The News Bob Doesn't Report

Bob seems to take great pride in reporting what he calls "news." However, these news items are typically nothing more than attacks on Democrats, rants about alleged Christian persecution, tirades against strawmen liberals, and general complaining about the ACLU.

What doesn't get covered are any real news items that tend place the Bush Administration or any Republican in a negative light. Here are some news items that, as far as I can tell, Bob didn't report on. Of course, I don't have the time or stomach to listen to every minute of Bob's show every day. So, if I list something that Bob actually did report, please let me know...

• The Washington Post presented a depressing series concerning the deplorable conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Of course, Walter Reed is the responsibility of the Bush Administration (psst... they're Republicans) who constantly claim to "support the troops".
• More people died in Iraq this week. Bob rarely (if ever) mentions the death and casualty toll in Iraq, both to our troops and the local population.
  
• The Scooter Libby trial entered the jury deliberations phase this week. Scooter (a Republican) is charged with perjury for lying to a grand jury to protect the Bush Administration (they're Republicans). I've never heard Bob talk about the trial or the charges against Mr. Libby. Doesn't Bob care?
• Presidential candidate Duncan Hunter (a Republican) recently named Dr. Henry Jordan as his campaign co-chair. Dr. Jordan was once a member of the South Carolina Board of Education. During a board meeting, when discussing the rights of religious minorities, Dr. Jordan stated, "[s]crew the Buddhists and kill the Muslims. And put that in the minutes.” Given that Bob managed to discuss the statements of some bloggers hired by John Edwards (a Democrat) , I can only assume that he'll also discuss the message of hate given by Dr. Jordan.

What other news items have you noticed that Bob has missed, omitted, or tried to spin in a light most favorable to Republicans?

It's Official: Bob Dutko Supports Terrorism!

Last month, Jeff wrote an article about an interview Bob gave to anti-abortion terrorist Cheryl Sullenger. Cheryl Sullenger was convicted in 1987 of conspiring to blow up an abortion clinic.

Cheryl Sullenger works for Operation Rescue, which has recently started a grassroots version of The Nuremberg Files in which letters containing the names, addresses, and phone numbers of abortion doctors are sent to their neighbors in the hopes that abortion doctors will be harrassed.

Even before it was posted on this blog, Jeff personally wrote Bob Dutko to let him know he is letting a terrorist on his show. And we had hoped that with the January 26th post, Bob would denounce such terrorists and wash his hands of him.

But after going through the notes for Bob's show (click the link, then click on Bob Dutko), I noticed that his notes for Monday, February 12th stated the following:

Bob spoke with Cheryl Sullinger (Outreach & Media Coordinator for “Operation
Rescue”)

That means that just 17 DAYS after it was made public that Bob is allowing terrorists to be interviewed on his show, he did it again! I only wish that one of us had actually caught the interview at the time it happened. This is low, even for Bob!

Bob has lost all credibility when he speaks about terrorism. He is aiding and abetting the terrorists and he should be shut off the air for it. The next time he complains about terrorism, just remember that he allows terrorists to speak on his own show.

UPDATE: Bob actually deleted all of his show notes before Feb. 13th! It looks like he reads the blog after all! That cheeky bastard! Next time I'll make it a point to save the image and load it on here. For now, it looks like Bob won this round.

Of course the irony is that if Bob had simply done the Christian thing, he would've apologized to his listeners, made a point to discredit all anti-abortion terrorists, and never let Sullenger on his show again. But instead he decided to hide all evidence of wrongdoing. Good work, Bobbo!

Offended? Not Until Bob Gives You Permission To Be!

Have you ever noticed that Bob is constantly telling people what they should feel and when those feelings are proper?

On today's show, Bobbo's first story "From a Christian Perspective" was the retiring of Chief Illiniwek as the mascot for the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign . Bobbo expressed disappointment because the Chief's costume was "neat." Bob whined that the Chief's forced retirement was the product of political correctness and that Native Americans don't have a "bona fide" complaint about the symbol. In fact, Bobbo claimed that nobody should be offended by the Chief because the use of Native American symbols as mascot is a compliment! Bobbo thinks the use of Native American symbols celebrates Native American culture!

