Here is the second post I wrote of July 5.
After Dutko gave Michelle Goldberg a royal thrashing with his tired falsehood on Fisher Ames the conversation moved to evolution, one of Bob’s favorite subjects.
He was quick to let us know has debated many evolutionists modestly added they “always lose.”
Goldberg responded saying creationists have erected an “Elaborate tapestry of non-sense.”
Without taking a breath Dutko trotted out his favorite Stephen Gould quote to resume his pasting of his invited guest.
This from Gould, Dutko said:
“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediate stages between major transitions and organic design, indeed our inability to even in our imagination to construct functional intermediates in so many cases has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” Harvard U “Paleobiology” Vol 6 page 127 January. 1980
“You don’t get any bigger than Gould,” in the field of evolution Dutko added.
If they “don’t get any bigger,” wouldn’t anyone with both an interest in this complex subject and a microgram of intellectual honesty spend a few minutes to stay current with Gould’s views, at least until his 2002 death? One would indeed think so, but those of us acquainted with Dutko know he would not bother. He knows the answers, you see.
I have not checked this 1980 quote, but let’s assume it’s correct just to give Dutko a break .
I did, though, check with about a dozen mouse-clicks and found Dr. Gould's article entitled, “Hooking Leviathan by Its Past,” included as a chapter in “Dinosaur in the Haystack,” 1995. And yup, there it was in plain view for all to see in the Rochester Hills library. Gould wrote:
“Ambulocetus natans (whale that walks) weighed some 650 pounds, the size of a hefty sea lion.
“…if you have had given me both a blank sheet of paper and a blank check, I could not have drawn you a theoretical intermediate any better or more convincing than Ambulocetus. Those dogmatists who can make white black, and black white, by verbal trickery will never be convinced by anything, but Ambulocetus is the very animal that creationists proclaimed impossible in theory.
“…..This sequential discovery of picture-perfect intermediacy in the evolution of whales stands as a triumph in the history of paleontology.
“… Ambulocetus is so close to our expectation for a transitional form that its discovery could not provide a professional paleontologist with the greatest of all pleasures in science — surprise.”
So Dutko beats on Goldberg with the “absence of … intermediate forms,” while over a dozen years ago -- more than a decade -- Gould wrote of a “picture-perfect intermediacy…”.
There it is fellas and gals -- the “elaborate tapestry of non-sense,” Goldberg mentioned, and our own local guy, Dutko is making the fabric bold and rich in non-sense of his own making.
And often -- so often -- we know, Dutko speaks of “intellectual dishonesty” of those on the “left” and those who, as do I, accept the theory of Darwinian evolution. He shows how’s it done, don’t he?
Friday, July 10, 2009
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Dutko's flat-out dishonesty, again and again.
Saturday, July 4th WMUZ used an earlier interview Bob had with Michele Goldberg once it was edited as material for “Duking it out with Dutko.”
Following is excerpt one of two I want to expose to the revealing light of day.
(1)Dutko:…… It was the government that printed the Bibles for the schools in this country and as a matter of fact the guy who coined the language in the first amendment Fisher Ames – he argued that bibles need to remain textbooks – required reading in the schools in this country – that’s the guy who authored the language for first amendment. I don’t understand how you can say this is not true….
(2) Goldberg: First of all (cross-talk) it was Madison working from language that Jefferson used in the Virginia statue of religious freedom…
(3)D: (cutting her off) No as they were having this debate (summer of 1791 during development of Bill of Rights) -- they were crafting all of the language and Madison was the one who finally accepted the final language – the language that he used came from Fisher Ames: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
(4) G: Can I ask a question? Do you disagree that the first amendment was based on the 1786 statute establishing religious freedom in Virginia? That’s what most mainstream historians argue. Do you disagree with that?
(5)D: You know, honestly I don’t really have a strong opinion about that I, I think it’s irrelevant I honestly consider it irrelevant whether it does or does not.
(6)G: It is not irrelevant! Because here’s what Jefferson wrote in his autobiography about that statute. He wrote that someone wanted to refer to Jesus Christ as the source of religious liberty: He wrote that it was “rejected by the great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend in the mantle of it protection, the Jew and the gentile the Christian and the Mohamden, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination. “ (Bob’s response is unknown since the editor terminated this exchange and went to commercial)
Background: On hearing some years ago the Fisher Ames story I was nonplused at somehow overlooking in my reading, so I thought, a major player in the development of the First Amendment (FA) . A few mouse clicks showed Fisher Ames was but a minor contributor to the processes. Yes, the record shows on August 20, 1789 he did indeed introduce language, largely developed by others, onto the floor of the House of Representatives.
