It's Always About the Muslims

On last Friday's "News Hour" Bob finally got around to "reporting" about this act of Christian Terrorism. Typically, Bob used the act to justify the racial profiling of Muslims.

Bob started by weakly denouncing the act. He said that Christians shouldn't commit these types of acts.

Following his weak little condemnation, Bob took issue with the reporting. Bob complained that the news reports were biased because they called the facility a "Woman's Clinic." You see, Bob felt it should be called an "abortion mill" because "that's what they really do." I guess Bob didn't bother to check out their website. The media called it a Woman's Health Center because that's the name of the facility and they provide "comprehensive, high-quality health care with an emphasis on education and individualized support."

(By the way, the next time Bob calls someone an "abortion doctor," you should wonder out loud how many lives these gynecologists saved by diagnosing ovarian cancer, HPV, or an ectopic pregnancies. Bob won't ask that question because his eyes are filled with blastocysts.)

After blaming the media, Bob announced that the FBI should search for the guilty party by profiling. Should the profile reveal that the perpetrator is a red-haired man with a beard, all red-haired men should be profiled. And what do you know! Bob has red hair and a beard! So if it is necessary, Bob is more than willing to be profiled because he has nothing to hide.

Since Bob is willing to be profiled, all Muslims should be willing to be profiled. Not only should Muslims be willing to be profiled, they should accept profiling happily because this proves they are moderates and taking a stand against Islamic extremists.

And that's how Bob gets from an act of Christian terrorism to the justification of Muslim profiling. All done without the inconvenience of logic.

Can we please change the tag line of Bob's show from "News from a Christian Perspective" to "News from a Moronic Perspective?"

A Holiday That Neither Google Nor Bob Will Celebrate

Bob likes to talk about all the holidays that Google allegedly doesn't celebrate, due to its "liberal bias."

However, today is a holiday that Bob won't speak about, and even Google isn't recognizing.

Today is Worker Memorial Day. This is the little known worldwide holiday in which unions and union supporters remember those who died or were injured due to unsafe conditions in the workplace.

Bob won't speak about this holiday because it would mean he would have to call Bush out on his very unchristian behavior towards American workers.

If Google is as liberal as Bob claims, they'd have known about this holiday and have it up on their website. Alas, they don't.

Despite Bob being a conservative Republican, I haven't heard him speak against the unions very much. That's probably a smart move on his part because there's good odds that a lot of his Southeastern Michigan listeners are UAW or SEIU affiliated. But keep in mind he wants you to vote for conservative politicians that are strongly anti-union and continually degrade the American working man.

Happy holidays, guys. Remember to mourn for the dead, and fight like hell for the living!

Bob Wants America To Waste Tax Dollars To Make Non-Christians Act Christian

On the show The Boondocks, the Huey Freeman character started a riot by getting on a stage and telling rich white Republicans “Jesus was black, Ronald Reagan is the devil, and the Government is lying about 9/11.” A memorable moment was when one woman got up with a look of horror on her face and screamed: “NO! IT CAN’T BE TRUE!”

Well, when Bob was talking about the study that shows that abstinence only education doesn’t work, he became that woman.

Despite the facts showing that abstinence only education is a waste of time, Bob was skeptical even though he admitted he had no evidence to back up his skepticism. Then he claimed that America should still spend money on abstinence programs to “set an example."

So Bob thinks we should be tossing money sending kids an ineffective message and lie to children to scare them into acting Christian. Last I checked, the Bible doesn’t consider that an acting like a Christian is effective method of living your life. The Bible requires that you become a Christian before you start to act like one.

Absent of any other talking points, he asked for people to call in and supply more. (I guess he didn’t get his daily fax of talking points from the Club for Growth.)

One female caller made a lot of sense. She advocated for abstinence-plus education, emphasizing abstinence and also teaching the properly use of birth control. (I took a similar class it in high school and can testify to its effectiveness.)

Bob responded by saying that such a program would be like telling kids “Don’t do drugs, but if you do, use a clean needle.” The woman disagreed, saying “I don’t compare having sex with doing drugs." Bob then claimed that teaching sex education was exactly the same as teaching drug use.

That’s right! Bob thinks that having sex is the same as doing drugs! The tried and true method of human survival, whom 99.999% of Christians believe was created by God is the same thing as shooting heroin!

