Irony

On Thursday, December 20, Bob got all hot and bothered over an opinion article written by Kary Moss of the Michigan ACLU, published in the Detroit News. Bob didn't bother to read the entire article or address its substance.

No, Bob decided to concentrate on only one line and accuse Ms. Moss of lying. Specifically, Bob took exception to the sentence: "After all, to advance religious liberty, our nation's Founders intended for government to remain neutral in matters of religion."

Bob, for some unknown reason, hates the separation between religion and government that is mandated by the First Amendment to the Constitution. He argues that the Founders wanted a "blending of Church and State." To support his argument, Bob routinely reads a laundry list of statements by the Founders, as he did on Thursday. Bob purports that this laundry list of statements proves that the Founders wanted this "blending."

But, of course, what Bob never, ever reads are all the statements by the Founders that support Church-State separation. Here's one list, here's another, but there are countless others. Remember, Bob is the guy always complaining that the scientists are hiding the "real" information about evolution, the age of the Earth, etc., yet here he is, actively ignoring and hiding information that contradicts his assertions.

But what's truly ironic about the Bob's baseless attack is that the focus of the article written by Ms. Moss was the baseless attacks on the ACLU by ultra religious conservatives (like Bob). Ms. Moss points out the lies written about the ACLU by WorldNetDaily (one of Bob's favorite "news" sources). She also highlights one of their latest victories, in which they prevented a man's rights against a state prison program that tried to coerce him to renounce his Catholic faith and become a Pentecostal.

Bob simply ignores all the things that the ACLU does to protect ones right to practice their own faith. Instead, he acts like a juvenile and calls them "the anti-Christ liberals union," demonizing them in the same fashion as he demonizes Planned Parenthood.

Pathetic.

Republican Obstruction

Back when the Republicans had control of Congress, Bob complained that the Democrats "obstructed" bills, court nominees, or what have you.

But now that Democrats have control of Congress, Bob has been more or less silent on this issue. Why?

Probably becuase Bob wholeheartedly approves of the Republicans stopping passage of legislation that enjoys support from a majority in Congress as well as a majority of Americans. That begs the question: does Bob actually believes in minority rule?

How bad is the Republican obstruction? Real bad. In just under a year, the Republicans in the Seante have prevented 62 pieces of legislation from receiving an up-or-down vote by use of the filibuster. That breaks a new record for filibuster use for a Congress and they have over a year to go!

You won't hear Bob talk about this. Why? It just doesn't fit his agenda. My question for Bob's listeners: Does Bob's agenda match yours?

Planned Parenthood vs. Boy Scouts

Bob gets upset that tax dollars are given to Planned Parenthood and argues that they should run like a private business.

Bob also gets upset that tax dollars are taken away from the Boy Scouts and argues that they should get tax dollars.

So which is it, Bob? Should private organizations get taxpayer dollars or should they not get taxpayer dollars?

Please be consistent.

Boy Scouts

A couple of months back, Bob was all worked up about the City of Philadelphia having the gumption to charge the Boy Scouts a fair market price of $200k/year to rent city-owned property. (Here's the WorldNetDaily article that Bob cribbed off of.) For years, the Scouts have been renting the property for $1 a year. I wish I could find rent like that!

For those unfamiliar with the group, the Boy Scouts have stated policies of discrimination against Atheists and "avowed homosexuals." The Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that this discrimination is fine because the Scouts are a private organization and not subject to anti-discrimination laws. Basically, if you don't believe in God or happen to prefer men over women, you can't go camping with the Scouts, earn merit badges or become an Eagle Scout. The government of Philadelphia doesn't want to subsidize an organization that discriminates against its citizens so it raised the rent to a reasonable level.

Of course, Bob's reasoning as to why this is bad is illogical. Bob stated that the Boy Scouts don't have to employ or allow Gays or Atheists because they're a private organization. That's correct. As an analogy, he stated that the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) wouldn't be forced to employ a hunter on their staff. That's also correct. But can you see the logical flaw here? PETA isn't getting a $200k per year in free rent from the government!! Bob conveniently omitted that fact.

In short, the Boy Scouts are free to discriminate all they want. They just can't do it by screwing over taxpaying citizens!

Cults

Bob accuses Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses of being cults. Therefore, they are not part of Christendom.

But Bob doesn't define what he means by "cult." One dictionary definition of "cult" is simply "a system of religious beliefs and ritual." Obviously, this is not what Bob means, or else he would have to say that every Christian (as well as Jews and Muslims) are members of cults.