I promptly sent Bob an email with a paste of what I had easily found (posted 8:26 PM) and receiving no response, was surprised and angered when he continued to tell the same story again and again. I then sent a large envelope via USPS with full source documentation plainly showing Ames as the minor player he was. David Barton in his book “Original Intent,” even describes Ames as a “helper.” Ain't that faint praise? (Wallbuilder Press, 1996 p 365)
Bob must insist on the Ames story as he falsely tells it because to those who see the FA as Garry Wills, Randall Balmer, Michael Shermer, Harry Cook, Dan Barker and I do, he likes to rip into us with this: “Now, who knows more about the FA, you and the ACLU or the guy who wrote it?” Should he be truthful about Ames, his favorite rhetorical cudgel collapses.
Back to the dialogue:
In (2) above, Goldberg swiftly and correctly picks up the trail of the facts surrounding the source of FA language. Whenever, for the sake of brevity, FA language is attributed by mainstream authors to a single person, it’s Madison. She knows that.
In (3) Dutko omits not only the early but wordy and less-focused contribution of Madison (June 7, 1789) also fails to note the important late addition of the expansive term, “respecting,” after Ames’ “help” of August 20.
In (4) Goldberg further homes in on the blatant falsity of his Ames story and presents Dutko with a simple and inescapable question.
Look at his response.
(5) Here it is, classic Dutko: Evading the direct question by summarily branding as “irrelevant” any hint that he might be in error. This is a typical hostile, demeaning, ham-fisted stunt of Dutko’s – keep pounding a bewildered guest with nonsense while steering the conversation to where Dutko can continue to dominate, intimidate and overwhelm , thus burying the threatening question apart from the minds of the audience.
Now think of what we are to believe: So it’s important that we understand Fisher Ames was the author of the FA, but the philosophy and derivation of its language, which leads us forthwith to Madison and Jefferson, is not worth a “strong opinion” or it’s “irrelevant.” Dutko, you are a trip.
Following is excerpt one of two I want to expose to the revealing light of day.
(1)Dutko:…… It was the government that printed the Bibles for the schools in this country and as a matter of fact the guy who coined the language in the first amendment Fisher Ames – he argued that bibles need to remain textbooks – required reading in the schools in this country – that’s the guy who authored the language for first amendment. I don’t understand how you can say this is not true….
(2) Goldberg: First of all (cross-talk) it was Madison working from language that Jefferson used in the Virginia statue of religious freedom…
(3)D: (cutting her off) No as they were having this debate (summer of 1791 during development of Bill of Rights) -- they were crafting all of the language and Madison was the one who finally accepted the final language – the language that he used came from Fisher Ames: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
(4) G: Can I ask a question? Do you disagree that the first amendment was based on the 1786 statute establishing religious freedom in Virginia? That’s what most mainstream historians argue. Do you disagree with that?
(5)D: You know, honestly I don’t really have a strong opinion about that I, I think it’s irrelevant I honestly consider it irrelevant whether it does or does not.
(6)G: It is not irrelevant! Because here’s what Jefferson wrote in his autobiography about that statute. He wrote that someone wanted to refer to Jesus Christ as the source of religious liberty: He wrote that it was “rejected by the great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend in the mantle of it protection, the Jew and the gentile the Christian and the Mohamden, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination. “ (Bob’s response is unknown since the editor terminated this exchange and went to commercial)
Background: On hearing some years ago the Fisher Ames story I was nonplused at somehow overlooking in my reading, so I thought, a major player in the development of the First Amendment (FA) . A few mouse clicks showed Fisher Ames was but a minor contributor to the processes. Yes, the record shows on August 20, 1789 he did indeed introduce language, largely developed by others, onto the floor of the House of Representatives.
I promptly sent Bob an email with a paste of what I had easily found (posted 8:26 PM) and receiving no response, was surprised and angered when he continued to tell the same story again and again. I then sent a large envelope via USPS with full source documentation plainly showing Ames as the minor player he was. David Barton in his book “Original Intent,” even describes Ames as a “helper.” Ain't that faint praise? (Wallbuilder Press, 1996 p 365)
Bob must insist on the Ames story as he falsely tells it because to those who see the FA as Garry Wills, Randall Balmer, Michael Shermer, Harry Cook, Dan Barker and I do, he likes to rip into us with this: “Now, who knows more about the FA, you and the ACLU or the guy who wrote it?” Should he be truthful about Ames, his favorite rhetorical cudgel collapses.