Is Bob certifiable?

I wonder what Bob is smoking.

One More On Abortion...

When it comes to talking about abortion, a 5 year old could make armpit fart noises and still sound smarter than Bobbo.

Bob's main argument against a woman's right to make reproductive choices is so simple that I can quote it exactly. Bobbo says there is no right to choose because "Nowhere in the Constitution are you granted the right to get an abortion."

Now, on the face of it, Bobbo is correct. The word "abortion" does not appear in the U.S. Constitution.

But, legally speaking, we have many other rights that are not specifically granted in the Constitution. Like your right to Miranda Warnings. In Miranda v. Arizona, The [Supreme] Court held that criminal suspects must be informed of their right to consult with an attorney and of their right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police to fully protect a person's Fifth and Sixth Amendment Rights.

Are the Miranda Warnings specifically granted in the Constitution? Nope.

Another Right not granted by Constitution is your Right to Marriage. In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court struck down Virginia's miscegenation law on the basis that it invidiously classified on the basis of race...[and] violate[d] the Due Process Clause as an undue interference with 'the fundamental freedom" of marriage.

So we have a fundamental right to get married, but does the word "marriage" appear anywhere in the Constitution? Again, no.

And what about the Right to Travel? In Kent v. Dulles, the Supreme Court held that the right to travel is an inherent element of "liberty" that cannot be denied to American citizens. The Supreme Court even expanded this right in Saenz v. Roe. The Court held that the in right to travel contains three separate aspects of traveling between the States: the right to enter one state and leave another, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than a hostile stranger...and for those who become permanent residents of a state, the right to be treated equally to native born citizens.

No, the a right to travel does not exist in the Constitution.

But if we use Bob's logic, none of these rights can be said to exist because none of these right are specifically granted by the Constitution. But does anyone think that Bob would argue against these extra-Constitutional rights? Of course not.

Furthermore, if you read Roe v. Wade, you'll find that the rationale found the right to abortion is subsumed within the in the greater right of privacy. The Court stated,

the right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the district Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

The Roe holding stands for the proposition that there places within a person's life that the Government has no interest. Reproduction is one area where the Government cannot interfere in the lives of its citizens.

So if the Government cannot interfere, why does Bob think it should? Jeff's original question still stands: Why does Bob feel it so necessary to control women he has never met?! Why does he find it necessary to stop an abortion that doesn't affect him in any tangible way?!

The only reason that I can think of is that Bob is fueled by a smug superiority and believes himself far more moral that than everybody else.

What arrogance!

More On Bob And Abortion

NOTE: This originally started as a comment to Jeff’s post Bob On Abortion, but I decided it was better as a post.

Jeff asked why Bob would care if Jeff’s wife decided to have an abortion or use contraception. Here’s my answer:

Well, the logic of the Christian right is that since life begins at conception, abortion is equivalent to the taking of a life. Hence, they believe they have a responsibility to stop it.

But in Bob's case, it's just an excuse to get votes for the GOP. If he really cared about abortion, he'd be advocating for prevention policies that are presented by liberals and even the bane of Bob's existence, Planned Parenthood.

About six months ago Bob had American Baptist pastor Tony Campolo on his show. Bob ripped him apart for stating that making abortion illegal will only "drive it underground" and that America needs an economic policy that will prevent abortions from occurring. Bob vehemently disagreed.

This is the same as disagreeing with murder, but only having policies the prosecute the act, not seek to prevent it. That's why Bob hates prevention policies: Because if you advocated for expanding the WIC program, universal healthcare, teaching about contraception, universal childcare, and other programs that would make women less likely to have abortions, we'd be voting for liberals and liberals want as many abortions as possible.

But its important to note that the Bible never said anything against abortion, despite the fact that they occurred during and even before the time of Moses. In fact, in Exodus 21:22-25, a fetus is given lower status than someone who is born. A fine had to be paid in the event of an accidental miscarriage that was the result of assault. Capital punishment didn’t occur unless the mother died (although many anti-abortion groups take out the last two verses to make it look like Moses was talking about the child dying as a result of premature birth). So even in the law of Moses, a fetus isn't the equivalent of a human life. Early Christians such as St. Augustine even advocated for 1st trimester abortions.