Excuse me? Since when is Bob Dutko the arbiter of what is or isn't offensive to Native Americans? And what authority gives Bob the right to tell people when they should or shouldn't be offended?

Let's look at some reasons why Native Americans might be offended by the usurpation of their symbols.

1. Sacred objects, such as eagle feathers, traditional dress, and drums are religious symbols to Native Americans. Using them out of the proper context is sacrilegious.
2. The mascots are stereotypes. There are at least 561 officially recognized tribes in the United States, with more petitioning for recognition. Reducing them to a symbol for a sports team is simplistic at best, blatantly ignorant at worst.
3. Use of these mascots is racist. The term "Redskin" comes from the bloody mess left from the scalping of Native Americans for a bounty. The term "Chief" ignores the important roles that women and children have in many Native American community.

Of course, Bob ignores all of this and condescends to Native Americans, telling them that they have no reason to be offended. What an arrogant ass.

Since Bob thinks mascots celebrate culture, let me make a suggestion. Let the new mascot for the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign be the Fighting Jesuses. This new mascot can be dressed in a long robe and sandals with the obligatory long hair and stigmata. When the UICU wins, Jesus can run around the stadium smiting the opposing team. When they lose, they can stage a little mock crucifixion.

It'll all be in good fun. And since none of it is offensive (at least by Bob's standards) Bobbo will have little reason to complain.

Why do I have the feeling Bob wouldn't approve?

Bob Bashes Liberals, Ignores Facts

Today Bob interviewed Arthur Brooks, author of Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism. The idea in the book is that conservatives give more money to private charities than liberals do. So of course Bob wanted to have him on his show!

Brooks claims to be an independent, but he's really an independent like Bill O'Reilly is: He'll say he is before ripping into liberals like thanksgiving dinner.

Brooks claims that a persons political inclinations have nothing to do with how much they give to charity, but their religious upbringing does. In his book, he says:

91% of religious* conservatives give to charity, and 67% do charitable work.

91% of religious liberals give to charity, and 2/3rds do chairtable work.

19% of secular liberals gave to charity.

But get this: Brooks says secular conservatives are the worst out of everybody! He didn't give an exact percentage, but said that not only were they less likely to give to charity than everyone else (including secular liberals), but that they were just genuinely selfish people. He said "They are less likely to let someone in front of them in line, to give up a seat on the bus, to give a stranger directions, and to help a homeless person."

Man! Conservatives are mean!

Of course the difference between Bob and a liberal Christian is that the liberal believes in helping the poor through private charities AND by social programs created by the Government. Bob just likes to pick and choose when he helps a homeless man.

*By religious person, Brooks refers to people of all faiths, not just Christianity.

Bob lies about Madison

Today, Bob informed his listeners that James Madison said that "religion is the basis and foundation of government." Bob went on to say that the religion Madison was referring to was Christianity.

The problem: Madison said no such thing.

You have to omit dozens of words from Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments to arrive at "religion is the basis and foundation of government" and, in the process, take Madison's words completely out of context. Check it out for yourself.

Bob Dutko -- fearlessly bearing false witness.

Google Bobbed

Bob's persecution complex was in high gear today as he desperately searched for something to get outraged about. Luckily, he didn't have to look farther than the search engine Google to find an outlet for his rage.

Bob started by asking if "Google was anti-American". Many of you are probably saying, WTF? Personally, I have not heard of Google executives calling for a suspension of the Constitution and the establishment of a dictatorial regime. So what was the source of Bob's outrage? Well first, Bob cited a news report that 98% of the campaign contributions from employees of Google went to Democrats.

So let me get this straight. To Bob, supporting the Democratic Party is now anti-American. Let that sink in for a little bit. I can only assume that Bob believes that the only way to be pro-American is to support a party other than the Democrats. How can Bob make these statements with a straight face? Does he really think that the majority of Americans who voted for Democrats in 2006 are somehow anti-American? Do you have to vote for the Republicans to be "truly" American?