Back to the dialogue:
In (2) above, Goldberg swiftly and correctly picks up the trail of the facts surrounding the source of FA language. Whenever, for the sake of brevity, FA language is attributed by mainstream authors to a single person, it’s Madison. She knows that.
In (3) Dutko omits not only the early but wordy and less-focused contribution of Madison (June 7, 1789) also fails to note the important late addition of the expansive term, “respecting,” after Ames’ “help” of August 20.
In (4) Goldberg further homes in on the blatant falsity of his Ames story and presents Dutko with a simple and inescapable question.
Look at his response.
(5) Here it is, classic Dutko: Evading the direct question by summarily branding as “irrelevant” any hint that he might be in error. This is a typical hostile, demeaning, ham-fisted stunt of Dutko’s – keep pounding a bewildered guest with nonsense while steering the conversation to where Dutko can continue to dominate, intimidate and overwhelm , thus burying the threatening question apart from the minds of the audience.
Now think of what we are to believe: So it’s important that we understand Fisher Ames was the author of the FA, but the philosophy and derivation of its language, which leads us forthwith to Madison and Jefferson, is not worth a “strong opinion” or it’s “irrelevant.” Dutko, you are a trip.
Origion of establishment clause of First Amendment
I paste this information since it is critical to the story that follows in a later post.
Some early draft amendments to the religion section of the First Amendment were:
James Madison, 1789-JUN-7 "The Civil Rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, nor on any pretext infringed. No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases."
House Select Committee, JUL-28 "No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed,"
Samuel Livermore, AUG-15 "Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience."
House version, AUG-20 "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience." (Moved by Fisher Ames) Emphasis mine
Initial Senate version, SEP-3 "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Final Senate version, SEP-9 "Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion."
Conference Committee "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The final wording was accepted by the House of Representatives on 1789-SEP-24; and by the Senate on 1789-SEP-25. It was ratified by the States in 1791.
Source of this brief summary is unknown but it is fully consistent with accounts by credible historians.
Some early draft amendments to the religion section of the First Amendment were:
James Madison, 1789-JUN-7 "The Civil Rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, nor on any pretext infringed. No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases."
House Select Committee, JUL-28 "No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed,"
Samuel Livermore, AUG-15 "Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience."
House version, AUG-20 "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience." (Moved by Fisher Ames) Emphasis mine
Initial Senate version, SEP-3 "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Final Senate version, SEP-9 "Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion."
Conference Committee "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The final wording was accepted by the House of Representatives on 1789-SEP-24; and by the Senate on 1789-SEP-25. It was ratified by the States in 1791.
Source of this brief summary is unknown but it is fully consistent with accounts by credible historians.
Bob's "Best of..." with Michelle Goldberg
Yesterday, Saturday, Bob's lead-off reprise was his exchange with Michelle Goldberg. Time is short now, but I hope go into some detail in a day or so. Suffice it to say Bob was at the very top of his dishonest game with this guest. I have a recording so I can be sure of all he-said's, she-said's.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Bob Trivializes Violence Against Abortion Providers
Bob went on the offensive at the beginning of his Monday (6/1) discussion of the heinous murder of Dr. George Tiller. Specifically, Bob trivialized the violence against abortion providers as some sort of fringe problem. Dutko said:
"It's only four." How sickening. Ask the families and friends of Dr. David Gunn, Dr. John Britton, Dr. Barnett Slepian, and Dr. George Tiller if they would agree that these people are "only four."
But Bob's "it's only four" figure is ridiculously deceptive. First, Bob has conveniently chosen to omit the non-physician murders attributable to "pro-life" violence. These include James Barrett, a clinic escort, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, who were clinic receptionists, and Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer who worked as a security guard. So now, we're up to eight deaths.
Still not a big enough number for Bob? Well, let's add in the 17 attempted murders since 1977. Now we're up to 21 acts of violence by "pro-life" forces. Still not enough violence for Bob? Let's add in the 41 instances of bombing, 175 instances of arson, and 96 instances of attempted bombing/arson. Now we're up to 333 acts of violence. I could go on like this all day, but when you add in all the other categories of violent crimes, you get a grand total of at least 6,143 acts of violence since Roe v. Wade was decided.
