Larry Craig and Hypocrisy

It's always fun to hear Bob try to spin news about Republican hypocrisy. The latest instance was uber-conservative Republican Larry Craig being convicted for attempting to solicit gay airport bathroom sex.

Bob tried to spin this by saying that Democrats don't have any "standards" and therefore can't be revealed as hypocrites. Please, Bob. Don't insult our intelligence. The difference is that Democrats (and myself) typically don't try to force moral standards on the entire population using the force of law in matters that are private in nature. The Carpetbagger has a good article on this very issue.

But, just for fun, let me run down some examples of how wants the world to work contrasted with what I believe.

1. Bob and his ilk want to use the power of the government to prevent people of the same sex from having sex. Conversely, I don't care what people do in private.
   
2. Bob and his ilk want to use the power of the government to prevent same-sex couples from marrying. Conversely, I can see no reason why committed same-sex couples shouldn't enjoy the same benefits of society as opposite-sex couples do.
   
3. Bob and his ilk want to use the power of the government to prevent women from having abortions or even using oral contraceptives. Conversely, I can't see why some strangers decision to end her pregnancy (or prevent it) effects me in any way, so therefore, I don't care.
   
4. Bob and his ilk want to use the power of the government to tell my child that there is one God and that we, as a nation, are under Him. I think that religion, including the belief in God or gods, is a personal issue and shouldn't be mandated by the state.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. Bob wants to use the law to impose his morality on everyone in matters that don't personally effect him in any way. Why? Can't Bob just be happy by living by his moral code and teaching it to his children?

Are You Kidding Me?!

Today Bob had a man on from the Christian Defense Coalition to help present the case that we should stay in Iraq because Christians will be persecuted if we leave.

But Bob doesn't care about that. How do I know? He told me when I called his show a year ago. Click on the link for the full story.

During the call I said "There's over 200,000 Christians in Iraq right now that are being persecuted for their beliefs, and it started going on after we invaded Iraq. Now can you honestly tell me that knowing that, you would still say it was a good idea that we invade Iraq knowing that it would result in the deaths of thousands of Christians?"

Bob said "Yes I would."

Bob cares more about defending conservative policy than he does the lives of Christians. Bob is a disgusting human being.

Bob Asks: "Who Would Jesus Bomb?"

On Friday's show, Bob was talking about the debate going on between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. They have been going back and forth on whether nuclear weapons "should be taken off the table" when dealing with countries like Pakistan and other countries in the Middle East.

Bob threw his two cents in by saying that nukes should always be on the table. He said they should be on the table because if not, Iran and Al Queda would want to attack us.

I'll ignore the fact that Iran has never expressed interest in attacking us, and that Al Queda has already attacked us despite our stance on nukes.

But I am curious as to where Bob found in the Gospels the verse in which Jesus said it's perfectly okay to use weapons that will kill millions of innocent civilians as a means of war.

I've searched the Gospels, but haven't been able to find the verse. Maybe on Monday he'll share where he found it-and what Bible he's using.

Credit Where Credit is Due

Last week, Bob admitted that if abortion was made illegal, he would endorse punishment of women who had an abortion, including imprisonment.

Wow.

I know Bob's position may sound crazy to the vast majority of people who are thoughtful and compassionate.

However, if you truly believe that "abortion is murder," then Bob's position is the only logical outcome if you want to stay consistent with our system of justice. Under the legal principle of accomplice liability, an accomplice to a crime is equally as responsible as the principal who actually commits the crime.

For example, if I were to hire a hit man to kill my wife, and the crime is successful, then both me and the hit man would be guilty of premeditated murder.

This example can be easy analogized to a physician (or other person) providing an abortion and the woman who desires the abortion. The woman is hiring the physician to perform the abortion. If abortion is murder, then the woman is a murderer. Therefore, Bob logically asserts that a woman who gets an abortion should go to jail.

One doesn't have to think too hard to realize this line of thinking has chilling consequences. In many states, the punishment for premeditated murder is death. In Michigan, the punishment is life in prison without the possibility of parole. Let's take a few examples to illustrate.

(1) A married woman gets pregnant. She and her husband are ecstatic. However, things don't go according to plan. After the ultrasound, the doctor tells the happy couple that their child has Potter Syndrome and will be either stillborn or will die shortly after birth. After much contemplation and prayer, the couple decide to get an abortion rather than endure several more heartbreaking (and pointless) months of pregnancy. In Bob's ideal world, the husband, wife, and doctor would all go to jail for the rest of their lives for aborting a child that was going to die anyway.

(2) A young girl at college in Texas has been dating a nice young man. After a while, their relationship gets more serious and the couple eventually have sex. They were typical impatient youths and they decided to risk it without birth control because he forgot. She becomes pregnant. All of a sudden, the nice young man is nowhere to be found. The girl is scared since her dad is a prominent Christian radio talk show host with a fiery temper. The fallout of her being with child out of wedlock would be devastating to her and her family. She hears of a local family practice physician who performs abortions illegally and engages her services. The physician is mother to three children. A nosy dorm mate blabs the girl's story to her dad, the local police chief. In Bob's ideal world, the doctor and the girl are executed, leaving the children of the doctor without a mom.

(3) A married woman uses birth control pills to prevent pregnancy as she wants to get her career as a biochemist started before having kids. One month, the pills didn't prevent ovulation, but rather prevented implantation of the egg in the uterus. In Bob's ideal world, the woman should be jailed forever because the 100 cell blastocyst was discharged in her monthly period.

This is the future if Bob and his ilk get their way. Completely unreasonable punishments for all abortions, no matter what the circumstances, and I didn't even get into rape or incest. I wouldn't be surprised if Bob's reaction to the death of women at the hands of back alley abortionists was simply that "justice was served."

"You can't pray in schools today"

One of the WMUZ promotional spots claims that, "you can't pray in schools today."

This is absolutely absurd and completely untrue.

Any student can pray in school at just about anytime that they want. There are virtually unlimited opportunities for students to say prayers with each other or engage in solitary prayer. In fact, a Christian bumpersticker announces that, "[a]s long as there are tests, there will be prayer in public schools."

What's not allowed is prayer that is required, mandated, encouraged, endorsed, coerced, or led by the government or one of its employees. Why? Because this would be state sponsorship of religion which is clearly disallowed by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Besides, having teacher-led prayer in schools inevitably leads to problems. What type of prayer should be performed: Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu? Should the prayer be addressed towards God, Jesus, Muhammad, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or some other generic creator? What about the sizable population that doesn't have a strong belief towards a creator at all?

You see folks, Bob and WMUZ don't want freedom of religion. They want their brand of Christianity forced down your throat and your kids throat and they want you to pay for it with your tax dollars.