But Bob wasn't done. He had even more compelling evidence to show that Google is anti-American. Namely, Google didn't put up a special holiday logo for President's Day. Yeah folks, that's it. Since Google isn't changing its logo for every single national holiday, they're anti-American. Bob conveniently ignores the fact that Google does honor Independence Day every year. (Independence day is listed by the CIA World Factbook as our "National Holiday".)

These are the critical thinking skills that Bob has put on display for us. With this kind of logic, can anybody believe Bob on anything?

Bob is a Moneychanger

Bobbo ran a "Best of" show today, apparently in celebration of President's Day. I must admit, I never realized that President's Day was a Christian holiday. But considering Bob's worshiping of all things George W. Bush, I can't admit to being surprised.

So instead of dealing with something Bobbo said on his rerun, I've decided to write out some thoughts about Bob and his mission.

I listen to Bobbo’s "news hour" a couple of times a week and I’m constantly amazed at the things he says. I've grown accustomed to his constant whining about Christian "victim-hood," the make-believe "war on Christmas," his hatred of all Democrats (except Joe Lieberman), and the obnoxious claim that he is being "intellectually honest."

But every time I turn off my radio, I find myself wondering if Bobbo actually has a college degree. I wonder about his level of education because he is so confused about the nature of science, history, and politics. Every time I listen, I walk away wondering how anybody can believe anything he says.

So in an effort to try to understand his claims, I turn to Google. The first thing I discover is that the "war on Christmas" isn't a war at all: It's a yearly fund raising event! All the groups that are complaining that the Christmas season is under attack are making tidy sums in donations! So in this overwhelming Christian society, Bob’s claims to victim-hood are just a way to keep the cash flowing to all the political action committees.

Continuing my search, I discover that WMUZ in owned by Crawford Broadcasting. I think to myself, "Wow, that's a lot of Christian radio stations!" But if you look closer, Crawford broadcasting isn't exclusively Christian. In fact, Crawford owns WPWX Chicago a/k/a “Power 92!" On the Power 92 website they have promotions for a D.L. Hughley show and sell the station with images of Snoop Dogg and R. Kelly. So Crawford Broadcasting is willing to step out into the sinful, secular world and make money on violent rap artists and alleged sexual predators.

Continuing my attempt to determine if Bobbo is serious, I discover his line of Christian apologetic CDs. At last, I begin to think that he is being generous and spreading the gospel amongst the fallen! But then I realize: This isn't a charity site! Dutko is selling a line of products! He is actually profiting by selling the message contained in God's word!

Finally, it dawns upon me. Everything about Bobbo screams "Tidy profit!"

Bobbo claims victim-hood because it keeps the cash flowing in. He works for a company that isn't bothered by trafficking in sin. And he has his own company established to sell his wares to the public.

I finally understand.

Bob doesn’t need to believe in anything he espouses, he just needs to sell a product. His show isn't about saving souls, it's about making money.

When Jesus drove the moneychangers from the temple it was because they made the House of Prayer into a den of thieves. Christ was offended that people were making money from devotion to God.

And just as there were money changers then, there are many now. Bob is a modern-day money changer. Everything about him tells me that he is more concerned about money than salvation.

But that's OK. Its nice to see biblical traditions carry on.

All I ask is that he be intellectually honest enough to admit it.

Bob Lies About Terrorism (More On SLC Mall Shooting)

During Bob's story on the Salt Lake City mall shooting, he said that "the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks in the United States are caused by Muslims." This is a lie. In fact, I wrote an article about terrorist attacks that have been committed in the United States since 9/11 and found that the overwhelming majority were by non-religious groups, and that Christian-identity and Christian motivated anti-abortion terrorism were the majority of religion-fueled terrorist attacks. But the "liberal" media doesn't report these things because the attacks didn't have the consequences of 9/11. It's even been revealed that Bob has condoned such terrorism by having terrorists on his show.