6,143 acts of violence by vs. "it's only four". That's more than a few "nut-jobs" like Bob suggests. If Bob can't see the association between the "pro-life" community and these acts of violence, then there truly is no hope for him.
I am not going to just sit back and let pro-life voices be weakened, or silenced, or intimidated into silence, by some sort of false association with these nut-case murderers. There have been, since Roe v. Wade, over 30 years ago, there have been now four, a total of four abortion doctors killed. ... But the bottom line it's only four.
"It's only four." How sickening. Ask the families and friends of Dr. David Gunn, Dr. John Britton, Dr. Barnett Slepian, and Dr. George Tiller if they would agree that these people are "only four."
But Bob's "it's only four" figure is ridiculously deceptive. First, Bob has conveniently chosen to omit the non-physician murders attributable to "pro-life" violence. These include James Barrett, a clinic escort, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, who were clinic receptionists, and Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer who worked as a security guard. So now, we're up to eight deaths.
Still not a big enough number for Bob? Well, let's add in the 17 attempted murders since 1977. Now we're up to 21 acts of violence by "pro-life" forces. Still not enough violence for Bob? Let's add in the 41 instances of bombing, 175 instances of arson, and 96 instances of attempted bombing/arson. Now we're up to 333 acts of violence. I could go on like this all day, but when you add in all the other categories of violent crimes, you get a grand total of at least 6,143 acts of violence since Roe v. Wade was decided.
6,143 acts of violence by vs. "it's only four". That's more than a few "nut-jobs" like Bob suggests. If Bob can't see the association between the "pro-life" community and these acts of violence, then there truly is no hope for him.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Kansas City Terrorism-It Gets Even Worse
We’ve been harping on Bob for years to stop giving air time to terrorists like Cheryl Sullenger and the rest of Operation Rescue for years now.
Turns out that Scott Roeder has a strong relationship with Cheryl Sullenger. When he was arrested, her phone number was found in his car.
It doesn’t take a super-genius to see that there was likely involvement on the part of Operation Rescue in the terrorist attack against Dr. Tiller. OR supplied all the personal information that was needed to carry out the job. All they needed was a guy with a gun.
These are the people that Bob has on his show. That he allows on his show.
Turns out that Scott Roeder has a strong relationship with Cheryl Sullenger. When he was arrested, her phone number was found in his car.
It doesn’t take a super-genius to see that there was likely involvement on the part of Operation Rescue in the terrorist attack against Dr. Tiller. OR supplied all the personal information that was needed to carry out the job. All they needed was a guy with a gun.
These are the people that Bob has on his show. That he allows on his show.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Even more on Dr. Tiller
Bob,
Dr. George Tiller was assassinated today.
I'm sure you already know that, having watched the news. And make no mistake, he was assassinated. Tiller was a high profile person, specifically targeted because of who he was and what he did for a living.
The person responsible hasn't been identified yet, but would you care to guess the religion of the assassin? Do you think he was a Muslim? Maybe an atheist?
Of course not. He was a Christian.
I can already hear your bleatings: The assassin wasn't a Christian because "true" Christians don't kill people. "True" Christians are the ones legally protesting and "protecting" the fetuses. "True" Christians should be shocked and appalled that someone would kill in Christ's name.
But your all your whining is meaningless, Bob. The reason is simple: Because every single day, you advocate violence. You support the torture of people suspected of being terrorists. You support the going to war on people that had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks. You support the death penalty. So let's be honest, Bob. You're satisfied with Tiller's assassination, aren't you?
You're satisfied with TIller's assassination because you are well practiced in the fine art of moral equivocation. You don't believe that the Bush administration advocated torture because you define torture as anything but what the Bush administration did. You don't mind the death of innocent civilians in Iraq because, honestly, no Muslim is innocent, right? And Tiller's assassination is acceptable because he's killed so many "babies."
And I'm not just speculating here, Bob. You've invited violent people to be guests on you show. As DJ pointed out, you've given airtime to Cheryl Sullenger, a woman convicted of conspiring to blow up an abortion clinic. You've had Randall Terry on your show, who, in reacting to Tiller's assassination, said "George Tiller was a mass murderer and we cannot stop saying that...He was an evil man - his hands were covered with blood." I'm sure if I looked hard enough, I could find others.
So I'm asking you to be intellectually honest, Bob. I want you to plainly state what you really think: Tiller's assassination was justified, and that thousands of lives will be saved by the killing of this doctor.
