Nobody is Afraid of the Big Bad Bobbo!

Bobbo likes to play up the idea that his beliefs are supported with common sense.  He pretends that he is so full of sound, practical judgment that formal training or expertise isn't necessary.  Have a listen:

 

Bobbo makes three major points in his invective.

First, he thinks that evolutionary scientists are "afraid" to let creationists present their bullshit.  I've covered this issue before, so there's no need to address it again.
 
Second, Bob believes that evolution is "unproven."  But here's an important question that Bobbo is never asked, nor will he respond to:  What evidence would Bobbo accept that demonstrates the evolution is scientific fact?

• Would Bobbo accept the results of an experiment which forced E. coli bacteria to adapt or perish showed that, in a pinch, they were capable of improvising a novel molecular tool to save their skins? 

• Would Bobbo accept observations of an adaptation that allowed tropical blue moon butterfly to develop a way of fighting back against parasitic bacteria? 

• Would Bobbo accept the observation of the London Underground Mosquito, which evolved from a different type of mosquito to become a distinct species?

Bobbo won't answer these questions, so I'll answer them for him:  No, no and no.  Realistically, Bobbo will never accept any evidence that demonstrates the veracity of evolution.  He doesn't approach the subject scientifically by examining hard data, he approaches it the way a four year old approaches eating his vegetables:  He screams, throws himself on the ground and cries until someone listens.  Bobbo has made up his mind, so he's lying if he pretends to be impartial on the subject.

As for Bobbo's third point, that Creationists have "mountains" of "scientific" evidence, but it's "censored" by evolutionary scientists, I challenge him to produce one scientifically verifiable observation in support of the Biblical account of creation.  This observation must be on par with the three I've cited above, observable and falsifiable through the scientific method.  Hint:  Bobbo won't do it, because he can't do it.

Finally, Bobbo thinks that because actual scientists don't want to deal with superstitious buffoons that they are hiding from a fight, and "common sense" demonstrates the weakness in evolution.

Hardly.  Scientists aren't "censoring" anything.  They are just unwilling to humor superstitious buffoons who refuse to deal in hard evidence.

Finally, Bobbo's appeal to "common sense" is specious.  Bobbo's idea of common sense is just his collection ignorance and prejudice.  Honestly, Bobbo's appeals to "common sense" is an admission that his tiny, flaccid arguments lack the fecundity to educate all but the most ignorant of minds.

In other words, Bobbo is an insufferable dolt.

Simple Plus Stupid Divided by the Bible Equals Bob Dutko!

For all of Bob's bluster, there are some things Bob just can't do.  He won't challenge a theoretical physicist on how the laws of thermodynamics work.  He won't challenge a epidemiologist on the efficacy of vaccines.  He won't challenge a practicing evolutionary biologist on how epigenetics influences natural selection.

Bob won't do these things because he can't.  For all of his bluster, Bob is an amateurish, simplistic man whose lack of formal training prevents him from dealing with complex issues.  For example, this is Bob explaining why, for him, "life" begins at conception:

 

So Bob has two reasons that a fertilized egg is "alive" at conception:  First, it has  complete, unique genetic information, distinguishing it from all other fertilized eggs.  Secondly, Bob has the Bible.  Specifically, Isaiah 46:3.

Examining Bob's first argument we can see the claim is straightforward:  Because the genetic sequence is complete and unique, all it needs to do is develop to be a complete human.  The lack of arms and legs and blood and heart doesn't detract from the fact that it is "alive," and because it's alive, it is a person.  Therefore abortion should be outlawed.

Now, personally, I don't know of anyone who claims that a fertilized egg isn't "alive," so Bob is starting with a straw man.  Nevertheless, and more importantly, note that Bob's claim is inherently reductionistic:  To be a person, all you must possess is unique DNA.  It's not DNA plus anything else, it's simply unique DNA.

Following Bob's logic, abortion should be permitted in pregnancies involving identical twins. Remember, identical twins occur when a fertilized egg splits into two separate embryos with each embryo possessing identical DNA.  Thus, aborting one of the embryos is completely permissible because it would cause no loss of unique genetic information.  Thus, using Bob's own argument, we have found an instance in which Bob must agree that abortion is completely acceptable.

Another massive flaw in Bob's reasoning are instances of embryos with damaged genetic information.  Down syndrome is congenital disorder caused by having an extra 21st chromosome.  In other words, an embryo with Downs syndrome has extra, albeit unique, DNA.  Using Bob's argument, does having more DNA make a person more "alive?"  What, exactly, is the relationship between DNA and being "alive?"  Now much damage to the DNA can occur before the fertilized egg isn't "alive?"

