Ah, Jerry Falwell

I think it's important for Jerry Falwell's views to get as much airing as possible. Here's today's "Falwell Confidential" in its entirety, along with a few choice responses from yours truly. Emphasis is mine, and is intended only to make it clearer what I'm referring to; it's definitely not to draw particular attention to things that'll make him look dumb.

Date: April 29, 2004 From: Jerry Falwell ONE NATION ... INCREASINGLY DIVISIBLE I imagine that Rep. James McDermott has heard from many of his trendy liberal friends who have been telling him what a brave and courageous soul he is for snubbing the phrase "under God" when he led the House of Representatives in saying the Pledge of Allegiance on Tuesday. Rep. McDermott, a man who does pledge allegiance to Planned Parenthood, the Feminist Majority and the other dictatorial abortion-rights groups in our nation, contended that he refused to utter the words "under God" because the courts are presently considering whether the phrase is constitutional. He was referring to, of course, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that found the two words to be unconstitutional. A decision on that ruling is pending at the U.S. Supreme Court.

It's unfortuante that the Reverend Falwell doesn't tell us his theory as to what Representative McDermott actually did, if he didn't do what he contended to have done.

This is just one more case of an abject secularist ignoring the God-centered groundwork that is responsible for the establishment and achievement of this nation.

abject. Adj. 1 : sunk to or existing in a low state or condition 2 a : cast down in spirit : SERVILE, SPIRITLESS [a man made abject by suffering] b : showing utter hopelessness or resignation [abject surrender] 3 : expressing or offered in a humble and often ingratiating spirit [abject flattery] [an abject apology]

Today's secularists loathe America's biblical underpinning that served to inspire and motivate our Founders to forge a nation that would recognize the value of its religious citizens, even in governmental affairs. They disrespect our history and seek only to establish an agenda that eradicates our longstanding religious heritage. Secularists want the American public square to be devoid of religious influence, especially if it has a Christian foundation. From Ten Commandments monuments at American courthouses, to high school football game prayers, to the brief mention of God in our Pledge, secularists are seeking to enforce their marginal views on the nation, thereby creating an America that our Founders would not recognize.

That's why we should also ban automobiles, television, and vaccinations.

Barry Lynn, president of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, a group that seeks to wholly secularize our nation, admitted to me that he ultimately hopes to purge the words "In God We Trust" from our currency. I wonder if secularists would, given the ability to do so, strike the phrase "endowed by our Creator" from the U.S. Constitution.

Well, I was just remarking that it'd be cool to do something logically impossible, so yeah, maybe. I always find it really surprising that so many people who are taken seriously don't know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.

They have asserted that the great document is a living, breathing manuscript, which suggests that they believe they ultimately have the leeway to extract words or phrases that offend and insult their present-day secularist notions.

"Extract" is a funny word to use there. But anyway. The neat thing about the Constitution is that it is a secular document. Or does the Reverend refer to those neo-liberals who blatantly disregarded the founders' intent by passing secular amendments?

Will they take control of our nation's textbooks so that they can cleanse words that chronicle our Founders as men of faith who routinely sought guidance from above? Will secularists obscure from future generations the fact that our Founders called the nation to earnest prayer and supplication, entreating Almighty God to bless them? Will ministers one day be punished for upholding the Word of God in sermons that counter the secularist standpoint?

That's a really good point. On the other hand, let's see where similar rhetoric will get us on the other side:

What's next? Will Christianity be forced upon all citizens? Will the Radical Right have the clout to offer me as a human sacrifice to appease our mighty God? Will religious leaders be given the right to rape children they don't like?

Everybody, nod appreciatively at the good rhetoric I'm using.

Columnist Ann Coulter, who certainly has a matchless way with words, said recently, "The nation waits with bated breath to see if, this term, the court will strike 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance. Liberals are so desperate for this to happen that some of them are actually praying for it." Mr. McDermott will no doubt become the poster child for the effort to thoroughly secularize our nation. He is already revered by secularists for his action in June 2002, when the House of Representatives voted to condemn the 9th Circuit Court's ruling that declared the Pledge unconstitutional. With a vote of 416-to-2, the House adopted the measure, with Rep. McDermott voting "present."

Ok, that's just weird. This is more like it:

Then in a March 2003 resolution, Rep. McDermott joined with six other "no" voters in refusing to condemn the 9th Circuit ruling. Gary Bauer, chairman of the Campaign for Working Families, said, "While Jim McDermott may be in the minority in the House of Representatives, he does, unfortunately, 'represent' many on the lunatic fringe of American politics who are increasingly active and energized this year. In the 'civil war' over values, either McDermott's worldview will prevail or our worldview, that recognizes God as the author of our liberty, will prevail." The chief problem, however, is that those in this lunatic fringe are characteristically portrayed in the so-called mainstream media as holding conventional viewpoints.

So-called by whom? The masses?

Conjecture is treated as truth. We see it every day.

I have no idea whatsoever what this means.