I do have a few of lingering questions, though. If you take the position that Tiller's death was unjustified, immoral, anti-Christian and illegal, what are you going to do about it? Are you going to denounce Sullenger and her ilk for their violent past? Are you going to advocate for the cessation of all violence as anti-Christian? Or will you do nothing, as I expect you to?
By the way, did you know that Kansas reinstated the death penalty in 1994? When the assassin is caught and sentenced to death, will you support the conviction and sentence?
Should Tiller's assassination be compounded by another death?
How much death are you willing to settle for, in order to bring about the Christian nation you long for?
Irl
Dr. George Tiller was assassinated today.
I'm sure you already know that, having watched the news. And make no mistake, he was assassinated. Tiller was a high profile person, specifically targeted because of who he was and what he did for a living.
The person responsible hasn't been identified yet, but would you care to guess the religion of the assassin? Do you think he was a Muslim? Maybe an atheist?
Of course not. He was a Christian.
I can already hear your bleatings: The assassin wasn't a Christian because "true" Christians don't kill people. "True" Christians are the ones legally protesting and "protecting" the fetuses. "True" Christians should be shocked and appalled that someone would kill in Christ's name.
But your all your whining is meaningless, Bob. The reason is simple: Because every single day, you advocate violence. You support the torture of people suspected of being terrorists. You support the going to war on people that had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks. You support the death penalty. So let's be honest, Bob. You're satisfied with Tiller's assassination, aren't you?
You're satisfied with TIller's assassination because you are well practiced in the fine art of moral equivocation. You don't believe that the Bush administration advocated torture because you define torture as anything but what the Bush administration did. You don't mind the death of innocent civilians in Iraq because, honestly, no Muslim is innocent, right? And Tiller's assassination is acceptable because he's killed so many "babies."
And I'm not just speculating here, Bob. You've invited violent people to be guests on you show. As DJ pointed out, you've given airtime to Cheryl Sullenger, a woman convicted of conspiring to blow up an abortion clinic. You've had Randall Terry on your show, who, in reacting to Tiller's assassination, said "George Tiller was a mass murderer and we cannot stop saying that...He was an evil man - his hands were covered with blood." I'm sure if I looked hard enough, I could find others.
So I'm asking you to be intellectually honest, Bob. I want you to plainly state what you really think: Tiller's assassination was justified, and that thousands of lives will be saved by the killing of this doctor.
I do have a few of lingering questions, though. If you take the position that Tiller's death was unjustified, immoral, anti-Christian and illegal, what are you going to do about it? Are you going to denounce Sullenger and her ilk for their violent past? Are you going to advocate for the cessation of all violence as anti-Christian? Or will you do nothing, as I expect you to?
By the way, did you know that Kansas reinstated the death penalty in 1994? When the assassin is caught and sentenced to death, will you support the conviction and sentence?
Should Tiller's assassination be compounded by another death?
How much death are you willing to settle for, in order to bring about the Christian nation you long for?
Irl
More About George Tiller
This was done in Wichita, KS. The same place that people like Cheryl Sullenger protested. Their group, Operation Rescue, had a page on their website called "Tiller Watch" that listed the names and addresses of him, his family, and his employees (the page was taken down today, along with the rest of their website. No doubt to scrub it of all the death threats it had towards Tiller).
As you guys will recall, Troy Newman is the founder of Operation Rescue and Cheryl Sullenger is one of the group's top employees. Both are regulars on Bob's show.
Troy Newman is known for saying that 9/11 happened because of abortion, and Cheryl Sullenger already has a background in terrorism. In the 1980's she was arrested and convicted for conspiracy to blow up an abortion clinic.
Nice job picking your guests, Bob. It's obvious that if terrorism is done in Christ's name, you're all for it.
UPDATE: The terrorist has been identified. He's Scott Roeder, who was convicted for possession of bomb materials in 1996. He was released on parole but was placed back in prison in 1997 for violations of his parole agreement. He was also a member of Operation Rescue and met the profile of the right-wing conspiracy nuts that was mentioned in the government report that Bob Dutko demonized as being anti-conservative.
As you guys will recall, Troy Newman is the founder of Operation Rescue and Cheryl Sullenger is one of the group's top employees. Both are regulars on Bob's show.
Troy Newman is known for saying that 9/11 happened because of abortion, and Cheryl Sullenger already has a background in terrorism. In the 1980's she was arrested and convicted for conspiracy to blow up an abortion clinic.
Nice job picking your guests, Bob. It's obvious that if terrorism is done in Christ's name, you're all for it.