[UPDATE: After doing more research on Exodus 21:22-25, I've found that there is a debate as to whether verse 22 is interpreted as miscarriage, a pre-mature birth in which the child is alive at the time of birth, or stillborn. While I'll point out that the Bibles published before 1973 interpreted the verse to say "miscarriage" (coincidence?), there is still a debate on this that will probably not be resolved in our lifetimes. But my point still stands that there are no verses in the Bible that condemn abortion.]

And there is NOTHING in the Bible that says contraception is equal to taking a life. By that math, ABSTINENCE would be the equivalent of abortion, as they both prevent sperm and egg from meeting. Masturbation would be murder. But I don’t hear Bob telling men that we should fight to make jerking off illegal, or that we should be hooking up like bunnies.

In the end, all Bob cares about is getting conservatives elected to office. Which is why he doesn’t want the government to do anything about the millions of people living in poverty in America (many of whom are STARVING).

Why he doesn’t want universal health care which would, amongst other things, prevent miscarriages, infant death, death in adults and alternatives for war. Bob never mentions the need for any of this, despite the fact that they are “life issues.”

Because, as I said before, advocating for those policies would make you a liberal.

It’s just too bad Bob would rather be conservative than Christian.

Bob and Abortion

Bob's been talking about abortion again a lot lately, so I figured it was my duty to remind everyone that Bob is still an illogical control freak.

Today, Bob was reacting to a new medical study published yesterday which put the figurative last nail in the coffin of the Religious Right's "Abortion causes Breast Cancer" hypothesis. The study included 105,716 women over a 10 year period of time. This New York Times article gives a good overview of the study. In summary,

[t]he scientists found no difference in breast cancer incidence between the women who had had spontaneous or induced abortions and those who had not. Breast cancer incidence did not differ among women who had had an induced or spontaneous abortion before or after their first birth, or who had had no abortion at all.

Importantly, the article also details the errors with previous studies that tended to show a link between abortion and breast cancer.

Retrospective studies ... looked for a history of abortion in women who had already been given a diagnosis of breast cancer. [S]uch studies are subject to error caused by inaccurate reporting. Because of personal sensitivities and the stigma associated with the operation, healthy women may be reluctant to reveal that they have had an abortion, while those with breast cancer, seeking a cause for their illness, are more likely to report one.

Nevertheless, Bob had no problem finding fellow anti-choice brethren who were quick to dismiss the study. I liked this quote from the "Christian" News Wire:

'So why has the [National Cancer Institute] continued to spend millions of dollars to fund studies on the abortion-cancer link?' asked [Karen] Malec. 'Clearly, its scientists must either suspect a link or know that it exists.'

Check out that first-rate logical reasoning! Ms. Malec presumes that there's only one reason that the NCI would attempt to study an abortion-cancer link: Because it's a massive cover-up! Maybe the reason that the NCI continues to spend money on this is because blowhards like Bob Dutko and his ilk keep asserting that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, even though there isn't!

Last week, Bob was basking in the glory of the anti-choice crowd's victory at the Supreme Court. The Court upheld a federal law which banned so-called "partial birth" abortions, even when the mother's health was at risk. Keep in mind that Bob has repeatedly argued that overturning Roe v. Wade would simply return the issue of abortion to the states, so that each state could decide. This is the "state's rights" argument that Republicans, like Bob, often employ when it suits their interests, and discard when it doesn't.

But let's be clear what Bob really wants. Bob could care less about whether women get breast cancer or whether each individual state can pass its own abortion laws. Bob wants to use the power of the government to prevent women from getting an abortion, no matter what the circumstances. Furthermore, Bob also wants to use the power of the government to prevent women from using oral contraceptives.

What I'm always puzzled about is why is Bob finds it so necessary to use the power of the government to force women to comply with his narrow ultra-religious morality. I assume Bob's wife isn't going to have an abortion and he no longer has any daughters. So why is he so concerned about whether my wife and my daughters have an abortion or use contraceptives? Why does Bob feel it so necessary to control women he has never met?! Why does he find it necessary to stop an abortion that doesn't affect him in any tangible way?! If his arguments against abortion and contraceptives were so compelling and convincing, why would he need the law to enforce them?!

Why? Because Bob is an illogical control freak.

Where does Bob get this stuff?