The mainstream media hold what have become established views on issues such as abortion, evolution and homosexual rights that counter the mindset of millions of Americans. But they treat these views as fact, purposely disregarding and discounting as irrelevant the views of those who do not accept these "truths." This is how our nation will become increasingly secularized and divided. It is a tragedy of immense proportions that so many of our fellow Americans simply fall into lockstep with the trend-as-truth mentality. That is why it behooves every one of us who loves America and the foundation on which it was built to uphold the legacy of our Forefathers by taking a stand for our religious freedoms.

Hah!

Unless we rise up and take action - a good first step would be to vote out the Jim McDermotts of the day - our children will one day wake in a vast secularist wasteland that used to be America.

Well, at least it'll be vast. We wouldn't want them to feel cramped. I bet it's fun to be Brian Leiter.

Souls in Clones

I just offered the following answer to Ask a Philosopher. Joaquin asked: Would human clones have "souls"? A lot of us think the correct answer isn't very interesting: No, clones would not have souls because no one has a soul. But I assume, based on your question, that you do think that ordinary people have souls. If you think that ordinary people do have souls, I don't see why you should think that clones wouldn't have souls, too. How does the soul work for ordinary people? Maybe it arises from the physical features of our brains -- when a brain has a certain structure, that means there's a soul of a certain kind. If this is the right way to think about souls, then it's easy to see that a clone *would* have a soul -- after all, presumably, it has the right sort of brain. Maybe the soul is NOT connected intimately with the body. Maybe God just *gives* each person a soul when he is born (or conceived, or at whatever time you think soulhood begins). In that case, we must ask, how does God decide whether to give organisms souls? It seems odd to suppse that God gives a soul to every baby that is born through traditional means, and via C-sections, and infants that are cultivated in a labratory, but not clones. Why would God see these creatures, which are in every physical way just like ordinary humans, and refrain from giving them souls? Of course it's *possible* that God just really doesn't like clones, or think that they should have souls, but there's no reason to suppose that would be so. (It would be just as reasonable to think that God doesn't give souls to redheads, because he doesn't like them. It's *possible*, but there's not reason to think that's the way it works.) So I think clones would have souls if ordinary people did.

Disagreement

Allan has a post about disagreement, which happens to correspond to a disagreement that occurred between Ben and me at the GCB last night. I say, we can disagree about things that are not propositions; Ben disagrees. My example: suppose Ben and I are looking for a place to live, and he says, "Let's live on Wickenden." I say, "No, let's live on Hope". We disagree, even though there's no proposition he's assenting to that I think is false, or vice versa.

Martian Invasion!

A really very interesting op-ed in the New York Times today. Teaser:

Certainly, the idea that Mars once harbored life no longer seems absurd ... there are several reasons to suppose that life, if it was ever there, could persist to this day. Finding life on Mars obviously would be thrilling. ... But the possibility of life on Mars also suggests that we should approach the place with caution. ... The history of first-time meetings between organisms is a sobering one. When the Spanish came to the New World, they brought smallpox and measles, which killed 90 percent of the people in Mexico within 50 years. H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS, crossed into humans from chimpanzees. ... Nor is it just viruses that are troublesome. When animals and plants arrive in a new place, they can have devastating effects, destroying crops and extinguishing native species. Given this, it seems rash even to entertain the notion of bringing Martian rock samples to Earth.

I found it interesting so I thought I'd post it. One of these days, I'll post more than just a link to something interesting here.

Whatever they speak in England

A BBC story about an Australian Court's ruling that a 13-year-old may begin sex change treatment, includes this sentence:

The decision has been both applauded and condemned by commentators.

My instinct is that there is something wrong with this sentence. I think it might be an equivocation on 'commentators'.

He cometh of noble birth

Thomas Malory is *terrible* about ambiguous pronouns. In Book XI, ch. 14 of his Le Morte D'Arthur, he writes:

Then they made both great dole out of measure. 'This will not avail,' said Sir Percival. And then he kneeled down and made his prayer devoutly unto Almighty Jesu, for he was one of the best knights of the world that at that time was, in whom the very faith stood most in.

I can see it now... a knight in white armor approaches with a big spear, and he says 'wit thee well, my name is Sir Jesus that hath made my quest to forgive the world for thy sins, and son unto the great knight, Sir God. And now make thee ready, for I shall have ado with thee.'

NYT Opinions page: Abortion, Unborn Victims

Some great letters to the editor on abortion in the latest (Monday) New York Times. Here is a piece of my favorite one:

The fundamental tenet behind pro-choice groups' ideology is to defend a woman's right to choose. To choose what? If her right to choose is whether or not to have her baby once she is pregnant, then why not fully fight to support the Unborn Victims of Violence Act? ... She has chosen to have her baby, and somebody else tried (or succeeded) in nullifying that choice. Pro-choice activists should be out in droves defending every woman's choice, be it abortion or childbirth.

This was essentially Brian's point when I posted on this issue a few weeks ago. (Sorry, too lazy/busy to link right now.)