Prior to 9/11, Islamic terrorism against America was limited to the USS Cole, three embassies (counting Beirut), and the first WTC bombing (if I'm missing any others, tell me in the comments). Christian-terrorism, however, had during the 90's numerous attacks by Eric Rudolph, the Army of God, and racist Christian identity terrorists.

But Bob has set a trap for himself. If the SLC shooting was a Islamic terrorist attack (and to be one, it must be politically or ideologically motivated) then it means that the war in Iraq is a waste, despite all the rhetoric about "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." If the SLC shootings was committed by a Muslim, then liberals are correct in arguing that there is nothing stopping terrorists from coming over here to create terror.

But if it wasn't a Islamic-motivated terrorist attack, Bob is just being a bigot for assuming so without further information.

*For the record, this isn't a post accusing all Christians of being terrorists. This is a post condemning Bob's bigotry by accusing most Muslims of being terrorists. In both religions, terrorist groups are an extreme minority. And just as many Muslims don't consider Al Queda to be a real Islamic group, I don't consider the Army of God or other groups like it to be filled with real Christians, either.

If Bob were a real Christian, he'd remember how it felt during the 1990's to be lumped into the Army of God types that blow up abortion clinics. As a Christian I was accused of such things, and I hated it. I remember that when talking about Islamic terrorism. It would be nice if Bob did as well.

Fearlessly Attacking the Straw Man

One of Bob's favorite propaganda techniques is the logical fallacy known as the straw man argument. Bob typically likes to define a bogeyman and then assign that group a position that is opposite of his own. The position assigned by Bob will be oversimplified, so it can be easily attacked. Bob's most commonly defined group is the hated "liberals."

An example of this technique can be found in last Monday's show when Bob stated that "liberals in this country paint Israel as the bad guys" in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Of course, this statement has no basis in fact. Surveys have shown broad support for Israel by Americans in a completely non-partisan fashion. Furthermore, the vast majority of American Jews identify as either moderate or liberal and only 19% voted for Bush in 2000. Surely, these liberal Jews don't hate the Jewish state of Israel! Of course, Bob won't tell you support for Israel is an equal opportunity endeavor, because Bob wants you to vote for Republicans.

Bob led up to the above straw man argument in a particularly bizarre way. First, Bob asserted that Democratic presidential candidates will suddenly start taking up conservative positions in the run-up to the 2008 election. To "prove" this assertion, Bob stated that Hillary Clinton recently criticized Palestinian textbooks for being anti-Israel. (Bob, of course, would agree with Hillary on this point) Then, Bob seemed to imply that this position was some sudden change for Senator Clinton and, as stated above, the "liberals" were anti-Israel. Of course, Bob is wrong again: Hillary has been criticizing Palestinian textbooks since at least 2000, so this is not some recent "flip-flop."

But please take a step back and appreciate the tortured, contorted "logic" that occurred here. Only Bob Dutko could cite a Democrat stating a position that he agrees with, cite no other sources, and then somehow conclude that Democrats actually have the opposite position. The mind reels.

Talking Points Are NOT Science

It's a simple decision.

It's the obvious decision.

And it's the best decision because it teaches the students of Kansas the cornerstone of biological science.

The Kansas State Board of Education returned to the teaching of evolution.

And because the Kansas Board returned to good, scientific educational standards, Bobbo got his dander up. He pulled out his tired little talking points whined in his own inimitable way. First, Bobbo grumbled that Kansas is no longer allowing debate. Then he puled that Kansas only went back to teaching evolution because "most schools do." Finally, he whimpered that liberals, democrats, and intelligentsia are censoring all the scientific evidence that disproves evolution.

Wrong on all three counts, Bobbo.

First, there was plenty of debate. In fact, you guys started it. You guys made Kansas a joke. But on August 1, 2006 the citizens of Kansas realized that you side is made up of idiots and threw you out on your ass. Deal with it.

Second, most schools teach evolution because it is factual. Although Bobbo doesn't believe it, evolution is supported by observation. On the other hand, creationism is supported by the Genesis account, none of which is testable by the scientific method. Once creationists produce something that can be confirmed through testing and observation, scientists will be more than happy to talk. Sure, it will be prefaced with pointing and laughing, but they'll still talk.

