Bill Maher vs. Ralph Reed

June 8, 2014 • 9:59 am

You may Remember conservative Ralph Reed when he was director of the Christian Coalition. He’s now director of the Faith and Freedom Foundation, and he was on Bill Maher’s show last week. This short clip shows Reed and Maher discuss (of course) religion.

Reed espouses belief in the literal truth of the Bible, and Maher asks Reed’s reaction to stuff like God’s Old-Testament approbation of slavery. (Reed says that it was “a different kind of slavery” back then) Reed also argues that the antislavery movement in America came out of the churches. I’m not sure about that, but there sure were a lot of churches, both North and South, condoning slavery and giving it a Biblical imprimatur. At any rate, that doesn’t deal with Maher’s issue, and Reed wriggles around, as he does when Maher then brings up stoning (something the Bible approves of for women who have sex before marriage).

I won’t steal from you the pleasure of watching Reed comport the Old and New Testaments, but it’s funny to see him say that Maher is “being selective”:

I always wonder why someone like Reed even agrees to go on Maher’s show. As I heard from a debater in another sticky situation, “You show up, you lose.” Or maybe Reed believes that there’s no such thing as bad publicity.

h/t: Barry

Columnist in Lebanon, Missouri paper gives ringing endorsement to principal’s illegal speech (and disses evolution)

June 8, 2014 • 8:02 am

Katie Hilton is a columnist for the Lebanon [Missouri] Daily Record.  In her latest op-ed, “Hats off for Lowery!“, she espouses every sentiment that shows the problems of that intolerant, faith-soaked town. I’ll reproduce her column in full, interspersed with my own comments in bold.

4ec6b26f6bd01.image
Katie Hilton

Screen shot 2014-06-07 at 4.24.12 PM

A tip of the mortarboard to Lebanon High School Principal Kevin Lowery. His introductory speech at commencement included a moment of silence, for which he has been forced to apologize.

Nope, he was forced to apologize not for having a moment of silence, which is legal, but for what Hilton describes next, which is illegal. Oh, and FYI, where do you get the idea that Lowery was “forced to apologize.” The only statement he’s made about his “apology,” such as it is, notes that he apologized of his own free will.  Do you have other sources for your information?

Lowery told the audience that he used his moment to pray for the students, thanked God for them, their parents, teachers and the community, and asked God to protect them in the future. A University of Chicago professor who saw part of the remarks on YouTube declared Lowery’s talk was “clearly a violation of the First Amendment.”

Nonsense. You can view the supposedly objectionable portion of Lowery’s remarks here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctwrBqcBcgM.

It’s not nonsense; it’s settled case law. If you doubt that, read the Freedom from Religion Foundation’s letter of complaint to the Lebanon School Superintendent and School Board. 

Dr. Jerry A. Coyne, an evolutionary biologist trained at Harvard, has a blog called “Why Evolution Is True,” also the title of his most recent book. He posted his first rant against Lowery May 31, along with a letter to Dr. Duane Widhalm and the school board.

“Lowery’s behavior during that graduation ceremony is a flagrant violation of the First Amendment, and of court decisions that prayer in public schools by officials of those schools is illegal,” Coyne claimed. “Apparently, by making a public display of his faith, Mr. Lowery wished to voice his disdain for those rulings, and for our Constitution.”

I think Dr. Coyne should stick to monkeys and their uncles. You can judge for yourself.

Here we see the first hint that perhaps Ms. Hilton isn’t down with modern evolutionary science. “Monkeys and their uncles”? Really? This makes me wonder whether Lebanon High School even teaches evolution, or whether they sneak in intelligent design or other forms of creationism. Perhaps one of the several LHS students who reads this site can tell us. 

The First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Lowery clearly isn’t Congress, nor did he establish any religion at commencement. He did exercise his right to pray during the moment of silence that he requested, and he did exercise his right to free speech when he shared what he had chosen to pray.