Just before Easter weekend, Bob was insisting on the historicity Jesus and the resurrection. In the same breath, he anticipated the common objection arising from the lack of contemporaneous eyewitness written accounts. Bob explained oral traditions were the mainstay and raw material of historical source material since literacy was scarce and costly.

But Bob also made this claim: People in ancient times had better memories because the printing press had not yet been invented.

Really?

Bob went further and claimed that among those living at the time of Jesus, the portion of the brain that contained the memory function was more highly developed than it now is.

What? On what scientific evidence could anyone base such a statement?

No one can. But fact checking is not what Bob does.

But there is a way Bob’s claim could be supported: Pathologists would have had to made many thorough autopsies and psychologists would have made many memory evaluations – all duly verified and recorded 2,000 years ago. Similar studies, using the same procedures, would have to be repeated some centuries after the invention of the printing press and the results analyzed by a competent statistician.

Bob often expresses dismay over the number of MENSA’s who are not "believers."

I would suggest that Bob scares away the smart people.

A "Dangerous" Precedent?

So the Congress sends the Preznit a bill that would continue to fund the Iraq war. This bill gives the Preznit 120 billion dollars to continue this futile war on terra. This bill, however, contains a provision that calls for withdrawal of most US combat forces from Iraq beginning no later than October 1, 2007, with a non-binding goal for completing the pullout by April 1, 2008.

Bob calls this a "dangerous precedent."

According to Bobbo, this is a "dangerous" because those arrogant, un-American Democrats are deciding how the Preznit gets to the the Commander-In-Chief and it tells the terrarists that Bush isn't supported by Congress, making him look weak.

Oh, boo-f'n-hoo.

Just because Bobbo doesn't like debate doesn't mean the Democrats are "dictating" how the Preznit exercises authority. The Congress is just doing what Congress is mandated to do. The Preznit requests emergency spending. Congress then debates the request, writes legislation, and sends it for signature. If the Preznit doesn't like the bill, he can veto it. Which is exactly what he said he going to do.

I guess Bobbo doesn't like Congressional debate because he hates America.

By the way, don't buy the argument that Democrats are endangering the troops by delaying funding. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the Army has enough bookkeeping flexibility to pay for operations in Iraq well into July. Lawmakers and Capitol Hill staff aides view mid- to late May as the deadline for completing the war spending bill to avoid hardships. So when you hear a Republican claim that Democrats are causing the war to drag out because of this bill you know they're lying.

And have you noticed Bob is really concerned with what the terrarists think? He is always prattling on about how the terrarists are watching the news and finding hope when people dissent. But I've covered this idiotic claim before.

The terrarists aren't sitting around watching the news. (Well, they are watching O'Reilly. O'Reilly has a huge Q score with fundamentalist nutjobs.)

So, if you think about it, the only "dangerous precedent" is allowing that screeching dimwit Dutko a live microphone and 50,000 watts.

Poor Bob

Poor, poor Bob Dutko. His Christian persecution complex was in high gear again today. Apparently, the Free Press isn't reporting the type and quantity of news that he'd like to see. I'm thinking there won't be a tip for his paperboy this week!

You see, Bob, for some reason, took offense to the fact that the Free Press had quite a bit of Earth Day coverage. Since Bob believes that humans can't possible destroy the Earth, why bother with all this environmentalist nonsense?!

But what really got Bob incensed was the fact that the Free Press didn't spend an equal amount of time covering Easter then they did with Earth Day.

What exactly did Bob expect the Free Press to do? What kind of guidance could they have provided on this important issue of Easter?! "Christians go to Church Today; Even the one's who don't go every week"? "2000 years later, Christ Still Risen"? "Chocolate Sales Down; Fuzzy Bunny Sales Up"?

Well, even though the local media didn't cover Easter to Bob's expectations, I'm sure Bob's favorite news sources covered Easter to his expectations. For example, I'm sure WorldNetDaily covered this important Easter issue with dozens of important news articles. Well, actually, WND only had two articles posted on Easter, and neither were about Easter. Perhaps Bob pointed out this omission to WND founder, Joseph "Mustache" Farah, when he was on the show last week. He didn't? Oh well... another opportunity squandered.

More On Don Imus And Bob

Bob’s A Racist. Pure And Simple.

