An Anniversary of Church-State Separation

Bob feels that the Framers of the Constitution wanted a "blending" of church and state, not a separation. However, on this day in 1811, James Madison set an important precedent on church/state relations.

Congress tried to give some land away to a Baptist Church. The then-President, James Madison, author of the First Amendment, knew this land-grant was in violation of the Establishment Clause. Madison vetoed the bill and stated:

Because the bill in reserving a certain parcel of land of the United States for the use of said Baptist Church comprises a principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment."

So much for Bob's "blending" claims!

Three cheers for Madison and his convictions in keeping taxpayer dollars from supporting religions that one may not agree with.

Bob Dutko: Defending the Untruth

If you routinely listen to Bob Dutko, you know that he claims that his beliefs are backed up by "science, logical, and intellectual reasoning." This is the phrase he uses when promoting his syndicated show Defending the Truth. However, Bob's recent statements regarding immunizations and autism show that what he really is doing is defending lies.

On Friday, Bob discussed the recent court ruling confirming that there is no link between immunizations and autism. Curiously, Bob admitted that there is no scientific evidence to support his claims that immunizations cause autism. However, he said that he can't ignore the anecdotal evidence!

I nearly fell off my chair at this point. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence! It is the opposite of scientific evidence and a logical fallacy!

Bob went on to quote a "paper" by a psychologist named Bernard Rimland. Dr. Rimland, now deceased, was the parent of an autistic child. The "paper" that Bob quoted made some fantastic claims, such as "thousands of parents report with their home videos" that their children have autism after getting a vaccine.

As I noted in a previous post, there have been many scientific studies performed to show that there is no causal link between receiving immunizations and developing autism. One of those studies looked at the health records of 537,303 Danish children. When comparing the vaccinated children to unvaccinated children, researchers found no correlation between vaccination and the development of an autistic disorder.

Whose word am I to trust on this matter? A dead man, whose own child has autism, who claims to have viewed thousands of videotapes from other distraught parents or the comprehensive study of over the medical records of a half million children?

I'm gonna go with the latter. Why won't Bob rely on actual evidence?

A Letter to Bob

Reader Audioguy64 recently sent a letter to Bob. That letter is copied below. Of course, Audioguy64 is patiently awaiting an answer.....

Bob,

I heard you mention the existence of an exhibit of a giant human femur in the Kentucky creation museum. This seemed highly unlikely to me but since I have never been to that museum and I know that you have talked about going there before, I thought that I would give you the benefit of the doubt and do a little digging on the subject. Unfortunately, I found no mention of such an exhibit on the Kentucky museum's website http://www.creationmuseum.org/, but I did find two other creation museums that boast of such an exhibit.

The first is Kent Hovind's Dinosaur Adventure Land http://www.dinosauradventureland.com/ in Florida and the other is Joe Taylor's Mt. Blanco Museum http://mtblanco.com/index.htm in Texas. The reason I found this interesting is because Kent Hovind's exhibit contains a "replica" of the giant femur that is on display at the Mt. Blanco Museum in Texas. In fact, Mr. Hovind can be seen on videotape stating this fact in Part 2 of his Creation Seminar Series available on his website. So there is no actual "bone" on display at his museum, which by itself is not uncommon in the museum business. The bigger problem is that Mr. Taylor's exhibit in the Mt. Blanco Museum is a "sculpture" that he created based on a description found in an anonymous article sent to him by someone named Jack Wagner in 1996. The statement regarding said article was reprinted on http://www.stevequayle.com/ and reads:

From Joe Taylor

Mr. Jack Wagner sent me the following article in 1996 and asked me to sculpt a human femur the size of the one found in Turkey. As a guide for this model, I used the femur of one of the Malachite Man females.

What we know about this find is from a letter by the man who found it.

The article:

Dear Christian Friends, I was born and lived in the Middle East from 1938 to 1968. I was Ain-Tell and Euphrates water works Engineer and was very interested in archaeology and history and had some very interesting findings, some of which may sound unbelievable. I have brought with me a few silex arrow heads, etc., from the very battle-field where King Nebuchadnezzar and Pharo-Necho's armies fought. And what about the giants mentioned in Genesis? In south-east Turkey in the Euphrates Valley and in Homs and at Uran-Zohra, tombs of about four meters long once existed, but now roads and other construction work has destroyed the spots. At two places, when unearthed because of construction work, the leg bones were measured about 120 cms (47.24 inches). It sounds unbelievable. I have lived with my family at Ain-Tell for more than 14 years at the very spot where King Nebuchadnezzar had his headquarters after the battle of Charcamish, where I dug the graves of kings' officers and found their skeletons like sponge, and when you touch them they become like white ash, with spears and silex and obsidian tools and ammunition laying by.