This is breathtaking inanity.  Lowery doesn’t have to be “Congress” to violate the Constitution! All he has to do is be a government official who tries to promulgate religion in the organs of government.  He is and he did.  The courts have clearly established that “free speech” does not include an official’s right to pray to a captive high-school audience at official events—like graduation. This has been decided by the courts over and over again.  When I read stuff so blatantly ignorant and self-serving, I wonder whether Ms. Hilton really understands the issues, or that she does but is just ignoring them. Like a good theologian interpreting the Bible, she picks and chooses from the Constitution what she wants to see. Unfortunately for Hilton, the courts consistently disagree with her interpretation. Her take on the Constitution is like a garden-variety Catholic telling people what official Church dogma is, despite the Vatican saying otherwise.

Coyne was satirized in February as “censor of the year” by the Discovery Institute. According to the institute’s website, Coyne and the Freedom From Religion Foundation caused Ball State University to ban teaching the scientific theory of intelligent design. ID is a theory that contradicts Coyne’s Darwinism.

“The scientific theory” of intelligent design? Here again we see hints that Ms. Hilton rejects evolution as it’s accepted by scientists (not just “Coyne”). If the people of Lebanon want to parade their ignorance of evolution as visibly as they parade their ignorance of Constitutional law, by all means let them, for they only make themselves look like ignoramuses. 

*****

Truly, the Lebanon Daily Record should be embarrassed to have someone with this degree of acumen as a columnist, but sentiments like these are what we’ve come to expect from the Lowery-boosters.  In effect, they are encouraging violations of the law, and I suspect they know it.  And they haven’t learned to think for themselves, for they simply fall in line with the sentiments of the religious and of the small-town boosters so ably depicted by Sinclair Lewis in Main Street.

There is only one comment after Hilton’s article, and it opposes her. I’ve just added another (I don’t know if it will be approved) using the eloquent words of Christopher Hitchens as reproduced by reader Harry in yesterday’s comments. My own comment is addressed to the young folk of Lebanon, as was Harry’s.

If you’d like to weigh in on Hilton’s editorial, you can go here to do it. If you do comment, please be polite! We don’t want to act like the citizens of Lebanon.

Also, as reader Barry notes below:

By the way, if you click on “Home” after reading the dreadful article, there is a poll about this issue with two options. It looks like the goddies are dominating right now.

The poll is at the bottom right of the “home” page (you have to go to the article first and then, as Barry says, click “home”). Here are the results when I voted:

Screen shot 2014-06-08 at 11.23.27 AM

New Gallup poll: acceptance of evolution rises slightly, creationism falls

June 8, 2014 • 5:38 am

The Gallup organization has conducted its annual poll of Americans’ acceptance of evolution (results here and here). It’s based on a sample of 1,028 adults surveyed in May of this year. They’ve been taking this poll, asking the same questions, since 1982, which makes it the longest-running regular poll on U.S. attitudes towards evolution.

Actually, as you’ll see from the question below, it’s really a survey of attitudes about human evolution. As most of us know, it’s possible for many people to accept evolution for other creatures, but with an exception for humans.  In that form of theistic evolution, our species (or hominins) were either created directly, had our evolution facilitated by God-tweaked mutations, or had some metaphysical apps installed by God: usually a soul and, as Francis Collins puts it, “The Moral Law.”

I don’t mind Gallup asking the question this way, for if you don’t accept naturalistic evolution of humans, you don’t accept naturalistic evolution at all. (In addition, that’s the question they’ve been asking for 30+ years, so the results are comparable across decades.) For those who claim that the proper study of mankind is man (I’m not one of these), the correct account of our origins is crucial to understanding ourselves. Regardless, I don’t see how those who require our own species to have involved God’s intervention can be regarded as allies against creationism, especially when, as you see below, 42% of them not only see human exceptionalism, but our creation in the present form in the last 10,000 years. 

But the news this year makes me mildly optimistic. Although the pure young-earth creationists are at 42%, and have historically hovered between 40% and 47%, I discern a trend towards an acceptance of pure naturalistic evolution.  In the last 32 years the proportion of respondents accepting that for humans has risen pretty steadily from 9% to 19%: more than a doubling! Granted, it’s still a minority view, but its increase is, I believe, keeping pace with the decline of religiosity in America. (It’s religion that prevents people from accepting evolution, and we must await the decline of faith, which is slow, before we get much evolution-acceptance.)