I think most people give the world "cult" a negative connotation. When you say cult, most people think of groups like Peoples Temple, Branch Davidians, Heaven's Gate, or other organizations whose members had a severely bad outcome (abuse, torture, kidnapping, imprisonment).

It doesn't seem like Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses fit this definition of cult. I don't hear either group committing mass suicide, torturing people, or holding people against their will.

With that being said, why does Bob use the term "cult" when describing Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses? Is this just another technique to demonize people whose beliefs are different than Bob's? Should Catholics be considered a cult using Bob's definition? Muslims? Jews?

*Of course, I'm excepting the Morman polygamist groups that are outside of the official Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Divorce

Today, Bob had a guest on to talk about divorce. Bob has accepted that many people get divorced and believes thats these people shouldn't be alienated from the church. In fact, the guest talked about how to support divorced persons around Christmas.

But Bob's position got me to thinking. Why is he so accepting of divorce but so unwilling to accept abortion and same-sex marriage? The Bible makes it clear that God hates divorce. Jesus said, "what God has joined together, let not man separate."

Bob argues that the Bible prohibits abortion and same-sex marriage. Therefore, Bob has advocated that abortion and same-sex marriage should be illegal, no matter what your religious beliefs may be.

So why the double standard? Shouldn't Bob be advocating for making divorce illegal as well?

Islam vs. Chistianity

Bob loves to talk about the various acts of murder, violence, and other horrors perpetrated by Muslims and those who profess to follow that faith. Granted, there have been plenty of evil acts committed by those who worship Allah or claim to act in his name.

However, Bob seems to think that Christians are somehow immune from this insane and irrational behavior. Indeed, Bob often remarks with a certain smugness that these behaviors are prohibited by Christianity but actually endorsed by Islam.

But Bob conveniently stays ignorant of the various bad acts committed by Christians and/or willfully doesn't comment on such acts. In the rare instances where Bob does mention such acts, he simply dismisses the perpetrators as not being true Christians. But despite Bob's ignorance, silence, and denial, some Christians do perform despicable acts in the name of their religion. For example, in Nigeria, evangelical Christian pastors are labeling children as witches in order to extort money for exorcisms. As a result, hundreds or thousands of children have been murdered, abused, and abandoned. You can bank on the fact that Bob won't be "reporting" about this anytime soon.

My point here isn't that Christianity is somehow a bad religion that endorses or encourages bad acts. My point is only that if these acts in Nigeria were be committed by Muslims, Bob would be telling you all about it and claiming that Islam is a horrible, violent faith. This hypocritical view serves only to foster hatred and division. Furthermore, by focusing on religion as a sole cause of such violence, it keeps people from focusing on the other reasons why people act in this way. These reasons include poverty, suffering, hopelessness, and social injustice. But there's the liberal in me talking.

JFK vs. Bob Dutko

I was reading some other blogs when I came across the speech given by John F. Kennedy concerning his religion. You can read and/or listen to the whole thing, but here's a snippet:

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him."

"I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish--where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source--where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials--and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all."

Refreshing, isn't it? Compare that to the daily screeds of one Mr. Bob Dutko calling for a "blending" of church and state and calling for the government to enforce religious prohibitions on birth control and abortion.

No wonder so many people liked JFK...

UPDATE: The Carpetbagger has a good take on Romney's speech, calling it the "anti-JFK speech".

Bob lies about Islam

Bob seems to likes fostering divisions between people, as I've discussed before. It is clear to me that he wants his listeners to ignore the commonalities between the various peoples of our country and instead focus on differences, even if those differences are fabricated. He is one of the most negative people I've ever had the displeasure to listen to.

As an example, today Bob talked about a story in the Detroit News that explained the Hajj pilgrimage. But instead of actually discussing the story, Bob went on and on about how Islam is not an Abrahamic religion. His rationale is that since Islam was founded by Mohammad in the 7th Century, that it's not rooted in Abraham. But what Bob doesn't tell you is that Koran has numerous references to Abraham and that Muslims believe Abraham is their spiritual father. In fact, a main aspect of the Hajj pilgrimage is honoring Abraham!

So why does Bob want to promote division and animosity? What could possibly be the reason? Does Bob not want there to be understanding between people of different faiths and beliefs?

"...in the Year of our Lord..."