So, what I did find out is that Mr. Taylor sells "replica" casts of a "sculpted" femur at his museum and website for $450 that comes with a "to-size drawing of a giant human skeleton from its toes to its wrists" and is apparently where Mr. Hovind obtained his "exhibit." In addition, this "sculpture" is based on bones from the Malachite find and as documented on http://paleo.cc/paluxy/moab-man.htm Malachite man is also known as Moab Man and the Moab Man/Malachite Man bones represent a number of intrusive burials in the Dakota Sandstone. The bones evidently represent intentional or accidental entombments of native Americans in a mining environment. As reported by a number of conventional workers and even some creationist authors, the bones are largely unfossilized, of normal size and of essentially modern appearance, except for the greenish stain. Mr. Taylor's sculpture is not even based on written measurements of the supposed Middle East find which creates a whole host of problems in itself. But I'll ignore those for now. Not surprisingly, I cannot find any evidence of the existence of an actual "bone" giant human femur that can be viewed anywhere in the world or has been written about by an actual archaeologist in any type of scientific journal or even a lay magazine like Discover for that matter. So my question to you is, Does the creation museum in Kentucky have a "real" giant human femur or a copy of Mr. Taylor's sculpted femur? If it is a casted exhibit, do you have any credible documentation of the existence of the actual artifact that can be viewed anywhere in the world? If not, I must conclude that you have simply regurgitated more undocumented "creationist baloney" instead of citing actual documented hard evidence to support your belief in pre-flood giants.

Anxiously awaiting the evidence,

Audioguy64

Bob Lies About the Stimulus

Today, Bob outright lied regarding the economic stimulus bill, currently pending before Congress. Here's a small portion of his rant. Bob stated that the bill will prevent public colleges and universities from allowing Bible study or "private prayer time" in the dorms, if that institution were to take stimulus money for building renovation. He even asserted that the ACLU would be able to prohibit "any kind of religious expression going on, even during private time."

What a load of horseshit.

The language in question reads as such:

No funds awarded under this section may be used for ... modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities (i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission.

That language says nothing about prohibiting religious expression in any way, shape, or form! In fact, this language has been standard in federal education spending bills for nearly 50 years. Don't believe me? Here's some excerpts from statutes going back to 1963.

Has this language prevented Bible study in public universities? Has it prevented religious expression during "private time"? Has it prevented religious groups from using university facilities?

OF COURSE NOT.

Campus Crusade for Christ meets in buildings all over the MSU campus. The Muslim Students Association at Wayne State assembles every Thursday in the library. Hillel at Michigan makes ample use of the university's facilities.

This SAME provision has been used in spending bills for decades and doesn't do ANY of the things that Bob says it's going to do.

The truly insane thing is that Bob should be happy about the language of this bill. Since he is opposed to Mormonism, he should be pleased that the University of Utah can't use taxpayer money to build a Mormon Temple. Since Bob thinks Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult, you'd think he'd be tickled pink that the State University of New York can't build a Watchtower learning complex. And since Bob thinks that Muslims are all going to hell, why would he oppose language that keeps Wayne State from building a Mosque on the center of campus?

Bob and Vaccinations

Bob has a paranoid distrust of vaccines, and stated that he has not vaccinated his children. Frequently, he allows anti-vaccination quack Mary Tocco on his show. (Mary sells her lectures on DVD for a profit, just like Bob. Who could have guessed?)

Much of the modern anti-vaccination furor was supported by a 1998 study published in the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet. The study purported that a link existed between the MMR vaccine and autism. Well, surprise surprise, the Times of London is now reporting that the data used in the study was completely faked. Of course, for people in the reality-based world this isn't a surprise at all, as numerous other studies have failed to show any link between vaccination and autism.

So, will Bob comment on this latest refutation of the anti-vax crowd? Nope.

For some strange reason, Bob wants to keep his listeners in a state of ignorance so they'll forgo vaccinations, and endanger the health of the population as a whole.

Bob Dutko: fearlessly endangering the public health!

(h/t Pharyngula)

Bob Responds Part II: The Bobbo Strikes Back!

After my last post, Bob wrote me back! Again, here is his original, unedited reply followed by my response. Enjoy!

--------------------

If I weren't such a slow non-typist, it would be easier for me to address all your points by e-mail, but I'll take just one. I've never said Catholics (or anyone for that matter) "must" accept Creation over Evolution, or that it is, as you say "necessary to salvation". Of course, that doesn't change the fact that I do honestly believe Darwinian Evolution to be false, as I repeatedly state. When I have read the arguments and counter arguments and debates between Creation scientists and evolutionary scientists, I sincerely believe the Creationists arguments are more sound, so that's the opinion I speak and promote. My original e-mail to you was referencing the fact that I know there are plenty of talk show hosts, celebrities, etc., who are on the other side. People like Bill Maher, Alec Baldwin, Al Gore, etc. These people make dogmatic (and some could say "arrogant") claims that what they believe is "absolutely true" according to what they consider "common sense, science and logic". I disagree with these people and attempt to debate their claims, but I don't feel anger or hatred towards them, as it seems you do for me. That's the main point I was making.

Take care,

Bob

--------------------

Bob,

It was my mistake in thinking that you valued my opinion. You asked me why I dislike you, so, naturally, I assumed you would read my letter and take it seriously. I see now that it was a silly assumption. I don't know why I'm bothering to reply.