Further, the young-earth creationists have fallen 4% since last year (maybe a blip), and the theistic evolutionists have fallen by 7% over the last two years. I’d say that that’s a cause for optimism.

qlkv1bjc1ewmyfp0xrqvhg

Gallup has also made three points about the data above (to see the raw data from earlier years, go here):

  • Religiousness relates most strongly to these views, which is not surprising, given that this question deals directly with God’s role in human origins. The percentage of Americans who accept the creationist viewpoint ranges from 69% among those who attend religious services weekly to 23% among those who seldom or never attend.
  • Educational attainment is also related to these attitudes, with belief in the creationist perspective dropping from 57% among Americans with no more than a high school education to less than half that (27%) among those with a college degree. Those with college degrees are, accordingly, much more likely to choose one of the two evolutionary explanations.
  • Younger Americans — who are typically less religious than their elders — are less likely to choose the creationist perspective than are older Americans. Americans aged 65 and older — the most religious of any age group — are most likely to choose the creationist perspective.

There’s not much new here, but look at the large effect of religion on accepting evolution. I’m always surprised that people question this (it’s something the National Center for Science Education likes to play down), but “belief in belief” is so strong that it keeps people from admitting the palpably obvious. What’s heartening is that the people who reject creationism most often are the younger ones. Those, of course, are also the people most likely to lack formal religious affiliation—the famous “nones.”

And, for those who claim that science and religion are compatible, here’s another figure from this year’s poll:

Screen shot 2014-06-08 at 7.19.14 AM

The folks at Gallup put it a bit carefully:

 . . . few scientists would agree that humans were created pretty much in their present form at one time 10,000 years ago, underscoring the ongoing discontinuity between the beliefs that many Americans hold and the general scientific consensus on this important issue.

Indeed!

The mills of rationality grind exceeding small, but they grind surely. I’m a bit sad that I won’t see the U.S. become secular—which means that evolution will no longer be an important issue—in my lifetime, but at least I see some progress. And that’s enough for me.

 

 

Good morning, Professor Ceiling Cat!

June 8, 2014 • 4:40 am

A lovely comment from the conservative website The Blaze, which published a piece on the Lebanon prayer fracas this week, and mentioned me in passing.  I don’t look at the comments on pieces like this, but reader Ben sent it along, knowing it would amuse.  It’s obviously from a believer.

How lovely these people are, and how quickly their their facade of geniality crumbles when their beliefs are challenged!

Screen shot 2014-06-08 at 6.32.40 AM Screen shot 2014-06-08 at 6.32.50 AM

 

I don’t know what a “codsack” is, but I can guess.

I used to think that people like Anthony Grayling were exaggerating when they said that were the faithful to gain full power over the government, even today, we’d see some pretty horrible repression. Now I’m beginning to think he’s right.

And, no—neither flames nor codsack nailing could convert me.

 

Sunday: Hili dialogue

June 8, 2014 • 3:29 am

Like many cats, Hili likes to sleep on the freshly cleaned and folded laundry.

Hili: These jumpers made out of pure wool are much more friendly to cats.
A: And how will I look in this?
Hili: Like a man who has a cat.

10374030_10203534549111664_7359142061651834544_n
In Polish:
Hili: Te swetry z czystej wełny są znacznie bardziej przyjazne dla kotów.
Ja: Ale jak ja potem będę w tym wyglądał?
Hili: Jak człowiek, który ma kota.

The citizens of Lebanon, Missouri, rally around their principal and their god

June 7, 2014 • 11:00 am

I’m not sure that the citizens of Lebanon, Missouri realize that they’ve got a Constitution problem on their hands. Not only are they vociferously defending principal Lowery’s prayer to God at the Lebanon High School graduation, but they’ve started a Facebook page in his defense.

Now it’s fine for a community to support its beloved principal, but it’s not all right—with me, at least—to both openly praise his violation of the law, and do so defiantly.  And, in the process, they continue to document that Lowery’s graduation speech was not a one-off thing, but part of a pattern of long-term religious proselytizing in that school. In so doing, they’re just providing potential ammunition for a lawsuit.

But take a look first at the “Standing strong with Kevin Lowery” Facebook page. Here’s the banner, complete with crosses and a sentence from Lowery’s graduation prayer (after his “moment of silence,” he proceeded to tell the students that he used his moment to pray to God).