Bob was talking about the Don Imus controversy and used the racist remarks made by Don Imus as an excuse to attack black people.

First, Bob attacked black pastors again, saying that they don’t care as much about the lyrics in rap music. I go to a black church, so I could easily call b.s. on this. It’s common place for my pastor to talk about the lack of respect for women in the music. Besides that, the reason why this is an issue is because it’s an issue of racism. When it’s done in rap music, it’s degrading to women, but not racist. What Don Imus said was racist.

When a caller pointed out that black pastors frequently preach against the degradation of women, Bob said their efforts were insufficient because those pastors refuse to denounce Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

So Bob used Don Imus' racism as an excuse to attack Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, calling them ‘race baiters.’ To be clear: Don Imus says something racist, and Bob says “How dare these civil rights activists get angry about racist statements!”

If Bob was pressed about it, he’d go back to the issue of rap music, saying rappers shouldn’t be talking like that either. But then when a black woman called and used the N-word, Bob didn't bleep the word. Isn't this hypocrisy?

In defense of the caller, she used the n-word as an example of what shouldn’t be said. But if Bob was being honest about his hatred of the word, he would’ve bleeped it out and asked her to stop using it.

Going further, Bob praised Fox News for televising African-Americans condemning Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Of course, Fox News has a reputation for being extremely racist. Fox News routinely uses black conservatives to say racist things about black people, knowing that their white anchors couldn’t get away with the same criticisms.

Bob's bigotry isn't soft. Today it was out, front and center.

There's something wrong with Bob's story.

Today, Bob went through his “censorship” mantra in explaining why creation is not presented in science textbooks, claiming that all the evidence should be put on the table. Fine.

Since Bob is young earth creationist and fully convinced evidence supports his view, he should he eager to put the evidence on the table for all to fully examine. He should be able to present unfossilized dinosaur bones and polystrait fossils.

He should be able to demonstrate how the laws of physics show evolution to be impossible.

But the proper place to present evidence is in front of a recognized professional scientific societies.

But the young earth creationists don't present evidence to scientific societies. They simply write op-ed articles, publish books, stage debates, and whine noisily about being kept away from the scientific table.

Hell, the Discover Institute, even hired a PR firm to get it's message out.

This means that creationists haven't earned a seat at the table, they're the intellectual equivalent of a screaming four-year-old.

If their evidence is as convincing as they claim, creationist claims would have withstood the demands of exacting field work, presented experiments that could be replicated, held up to fatiguing peer review. They would be be able to display their findings with pride their findings before 700 hushed members of the numerous scientific societies.

Becuase that’s how science is done. Like it or not, creationists have to play by the rules of science to call the end result “science.”

Think about it this way: In order to play a professional game of golf, one must adhere to the rules of golf.

Suppose Bob claimed to be world’s greatest golfer. We’d say, “Really, Bob? Where are your PGA trophies?” Bob would say, “Oh well, PGA censors me! They won’t let me play in the tournaments, and make me count ALL my strokes. But take my word, I AM the greatest golfer.”

Sorry, Bob if you want to be recognized in a discipline you have to conform to the rules of the discipline. To complain about them is to admit, loudly, that you cannot conform to them.

Remember, Michael Behe admitted to the “Kitzmiller” court that the rules of science would have to be changed for ID to be considered “Science.” Changed so much that astrology would be science.

Bob complains so loudly about the overpowering mass of evidence that shouts “creationism!” yet no one, anywhere, hears it. Simply because there is something very wrong, terribly wrong, with Bob’s creation story.

More Anti-evolution Nonsense

Today, Bob had Geoffrey Simmons, M.D., on his show. Dr. Simmons is one of the many cranks from the Discovery Institute, pimping a new book of lies tailor made for Bob's less discriminating listeners.

But let's take a quick look a statement made by Dr. Simmons. At a speech in Oregon last year, Dr. Simmons said "many animals, such as giraffes and blue whales, have no fossils on record or any record of species from which they could have evolved."

I guess Dr. Simmons missed this giraffe fossil. And this giraffe fossil. And this giraffe fossil. Maybe Dr. Simmons missed this article about a whale fossil believed to be an ancestor to the blue whale. I'm pretty sure Dr. Simmons would not be convinced by this article about whale evolution.