Let's cut to the chase: It's your arrogance that makes you so unlikeable. You are a puffed-up pseudo-intellectual who fails to understand most of the subjects you opine about.

Let's go back to my original example: Evolution. You claim to have studied the arguments and counter-arguments, and come down firmly on the side of creationism. Really? Where did you complete your course of studies in the biological sciences? You've never been a college student, yet you can successfully refute evolution? You don't even have a basic understanding of how science works, let alone the talent to refute evolution. If you believe that "science" should be redefined to include the paranormal, then you aren't speaking from authority, you're speaking from profound ignorance. Science is an empirical method for discovering and understanding how the physical world works. If you redefine it to include the paranormal, you're engaged in promoting superstition, not science. So you'll forgive me if I doubt your authority on science.

Laughably, you make the claim that that belief in creationism isn't necessary for salvation. Seriously? You, personally, accept the Bible as literally true, including the idiotic notion that the universe is a mere 6000 years old. You reject theistic evolution, dismissing any interpretation of Genesis that allows for God to use evolution, because it can lead a person to "throw out the whole Bible...If interpretation of Scripture can be twisted that far from what it really says, you can twist anything in the Bible to say whatever you want it to." If the Bible cannot be "twisted" to deny the literal truth of Genesis then my question still stands: Is accepting the Bible and its creation myth as literally true necessary for salvation? If not, then why do you care if Christians believe in evolution? If it is, then you must denounce the Catholic church as promoting unchristian teachings. So which is it, Bob?

But I digress. Not only do I find you arrogant, I find you to be opportunistic and selfish. When it comes right down to it, you're nothing more than a marketing rep selling a product. Your product is conservative politics wrapped in a gloss of Christianity. Crawford Broadcasting is a for profit company, instilling brand loyalty and selling ad space through the promotion of Jesus, Inc. Tell me, which transmission shop would Jesus have endorsed? What chapter and verse of the Bible permits plastic surgery? I can't seem to locate any passage in John's Gospel that says "Do thy breasts sag? Verily, I say unto thee, lift them! Fill them with saline, and lift them unto the Lord!"

You spend a significant amount of time attacking the "liberal Christians" who dared vote for President Obama. Yet, you spend precious little time correcting the the con artists who spread the prosperity gospel. Pat Robertson is worth between $150 to $200 million dollars. John Hagee makes around $1.25 million per year. Joyce Meyers lives in a 10,000-square-foot Cape Cod style estate home with a guest house and a garage that can be independently heated and cooled and can hold up to eight cars. Tell me, is it the mission of Christ to make some people enormously wealthy while the poor suffer?

Which leads me back to one of my original points in my first e-mail, namely, that you lack compassion. Your theology emphasizes correct belief over correct action, causing you to be more concerned with pseudo-intellectual games rather than confronting the suffering of people. Honestly, which would you rather be: Right or compassionate? If a 15-year-old girl is seeking an abortion because her step-father raped her, are you more concerned for the 15-year-old or the embryo? Isn't it a cause for celebration if two people love each other enough to commit their lives together, regardless if they're homosexual? Does it matter if Muslim children in Iraq are killed by American bombs?

But you're not going to change your mind. Because, really, you're not curious about why I dislike you. You're so full of self-righteousness and self-satisfaction that you can't possibly conceive that I have a valid point to make. And, of course, you have to get back to selling CDs and face lifts.

After all, you're praying God will make you rich, right?

Irl

Bob and Atheists - Part I

I'm an atheist. I don't make a big deal about it, because my lack of a belief in gods (including the Abrahamic God of Christianity) has nothing to do with the fact that Bob is either lying or fundamentally wrong on a whole host of topics.

Well, it turns out that Bob is also wrong about why the vast majority of atheists are atheists. Here's Bob's opinion on the topic from January 27:

My theory has always been that ... there's really no such thing as an atheist. That most of these people are angry at God about something or they emotionally don't like something about God, so the way they lash out is to deny his existence. Of course, atheists would be offended by that notion...

Personally, I wouldn't say that I'm "offended" by Bob's "thoughts." It's better described as a general amazement as to how any somewhat "rational" person could reach a profoundly stupid conclusion!

First, we're all born as atheists. Newborns and children don't have any belief in gods and must be taught the existence of God. In my case, I was never taught to believe in God, therefore I never developed any belief in any god. So, Bob's assertion that I'm "angry" at God is ridiculous, because I can't be angry at someone/something that I've don't believe in! Saying that I'm angry at God is the same as saying that I'm angry at the Easter Bunny. And I've never been angry at the Easter Bunny because he brings me chocolate.

Second, to a certain extent, we're all atheists. Most people do not believe that Zeus and Thor are gods with supernatural powers. Therefore, most people are atheists with respect to Zeus and Thor. Surely, Bob isn't a non-believer in Zeus and Thor because he's angry at them. He just doesn't believe in them! Why can't Bob just realize that the difference between atheists and followers of Abrahamic religions is that our disbelief simply extends one god further?

Bob: Please stop trying to demonize atheists as some sort of unreasonable, anger-filled heathens. It's simply not a logical conclusion and, of course, not supported by any evidence whatsoever.