Lowery FB

The latest picture from the page:

10297570_290526177795015_5677312450211972918_n

And some new comments, selected pretty much at random. The first one’s a doozy:

Screen shot 2014-06-07 at 12.33.59 PM

They aren’t allowed to be openly Christian? Of course they are! They just can’t foist their beliefs on a captive audience while acting as an agent of the government. Somehow the distinction escapes them. . .

But wait! There’s more!:

Screen shot 2014-06-07 at 12.31.14 PM

Uh oh. . . look here:

Screen shot 2014-06-07 at 12.33.06 PM

Screen shot 2014-06-07 at 12.35.02 PM

Do these people realize what they’re doing? Are they too thick to see that they’re documenting an illegal pattern of behavior? Or don’t they care?

From another public Facebook page, “Lebanon underground breaking news”, sent by a resident who omitted last names. People are furious at the school board for supposedly making Lowery apologize, although he said he apologized on his own:

“Sad day for Lebanon I for one think this community would have stood behind our school and our principle. Just another case of caving …it’s no wonder we as Christians have no voice. As soon as pressure is put on we deny our God and our Freedoms. I already sent an email to R3 letting them know how I felt I encourage you to do the same. Matthew 10: 33”
-Stephanie

“An APOLOGY?! SCREW THAT! I understand their reasoning I guess, but in no way will i EVER apologize for my faith! What a bunch of petty ridiculousness this is!”
-Jeff

“So sad that we live in such a “politically correct” world that we would feel it necessary to publicly apologize for the mention of God in our schools. And we wonder why the world is the way it is……………….”
-Chriss

“I was there as well & in no way should anyone be offended by what he said. Shame on R3 for not backing him up.”
-Barbara

“Shame on the administration and whoever else made this decision”
-Doug

“Wow….shame on you R3. Everyone can have a religious opinion except a Christian is that it??!”
-Carol

“The school board must be against God then”
-Mike

“Shame on the district for not standing behind him.
He didn’t force anyone else to pray or thank GOD.
So sick and tired of people getting up tight when GOD is mentioned.”
-Jessica

“I knew a bunch of losers ran the Lebanon school district–I feel sorry for these people that are complaining when they have to stand before GOD when they leave this earth.”

-Jason

“Whoever on the R3 board that decided for this apology?? I would like OFF THE school board. I support the schools by paying taxes every year, I have two kids in school myself… And this speech was making a community proud of its schools. I am tired of Christians being discriminated upon, having no voice and expected to adhere to everyone else’s nasty and immoral ways so we don’t discriminate on them.

So whoever made this decision…. You’re not needed in this community on the school board… You’re hypocritical and unnecessary for our children’s needs”

-Ron

“Unreal… The R3 district should be ashamed of themselves for even considering an apology… They need to apologize to the community for the lack of services offered to our children, and the way they treat their staff…. NOT apologize for a staff memeber that was in his right to speak on behalf of himself, the graduating students and families. Someone needs to start a petition for a complete NEW SCHOOL BOARD in this town. I will be the first to sign. We can’t complain unless we are willing to make a stand!!!”

-Jennifer

I should add that there are one or two voices of sanity on that page, but they’re quickly overwhelmed by the goddies.

Finally, Principal Lowery has his own publicly-accessible Facebook page, and here’s the banner:

Lowery FB page header

And a picture shared by the principal:

Lowery ReaganWith comments:

Screen shot 2014-06-07 at 12.46.59 PM

I thought the following comments came from Lowery’s own Facebook page (I don’t have a record of where I got the screenshot), but they could be from one of the other two pages. (I believe Lowery has either removed comments from his page since yesterday or made them private, but I may be wrong). At any rate, they document both the community religiosity as well as the pattern of religiosity in the school. None of these came from “friends” of Lowery who have access to private comments, as I don’t post such things.

Notice the first comment:

Lowry

It appears that these folks are so blinded by their affection for Mr. Lowery, or by their faith, that they’re shoveling coal into the boiler of The One-Way Train to Lawsuitville. But the damage is already done. There have been many comments and emails noting that Lowery repeatedly prayed not just at graduations, but at school assemblies. Any decent lawyer could document a pattern of illegal and unconstitutional behavior.

Unfortunately, Champion Jesus can’t save Lebanon from the law.