Third, the liberals, democrats, and intelligentsia are censoring nothing. Because creationism is nothing more than an attempt to interject religion into the science classrooms. Don't believe me? Here's the Honorable John Jones, author of the now famous Kitzmiller opinion:

[At trial] scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator. To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

So there you go. All of Bob's little talking points debunked.

It's simple, really.

Obviously, Bob doesn't know what he's talking about.

Evolution by the Numbers

Last week, Bob talked about how 100 more scientists signed some sort of statement refuting the science of evolution, thus bringing the number of signers to a grand total of 700! Here is the press release from the Discovery Institute, the folks who brought you the losing side of the Kitzmiller v. Dover intelligent design case.

Bob's logically fallacy here is referred to as an argumentum ad populum, i.e., an appeal to the people, also known as the "bandwagon fallacy." Such an argument concludes that a proposition is true because many or all people believe it. However, just because a lot of people believe something is true doesn't make it so. If it did, the Earth would be flat and the Sun would revolve this flat Earth once every day.

That being said, it's interesting to point out that the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has compiled a similar list of scientists who understand and support the science of evolution. NCSE's list is currently at 787 scientists.

Wow! you might say, the NSCE's list is about the same number as the Discovery Institute's list! Well, yes and no. You see, the NSCE's list is comprised entirely of people named Steve to honor the late Stephen Jay Gould. Since people named Steve total only about 1% of the total population, it's possible to extrapolate that tens of thousands of scientists would have signed the NSCE's list.

But instead of competing lists of scientists, the best way to understand evolution is to understand its theories and examine the evidence for yourself.

The Evidence for Evolution

On Friday, Bob said that "evolution is not supported by evidence." (This wasn't just a one-time occurrence. Bob makes routinely states this.)

But if you go to Google and type in "evolution evidence," here's some of what you'll find:

• The Wikipedia's article entitled "Evidence of Evolution". This is a very well documented primer listing the evidence for evolution derived from a number of different scientific disciplines.
• The Evolution Evidence Page consists of a series of articles written by Robert Williams et al.
• A chapter entitled "Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution" from the National Academy of Sciences book entitled Science and Creationism. (It's only $8.96; maybe someone should purchase a copy for Bob.)
• A news article from MSNBC reporting on fresh evidence of evolution.

And the list could go on and on.

After reading these articles, you'll discover that Bob (1) is staying willfully ignorant of the evidence of evolution, (2) has radically different definitions for the words "evolution" and "evidence", or (3) is lying.

How can I learn so much about the evidence for evolution in such a little time, but Bob, who has produced a 2 CD set about how evolution is scientifically impossible, know so little?

Bob's War on Science: Pretending Controversy Exists

Every Friday, Bobbo dedicates the fourth hour of his show to a segment hes calls "Free-for-all Friday." Bob takes calls, engaging his listeners on any number of topics. Think of it as an opportunity for Bob to display his usual stupidity in a question-and-answer forum.

This week, a caller wanted to talk about Creationism. The general argument from the caller was that Creationism must be presented in a way that makes it palatable for general consumption. This gave Bobbo an opportunity to spew his nonsense about why he hate Evolution. (As an aside, can we stop calling it "Creationism?" I suggest the "First Law of Fundamental Ignorance" instead.)

Anyway, Bob made this ignorant statement: "The creation of matter and energy violates the first law of thermodynamics."

I'm not sure how to react to this, but I'll start by asking this question: Bob, are you stupid?

The First Law of Thermodynamics is known as the Law of Conservation of Energy. It states "Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be converted from one form to another." In the macroscopic universe, the Laws of Thermodynamics are absolutely true. However, in the quantum universe, the laws of thermodynamic run into Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. Because of the Uncertainty Principle, particles and space-time bubbles continually pop in and out of existence for short times depending on their energy, without breaking the law of conservation of energy as they disappear again.

So at the quantum scale, Thermodynamics break down and don't apply to the creation of the universe. Bob is misapplying a scientific principle to support his point of view. What a shock.