After Dr. Simmons hung up, Bob claimed that people who believe in evolution are like people in a religion. Bob claimed these people reject the evidence, saying "I don't want to hear it, I don't want to hear it." But will Bob simply acknowledge the evidence shown above that directly contradicts his guest? I'm not going to hold my breath.

Once again, it is telling who Bob picks to have as guests. Instead of bringing a Professor of Biology in to talk about evolution, he brings on a medical doctor. Now, I have nothing against M.D.'s; when I have aches or pains, they're the people I go to first. But when it comes to biology, they have a rudimentary knowledge when compared to a Ph.D. who has intensively studied that subject.

C'mon, Bob. Why don't you call down to Wayne State or U of M and get a Ph.D. in biology to come on the show and debate your anti-evolution nonsense?

Who Needs Honesty When You Have Talking Points?

For the past few days, Bob has repeated the Republican attack points about Nanci Pelosi. Republicans claim that Nancy Pelosi, in traveling to Syria, slapped George W. Bush in the face and undermined Middle East policy. But today's attack point was quite the doozy: Bob quoted a Wall Street journal editorial that argues that in going to meet with the Syrians, Nanci Pelosi violated the Logan Act and is a felon.

What absolute crap.

This is the text of the Logan Act:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

First of all, this act applies to any citizen without the authority of the United States. This doesn't apply to Nanci Pelosi since she is the Speaker of the House! Not only does she have the authority of the United States, the State Departement participated in briefing the Congresswoman for her trip! According to the Chicago Tribune, "Pelosi was briefed by State Department officials before her meetings with the foreign leaders and that State Department officials also attended her meetings." So the claim that she was acting "outside" her authority is garbage.

Second, why isn't Bob complaining about the other politicians who went to Syria before Pelosi? A week before Pelosi went to Damascus, Representatives Frank R. Wolf of Virginia, Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania and Robert B. Aderholt of Alabama all went to Syria. Bob isn't complaining about them because they're all Republicans. So Bob is ignoring evidence that would exculpate Pelosi? I'm shocked! Just shocked!

Finally, Bob said he'd have a hard time imagining that Newt Gingrich (as Speaker of the House)would visit other countries and meet with their leaders while Bill Clinton was President. But guess what? He did! Gingrich went to China while Clinton was in office and "warned China's top leaders that the United States would intervene militarily if Taiwan was attacked."

That's not all!

In 1997, then Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert went to Columbia and "specifically encouraged Colombian military officials "to 'bypass' President Clinton and 'communicate directly with Congress.'"

So let's tally up our score, shall we?

1: Pelosi had the authority to go to Damascus.

2: There were Republicans in Syria before Pelosi, whose trip Bob conveniently ignores.

3: Two former Republican House Speakers engaged in diplomacy in an attempt to undermine President Bill Clinton.

What does 1+2+3 equal?

That Bob Dutko is a liar and hypocrite.

Bob Bashes The Troops and America

Last Friday, Bob took the time to do some America bashing coupled with some bashing of the US Military.

First, Bob first talked about gay marriage. He complained about Massachusetts allowing same sex marriages (of course). Then he complained about a prayer at the Texas State Senate that was being led by a Muslim.

When both of these issues were discussed, Bob decided to do a little America bashing. He said of both issues indicated that “we’re headed in a very dangerous direction in America.”

Then he talked about Gordon Klingenschmitt, a man who is not only insane, but makes me wish you could use names in scrabble.

Bob lied and said that Klingenschmitt, a former Navy chaplain, was court martialed for praying “in Jesus name.” I was a soldier. I can assure you that there’s no way that someone could be court martialed for such a thing, as chaplains have the freedom to perform prayers and religious services as they see fit. In fact, Klingenschmitt was court martialed for protesting at the White House in uniform, and only after he requested the court martial instead of a non-judicial punishment. But that didn’t stop Bob from bashing the military and accusing them of persecuting Lt. Klingenschmitt for being a Christian.

All of this took place before Bob declared our Government as corrupt!

I’ll be the first to say that I don’t care if Bob, or anyone else has a dissenting opinion on what takes place in America. But Bob is a hypocrite. Bob bashes liberals constantly, accusing them of hating America and the military for no other reason than that they want the occupation of Iraq to end and our troops to come home safely. But now Bob has in less than the span of an hour, bashed the troops and America.

