know which definition she means for certain. However, since it is in a religious context, it is probable she means
"5. The body of dogma of a religion."
Fair enough. Do liberals really believe in Darwinism? How many do or don't? How many liberals are Christians and don't? Can someone be Christian and still believe in "Darwinism"? Does "Darwinism" equal "evolution"? Even if some liberals do believe in Darwinism as a matter of faith, is it the belief or their mere faith that is the problem? So is Ann arguing that faith is suspect? If faith or belief are the issue, then why not question Christian faith or belief instead?
Ann: If only Darwinism were true, someday we might evolve public schools with the ability to entertain opposable ideas about the creation of man.
The Truth: op·pos·a·ble adj.
1. Possible to oppose or resist.
2. That can be placed opposite something else: The thumb is an opposable digit.
What is the argument in the last sentence? Joke or not, it makes a statement. That last sentence puzzle is for you to solve. Have fun with it!
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