The other point that Bob made during the conversation is that scientists are censoring creationists and schools should be able to "teach the controversy."

This is, in two words, absolute crap.

First of all, the notion of "teaching the controversy" was first written about by Gerald Graff over twenty years ago, with the crux of idea related to the culture wars and not creationism. The idea is that educators should discuss both sides of a cultural issue in order to teach critical thinking skills. But then the Creationist movement discovered it and “picked the pocket” of one Gerald Graff, who came up with the notion some 20 years ago concerning wholly unrelated things."

Because teaching the controversy was unrelated to creationism, creationists had to do something to be able use it as a strategy.

They had to create controversy.

So these ninnies spent time creating farcical ideas like "Irreducible complexity" and screaming that scientists are mean and won't teach their silly ideas.

Ideas that, coincidentally, fail to disprove evolution. So there is no controversy. To quote Vincent M. Cassone. professor and head of the Department of Biology at Texas A&M university,

There is no controversy. Evolution is fundamental to the understanding of Biology, and the several theories by which evolution can be explained comprise a dynamic, honest discussion of scientific thought. However, of all of these, no one seriously considers "intelligent design" as an honest alternative. I will go further. Proponents of intelligent design have displayed an inordinate level of intellectual dishonesty.

Bobbo being dishonest in his discussion of creationism? Shocking.

Either that, or he's just ignorant. Take your pick.

Senate Chaplain

Yesterday, Bob was all upset that the Senate Chaplain, Barry C. Black, canceled his appearance at a religious right conference called Reclaiming America for Christ. The conference is one of the many products of the ailing D. James Kennedy, who wants to "exercise godly dominion over ... our neighborhoods, our schools, our government ... in short, over every aspect and institution of human society." The conference features topics such as "Darwin's deadly legacy" and "Making America safe for the unborn". After looking at the words of Dr. Kennedy and the agenda of the conference, is it any wonder that the Chaplain decided he didn't want to be associated with this function?

Then Bob got even more upset cause the Chaplain made an appearance on Air America radio. Bob didn't say why this was so bad. Maybe Bob doesn't like competition.

I guess I really don't understand the source of Bob's outrage. Isn't the Senate Chaplain allowed to make his own decisions on where he wants to go, who he wants to associate with, and what interviews he wants to grant? I mean, he's not working exclusively for Bob, is he?

Well, I have solution that should hopefully make everyone happy. Since Bob doesn't like the actions of the Senate Chaplain and I can't see why the Senate needs its own taxpayer funded chaplain, let's just eliminate the position permanently. This way, we'll save the taxpayers a few bucks and Bob won't be angry because a civil servant didn't do exactly what Bob wants him to do. Well, I'm sure Bob will find another way to get angry.

ACLU And Its Defense Of Religious Liberty

Bob calls the ACLU "The Anti-Christ Liberals Union."

I went to look at their website to detail their persecution of Christians. This is what I found:

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 freedom of religious expression.

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 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 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 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 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 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.

And my personal favorite…..

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.

There are more cases on their website.

What gives? I thought these guys hated Christians! Wait a second:

The ACLU is a strong defender of the right of religious organizations and individuals to express their religious beliefs in public. The ACLU is opposed, however, to the government sponsoring, endorsing, promoting, or financing religious symbols.

The ACLU is completely okay with you expressing your religious faith in public as long as it's not sponsored or endorsed by the Government? That almost sounds reasonable!

But why would people like Jerry Falwell and the American Family Association work with them and then denounce them as hating God? Maybe because they want Christians to have a persecution complex as a way to keep them from seeing the Religious Rights real agenda: Getting Republicans elected to office.

Dinosaurs Co-existed with Man and Rode on the Ark with Noah

Bob is a young earth creationist (YEC) who believes in a literal interpretation of the Genesis story. The only way to correlate Genesis and the fact that you can go to the Field Museum and see assembled bones of a dinosaurs is to rationalize that man and dinosaurs co-existed.