If Bob's standards are applied to him, he is an unpatriotic America hater who doesn’t support our troops.

Bob and His Usual Ways....

I have personally tried to show to Bob and his claim that Thomas Jefferson was the first to coin the phrase "wall of separation” was wrong. Bob refuses to listen.

The “wall of separation” between church and state wasn't something Jefferson causally dreamed up one cold January day in 1802. Roger Williams used it earlier. Long before Williams, Richard Hooker used the phrase.

I can't sum the history of the phrase any better William Sierichs, Jr., so permit me to quote him at length:

Despite six centuries of pounding, the wall of separation between church and state stands higher and thicker than ever, boosted by vigorous defenders and supportive Supreme Court rulings going back to the late 1940s in the face of relentless assaults from religious zealots.

Many people, including a lot of secularists, believe Thomas Jefferson coined the "wall of separation" metaphor in his letter to the Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association on Jan. 1, 1802. Religious Right propagandists like this belief because it lets them claim Jefferson was espousing an eccentric idea outside the mainstream of opinion among America's Founders. [Italics added.] After all, he was in France when the Constitution was written and therefore could not know what its authors intended.

In fact, the metaphor was more than 200 years old when Jefferson popularized it.
The union of church and state had been under attack in England since at least the 6th century. Richard Hooker, a defender of the Anglican Church who died in 1600, wrote that dissenters demanded that 'the walls of separation between [church and commonwealth] must for ever be upheld.'

For over two years that Bob has been repeating the lie that the phrase was “first used by Jefferson…”

Bob has never met a popular lie that he wasn't willing to repeat.

Bob Keeps Repeating Lies About Jefferson

Whenever Bob talks about the separation of church and state he mentions Thomas Jefferson. Bob claims that when Jefferson was President, he ordered that the Bible be taught in public schools.

As is normal with Bob, he is lying. When Thomas Jefferson was President of the United States, he was also elected President of the Washington, D.C. school board. Washington, D.C. only had two schools at the time and they never used the Bible as a textbook. After Jefferson’s Presidency, a school was opened that did teach the Bible as one of several reading texts, but only because it was the only book printed in mass quantities in America. Most school textbooks had to be imported from England, and the war of 1812 was making that hard to do. And even then, people were complaining that the schools weren’t teaching religion!

In 1778, when Thomas Jefferson did show his plan for education, he intentionally left out the Bible as required reading, saying:

Instead therefore, of putting the Bible and Testament into the hands of the children at an age when their judgments are not sufficiently matured for religious inquiries, their memories may here be stored with the most useful facts from Grecian, Roman, European, and American history.

I will never understand why Bob wants the schools to do the church’s job. Is Bob's faith so weak that he feels the Bible must be taught by people who may not even believe it? Or who doesn't believe it in the same way as him? Or is Bob so naïve as to think that every Christian thinks as he does?

I don’t want the Bible being taught in school because I don’t want my tax dollars going towards teaching a version of the Bible that I may not agree with. After all, if you were Catholic, would you want someone teaching that the Pope is evil? Or if you are a Baptist, would you want someone teaching that you must pray in tongues or that baptism is necessary to be born again? If you’re a Pentecostal, do you want your children to be taught that the last of the Prophets died almost 2,000 years ago? Or what if your teacher was a Jehovah’s Witness? Do you want someone teaching that the Bible says there is no Trinity? Not to mention if you’re Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist, or anything else!

That’s why it's not the job of public school system to teach theology. It's the church's job! If Bob feels so threatened by the idea that the only way you can have more Christians is to have the government dictate matters of faith, then what does that say about the faith of Bob?

Not much.

Bob Bashes Other Christians, Says “We Need To Be Extremists”

How nuts is Bob when he complains about Christian persecution, and yet has no problem bashing any and all groups of Christians who don’t agree with him?

Jeff has already blogged about Bob’s bashing of black churches, due to the fact that they vote Democratic and don’t buy into Bob’s brand of “only Republicans can be Christians” Christianity.

Today Bob went after two groups: Moderate Christians and Soulforce.

Bob mentioned an article written by Deb Price of the Detroit News, in which she mentioned Soulforce’s 2007 Equality Ride, in which 50 gay Christians are going to 38 different Christian colleges in the hopes of showing people that it is possible to be gay and a believer at the same time. They’re hoping that they can open the minds of people who have had anti-gay bigotry shoved down their throats most of their lives.