UPDATE: The terrorist has been identified. He's Scott Roeder, who was convicted for possession of bomb materials in 1996. He was released on parole but was placed back in prison in 1997 for violations of his parole agreement. He was also a member of Operation Rescue and met the profile of the right-wing conspiracy nuts that was mentioned in the government report that Bob Dutko demonized as being anti-conservative.
Dr. George Tiller, RIP
I'm sure Bob is pleased.
UPDATE: Of course, this happens just a few weeks after Bob was foaming at the mouth about a report from the federal government which warned against this very type of anti-abortion extremism. I guess that report wasn't too far off, was it, Mr. Dutko?
UPDATE: Of course, this happens just a few weeks after Bob was foaming at the mouth about a report from the federal government which warned against this very type of anti-abortion extremism. I guess that report wasn't too far off, was it, Mr. Dutko?
Thursday, May 14, 2009
The Hypocrisy of the Obama-Notre Dame Protests
Today, Bob talked (again) about the kerfuffle regarding Barack Obama, the President of the United States, giving a speech to the 2009 graduates at the University of Notre Dame*. As most people know, Notre Dame is a Catholic university, and therefore at least nominally under control of the Catholic Church.
This "controversy" stems from Barack Obama's political position on abortion. Obama is pro-choice, which means that he doesn't want to use the power of the government to regulate whether or not a woman has an abortion. Well, the Catholic Church teaches that abortion is against God's law and should be outlawed by the state. As the two positions are seemingly in opposition, some Catholic Bishops (less than 30%), as well as serial kooks Alan Keyes and Randall Terry, are now protesting Obama's speaking engagement.
But there is more to Catholic theology than just abortion. For example, the Catholic Church also teaches that capital punishment is against God's law and should be outlawed by the state. Now, some of you may remember the previous President's position on capital punishment: he was all for it! As Governor of Texas, George W. Bush approved over 150 executions and as President, he pushed for an expansion in the use of the death penalty in capital cases.
So, where exactly was the outrage when Bush addressed the 2001 Notre Dame graduating class? Well, there was none. This makes no sense, as the Catholic Church does not differentiate between abortion and capital punishment as sins. Their position is that they are both against God's law and both should be outlawed by the state. Therefore, it's blatantly hypocritical to protest one President (Obama) while giving the other a pass (Bush), when they both have positions that are antithetical to teachings of the Church.
Of course, I didn't hear Bob address this hypocrisy, which is par for the course. Just another day at the Bob Dutko Show!
*What continues to amaze me about Bob is his ability to get even the simplest facts incorrect. For instance, several times today he referred to Notre Dame as the largest Catholic university in the United States. Of course, Bob is wrong; DePaul is the largest with over 24,000 students. Georgetown, with 14k students, also beats NDs 11.6k students. If Bob can't get the simple stuff right, what makes anyone think his other "facts" are correct?
This "controversy" stems from Barack Obama's political position on abortion. Obama is pro-choice, which means that he doesn't want to use the power of the government to regulate whether or not a woman has an abortion. Well, the Catholic Church teaches that abortion is against God's law and should be outlawed by the state. As the two positions are seemingly in opposition, some Catholic Bishops (less than 30%), as well as serial kooks Alan Keyes and Randall Terry, are now protesting Obama's speaking engagement.
But there is more to Catholic theology than just abortion. For example, the Catholic Church also teaches that capital punishment is against God's law and should be outlawed by the state. Now, some of you may remember the previous President's position on capital punishment: he was all for it! As Governor of Texas, George W. Bush approved over 150 executions and as President, he pushed for an expansion in the use of the death penalty in capital cases.
So, where exactly was the outrage when Bush addressed the 2001 Notre Dame graduating class? Well, there was none. This makes no sense, as the Catholic Church does not differentiate between abortion and capital punishment as sins. Their position is that they are both against God's law and both should be outlawed by the state. Therefore, it's blatantly hypocritical to protest one President (Obama) while giving the other a pass (Bush), when they both have positions that are antithetical to teachings of the Church.
Of course, I didn't hear Bob address this hypocrisy, which is par for the course. Just another day at the Bob Dutko Show!
*What continues to amaze me about Bob is his ability to get even the simplest facts incorrect. For instance, several times today he referred to Notre Dame as the largest Catholic university in the United States. Of course, Bob is wrong; DePaul is the largest with over 24,000 students. Georgetown, with 14k students, also beats NDs 11.6k students. If Bob can't get the simple stuff right, what makes anyone think his other "facts" are correct?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