When Bob gets on one of his YEC rants, he likes to rattle off a laundry list of so-called "proof" that dinosaurs didn't die out millions of years ago, but rather thousands of years ago. One rant goes something like this: A "creation scientist" sent some dinosaur bone fragments to the University of Arizona for carbon-14 testing; the "creation scientist" didn't tell the folks at Arizona that these were dinosaur bones, because then they wouldn't agree to test them (y'know, cause mainstream scientists are all in on the "conspiracy" to suppress the "truth"); Arizona performs the test and finds that the samples are only about 10,000 years old and sends a letter back to the "creation scientist"; therefore, evolution is a lie. Bob always likes to mention that he has this letter from Arizona right in front of him. (I'm pretty sure that this is the letter Bob is referring to.)

Unfortunately (for Bob) this whole story has been debunked long ago. Bradley Lepper, an Archaeologist with the Ohio Historical Society wrote a research paper detailing the intentional deception of these "creation scientists." Here's the Cliffs Notes version: "[t]he so-called “dates” [provided by Arizona] are meaningless numbers which give the age of a mixture of organic detritus and preservatives which contaminated the fossils. They have nothing whatsoever to do with the age of any dinosaurs."

There's a Roman legal principal that goes falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything). Basically, if someone willfully falsifies one matter, then they're not credible in any matter. This fits Bob to a tee.

Bob Loves to Monger in Fear

Ignorance, thy name is "Bob Dutko." (Apologies to Shakespeare.)

Today is the second day Bob reported on the story of a German teenager taken from her home because she was home schooled. Bob, of course, spewed his usual outrage. At one point he even claimed that the German laws enforcing homeschooling upon the children of Germany was a product of Adolph Hitler.

Nice. Bobbo throws out the H-word to defend his position. That's what happens when you don't command any facts.

As egregious and blatantly wrong the Hitler comment was, that wasn't the worst part.

The biggest idiocy Bob threw out was to claim that judicial activists are going to use international law to outlaw home schooling in the United States. Bob opined that the German case is an example of what could happen here. To support this nonsense, Bob pointed out that "judicial activists" David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsberg have cited international law to support decisions. Futhermore, Bob claimed that the U.N. could enact treaties and pressure the United States into ending home schooling.

This is all garbage. In other words, par for the course for Bob Dutko.

First, the United States has always borrowed foreign laws as a way of supporting and understanding the Constitution. In fact, borrowing foreign law goes all the way back to 1877, to a case called Pennoyer v. Neff. In Pennoyer, taught in every first-year [civil] procedure class, Justice Field borrowed concepts from public international law and made them part of the due-process clause of the United States Constitution. So not only is there a tradition of using foreign law as a way of defining complex issues, it's a way of understanding the history and traditions of legal problems.

Second, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that parents have a right to remove their children from compulsory education. In Wisconsin v. Yoder, an Amish family withdrew their children from high school based on the belief exposure to high school conflicted with their deeply held religious faith. In a 7-0 decision, the Supreme Court held that the State's requirement of compulsory formal education after the eighth grade would gravely endanger if not destroy the free exercise of respondents' religious beliefs. So while the State has an interest in making sure children are educated, parents can opt out of public education if it violates their First Amendment rights. I'm not sure how the United Nations is going to get around the U.S. Constitution.

So how exactly are those "activist judges" going to remove the right of parents to home school their children? Bob only offers wild-eye speculation, none of which is based on fact.

Typical for Bobbo.

Oh, and by the way, Bob should love the German school system. Not only does Germany have church-run schools, the German government pays for them.

With his blatant inability to use basic reasoning skills, I have to wonder: Was Bob home schooled?

Bob Talks About Sex

If you listen to Bob long enough, you discover that Bob believes he holds the measuring stick for all human actions and gets to determine what responsible human behavior is.

I heard this today when Bob ranted about Governor Rick Perry issuing an executive order mandating the HPV vaccine be administered for all young women in Texas.

After railing against Merck for influencing the Governor in reaching this decision, Bob claimed that the giving out the HPV vaccine was the exact same thing as distributing condoms and permitting abortion. For Bobbo, all of them undermine the God's mandated responsibility for sexual behavior and takes away parental responsibility in teaching their kids about sex.