This had Bob riled up. He went into a 10 minute rant about homosexuality being a sin and that everyone who is gay is “practicing evil.” Then he said we shouldn’t condemn them and instead invite them to church. Sure, spend 10 minutes insulting someone and then invite them to be in your company for 3 hours. Using that logic, maybe we should call Bob on free-for-all-Friday and tell him how his support of the GOP is sinful and he’s going to hell for it. Do it until he threatens to hang up on you. Then invite him to one of the many black churches that don’t kiss Bush’s butt so that he can repent. See how he reacts.

Bob also didn’t explain Soulforce’s biblical interpretation of homosexuality. Bob wouldn’t agree with it because it involves putting the Bible in the context of authors who lived in the ancient Middle East. That’s too complex for Bob.

After that, he talked about a USA Today article that advocated on behalf of moderate Christianity. Bob accused moderates of being weak in their faith, only half-believing the Bible and “lacking conviction."

The ironic thing is that the article said define what a religious moderate isn’t. According to the article:

The imperative for respect and bridging differences indeed does lead to a soft-pedaling of some hot-button issues, but that hardly equates with lukewarm faith. In truth, moderation is biblical to the core. The moderates' emphasis on unity and inclusion is not politically correct softness, but a conviction they draw straight from the words and deeds of Jesus.

"People sometimes confuse moderation with not taking a strong stance of belief," says Jan Elfers, director of congregational relations and peace programs for the Oregon group, as she lays out the New Testament case for moderation. "We hold our beliefs very deeply, and that means loving our neighbors like ourselves."

Nowhere in there does it say that moderates are people who only half-believe or have wishy-washy faith. Of course Bob can’t handle that, because it presents a threat to his ability to exploit the Bible and the Christian faith for conservative ends. So of course he feels the need to lie about it.

While Bob doesn’t care about Christianity past the point where he can exploit it, he does create the problem for Christianity in that he reinforces the stereotype that being a Christian means that you have to be intolerant of others. A few years ago, when the only type of Christianity I was hearing about was Bob’s false “conservative=Christ” option, I was walking away from my faith. People like Bob put George Bush on the cross and called it the Christian faith.

Luckily, I found people and groups like Sojourners, Cornel West, Talk2Action, and Street Prophets, all of whom teach that it is possible to be a liberal and a Christian at the same time. And you don't even have to hate gay people!

I know that there are others out there as well, who might have converted if they knew that all of us don't think or act like Bob. (Or, frankly, like him as a person). Bob and others like him do more damage to Christianity in this country than any moderate I’ve come across.

The faith of moderate and liberal Christians is real. We believe in Jesus and it’s that faith that gives us the ability to look out for the poor, fight for the oppressed, and to stand up to those forces that seek to harm others. We also oppose the exploitation of religion for power, which is something that Bob does everyday.

Bob's outraged. Again.

Last Tuesday, Bob was outraged (outraged!) about some part-time biology teacher in Oregon who was fired. Bob framed the story as this poor biology teacher who was fired for merely referring to the Bible during a lesson on evolution.

Like many things that Bob says, this is patently false. It is clear from this story that the teacher in question, Kris Helphinstine, was not fired for merely mentioning the Bible. Rather, Mr. Helphinstine was fired for a rather stark deviation from the approved curriculum by "teaching" some sort of linkage between evolution, Nazi Germany, abortion, eugenics, and Planned Parenthood. He even used some crazy, incoherent Powerpoint presentations, which you can view here and here (Internet Explorer required). Can any reasonably sane person, after viewing this material, argue that Mr. Helphinstine did not deserve to be fired after a mere eight (8) days on the job?!

Let's keep in mind what's going on here. The religious right is continually trying to discredit evolution and teach the so-called theory of intelligent design (ID) to public school students. They tried to put ID into Kansas' science curriculum, but they failed. They tried to put ID into a Pennsylvania school's science curriculum, but they failed. Finally, they tried to insert their own teacher to tell students that evolution and Nazi eugenics go hand-in-hand, but they have failed.

When will Bob and the rest of the religious right get the message that the vast majority of this country supports real science and does not want creationism taught in science class?