Bob is fond of inferring that the Framers of the Constitution did not want intend to form a secular government since the end of the Constitution states:

"Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,"

That's right folks. Bob believes that the Framers weren't trying to set up a secular government based on this mere dating convention. Bob rejects that this use is mere convention. In doing so, Bob ignores so much:

• There is no evidence that the Framers actually debated or voted on using the "year of our Lord" language when writing the Constitution. Doesn't it seem more reasonable that the calligrapher who prepared the document for signing, merely added the verbiage?
  
• The text of the Constitution also references "Sunday" and "Monday". These words are pagan in origin referring to the Sun and Moon gods. Obviously, these words were used as mere dating conventions. So why can't the word "Lord" be considered as a mere dating convention as well? Unless, of course, Bob thinks that the Framers were also honoring the pagan Gods?
  
• The Constitution makes no reference to Jesus, Christ, or God. If the Framers were trying to solicit God's blessing for the nation, why didn't they say something like, "We the People, under the divine guidance of Jesus Christ..." in the preamble or elsewhere in the document?
  
• Article VI of the Constitution stipulates that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." If the Framers did not want a secular nation, why didn't they at least say, "only those who profess to be Christians are qualified"?
• The Bill of Rights, approved two years after the Constitution, omits the "year of our Lord" language in its date. It is this document which prohibits laws respecting an establishment of a religion.

Bob is famous for only telling one side (his side) of the story. I pray that Bob's listeners will take the time to do their own independent research on Bob's claims. In most cases, they will find there is always more to the story then what Bob gives you.

John West

Today, Bob had a character on the show named John West. West is a member of the Discovery Institute, the group that pretends to be a scientific research institute, but actually does no scientific research. Instead, they merely advocate the discredited "intelligent design" hypothesis.

I'm not going to get into the whole "interview." Basically, Bob let West go on unchallenged at length. The gist was basically "Darwinism is bad cause it leads to eugenics, crime, and a lack or morality." Of course, this was all fact-free and evidence-free conjecture, but that's what Dutko does best.

If you'd like to hear some opposing views of West, he spoke in Minnesota a few days ago. A few real scientists showed up to challenge him, including PZ Meyers and Greg Laden. Go ahead and read their accounts of the meeting since they're probably more interesting than my writing.

Bob and Rape in Saudi Arabia

On Wednesday, Bob talked about the abhorrent conviction and punishment of a women in Saudi Arabia who was ganged raped. Bob is right to be outraged. The treatment of women in Saudi Arabia, and in other parts of the Muslim world, is often inhumane and unconscionable.

So then Bob criticized the "media" for not reporting these abuses vigorously enough. After that, he went on a screed about how "the very same people" who criticize a lack of equality for women in the U.S. by some religious groups are "silent" about the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia. Take a listen.

Bob doesn't identify who these "very same people" are. Instead, he's created some general bogeyman to attack. In this case, it appears that his bogeyman is "feminists." But it's important to note that numerous feminist organizations have not been silent about this injustice in Saudi Arabia.

It's like Bob was trying to say, "Hey, these feminists shouldn't be complaining about the sexism of some Christians; instead, they should be focused on the really bad Muslims." First of all, why is it wrong to combat injustice no matter what its degree? Can only the most egregious abuses be criticized? Second, Bob's argument is kind of analogous to me verbally abusing my wife but then saying, "you shouldn't be mad; just be happy that I'm not beating you."

I did, however, find something interesting about who wasn't seriously criticizing the Saudi government over this verdict. Namely, I was upset that the U.S. government, led by President George W. Bush, did not strongly condemn the Saudis. Instead, the U.S. government only offered "mild criticism."

[State Department spokesman Sean] McCormack declined to directly criticize its close ally, or the Saudi legal system, which has made a series of erratic verdicts in recent months. "I don't have anything else to offer," said McCormack when pressed on whether Washington condemned the court's decision... Asked whether the Saudi authorities should reconsider the sentence against the woman, McCormack said he could not "get involved in specific court cases in Saudi Arabia dealing with its own citizens."

Bob spends an inordinate amount of time praising and promoting Bush and the Republicans. But did anybody hear him criticize Bush or the administration in this matter whatsoever? Bob can take time to criticize the "media" and unnamed feminists, but not Bush?

In an unrelated story, here's a picture of Bush and Saudi Prince Abdullah holding hands as they stroll through spring flowers at Bush's Crawford, Texas ranch.

UPDATE (12/4 10:30 PM): Bush talked to Saudi King Abdullah last week. When asked if he pressed the rape case issue with him, George said, "he doesn't remember if the subject came up." Classic.