But there are facts that Bob doesn't concern himself. He ignores these facts because it's easier to be self-righteous.

First of all, nearly three in four Americans between the ages of 15 and 49 have been infected with genital HPV at some point in their life. Second, vaccination programs are far less expensive and easier to implement than cancer screening programs. Finally, Texas has the second highest number of women with cervical cancer in the nation.

With an even cursory understanding of these facts, you can see that Governor Perry made a decision that improves the health and well being for the women of Texas. And if you actually read the executive order, you can see that the goal is exactly that.

But that doesn't matter to Bob. He thinks that giving the parents the right to opt out of the vaccine isn't enough. Bob thinks that giving kids a vaccine is the same teaching kids about condoms: It all leads to promiscuity.

Quite the leap in logic, isn't it? Using Bob's logic, if we teach kids about history, it might cause children to doubt the historicity of the Bible. If we teach critical thinking skills, it might lead children to (Oh no!) agnosticism or atheism. And if we teach children science, it might lead children to understand that the Bible isn't literal.

So instead of supporting a public policy that would save lives, Bob would prefer to risk lives. And instead of teaching kids to be responsible and convince them to make good choices, Bob would rather keep them ignorant.

That's just irresponsible.

"It's one global warming degree outside!"

Today, Bob announced that "[i]t's one global warming degree outside!" This is the kind of insightful analysis you can expect from Mr. Bob Dutko.

Obviously, Bob was taking a little jab at global warming, something he's done before.

But know that this is a logical fallacy. This one is known as a faulty generalization, or inductive fallacy. Bob is, for some reason, trying to take today's below normal temperature in Metro Detroit as evidence that there is not an observed increase in average temperatures of Earth's atmosphere and oceans.

This would be like me saying that since Bob made an error in fact and logic once before, his facts and logic are always false. Well... maybe that's a bad example....

BTW, at no time during Bob's broadcast today (Noon to 4 P.M.) was the temperature at Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport below eight degrees, and last time I checked, one was less than eight. Maybe Bob was getting confused with the wind chill index. Or maybe I give Bob too much credit.

High School Football Prayer

On Friday, Bob said he wants a high school football coach to be able to say a Christian prayer with his players. I'm presuming he means a a high school football coach at a public school (because I don't particularly care what they do at private schools).

This is yet another example of Bob's desire to use the power and authority of the government to impose his religion on people (and their minor children) who don't share his beliefs. Have you noticed that Bob lacks empathy towards anyone who doesn't share his beliefs?

Why can't Bob understand what it would be like to be a young non-Christian high school boy in that locker room with that Christian coach?

Let's take an example: Let's assume that the non-Christian boy was brought up in the Jewish faith, i.e., he was taught that Jesus of Nazareth was not the son of God. Also assume that the Christian coach prays in the name of Jesus or Christ. Would this cause a conflict in this boy's life?

Basically, the coach, as representative of the school is a representative of government. The government is telling the boy that his parents and his belief system are wrong. And think about the enormous peer pressure that this boy would be under to conform with his peers, to "fit in" with his teammates, to get playing time in the games, and to be treated fairly. Why should the coach, ergo, the government be attempting to interfere with this boy's religious upbringing? Shouldn't that be up to the boy's parents?

To further elaborate, imagine that Bob lived in Dearborn and that the population of Dearborn is 80% Islamic. Let's say that one of Bob's kids started playing Varsity football at Fordson High School. Imagine that the football coach and the majority of the team are practicing Muslims. The coach leads a prayer before the game saying, "there is only one God and his name is Allah and Mohammed was his prophet."

Would Bob, a fundamentalist Christian, object to the government imposing a different belief system on his son? You bet your ass he would.

But this is exactly the type of situation that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution aims to prevent: The government attempting to impose a set of religious beliefs on someone. The best part about the Establishment Clause is that it protects everyone from being pressured to conform to a particular religious belief. It protects Muslims from Christians, it protects atheists from Jews, and it protects me from Bob.