(Yes, I'll grant that my Down syndrome example is absurd.  But all I'm doing is testing Bob's claim.  These conclusions are the consequences of Bob's argument, which is not only absurd, it's simplistic and stupid.  Bob can't see the problems inherent in his claims because he denies the true complexity of the issues he babbles about.)

As for his second claim, that Isaiah 46:3 somehow proves that God instills person-hood upon conception, Bob is clearly distorting the text!  Isaiah 46 is God's statement to the Israelites in which He claims to have protected and cared for them since their infancy!  The word "conceive" doesn't appear in a proper translation of the text!

Not only is Bob's argument completely ridiculous, he has to distort the Bible to achieve his goals!

Doesn't it make you wonder what kind of company Crawford Broadcasting is when they employ such a shyster?

Bob Loves Guns! Just like Jesus!

Bob makes it clear that his political positions are informed by the Bible. If Jesus taught something, it is paramount that those teachings be incorporated into the politics of today's world.

Among Jesus' teachings, you'll find various statements about peace. In Luke 6:27-32 Jesus taught

But to you who hear I say, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic. Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. For if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them.

The Gospel of Matthew is even more explicit. In Matthew 5:9, Jesus taught "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God."

Because Bob is such a good Christian, you would expect him to take every opportunity to promote peace as the correct political view.

However, when Bob was asked about people openly carrying guns at the Art, Beats and Eats festival, Bob said:



Let's review: For the Children of God to be peacemakers, Jesus taught his followers to be willing to turn the other cheek and give away more than what is taken from them. Bob, on the other hand, is comforted in knowing that some people are willing to carry guns and shoot "bad guys."

Beyond the fact that Bob is ignoring Jesus' explicit teaching, Bob is making several revealing assumptions. First, Bob assumes that there are people around him that are "bad" and carrying guns. Second, Bob assumes that the "good" guy carrying the gun has the noble intentions of protecting Bob and his family. Finally, Bob assumes that the police and local government (made up of We the People) are unwilling or incapable of protecting him at a public event.

In summary, Bob has no faith that God or the Government can or will protect him, making guns in public absolutely necessary. Bob also distrusts absolute strangers.

Need I remind you that Bob prostitutes the Bible to make a buck?

God, Bob and Dermatobia hominis

Bob is a young earth creationist, and believes that the creation of account found in Genesis is a word-for-word description of how the universe came to be. Bob believes that the book of Genesis is fact:



If evolution isn't true, and God personally crafted each species for a particular niche on this planet, then what does this tell us about God?

It tells us that God has a sick mind.

Examine the family of insects that fall in the order Oestridae. They are commonly known as botflies, a group of large stout bodied flies that resemble bumblebees. They have an interesting characteristic: They are true parasites. If you don't know, a parasite is an animal or plant that lives in or on a host, another animal or plant, and obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host.

Among the 150 known species of botflies is Dermatobia Hominis, also known as the human botfly. The life cycle of a human botfly is, in a word, revolting. An adult botfly ambushes a mosquito in mid-flight. While holding the mosquito captive, the botfly lays eggs on the underside of the mosquito's wings. Once the mosquito is freed, it goes on its merry way, looking for a human blood supply. If you are fortunate enough to be bitten by a mosquito carrying Dermatobia's eggs, your body heat causes the eggs to release from the wings and land on your skin. The eggs hatch and release a maggot, who promptly burrow into your flesh, surviving by eating your skin and muscle. The maggot will live inside a human being for six weeks.

Does the very thought of the Botfly make your skin crawl? Probably.

Here's the rub: In Job 38:4-5, God states that He determined the size of the earth. God took measurements, laid pillars and sank cornerstones. But if Job is to be taken as literally as Bob believes, then God designed, planned, and implemented the existence of the human botfly.

Why would God do such a thing? Why would God create the botfly, who can only survive by eating the living flesh of human beings? And it gets worse: Human beings are host to far more than 100 parasite species, with quite a few of these only found in humans. Isn't it the sign of a disturbed mind to create something so horrific?

So if Bob is going to claim that God created the universe as-is, he must argue that God created all the parasites, including blood flukes, tape worms, and Guinea worms. But Bob won't, because he is selling a super-happy-fun version of God, unwilling to give facts and account for the horror God allegedly created.

Bob Almost Says The Right Thing. Almost.

On Tuesday, Bob showed we have one thing in common: We both can't stand Fred Phelps.

For those of you who might not know, Rev. Phelps is the pastor of Westboro Baptist Church and is so against homosexuals, he goes to military funerals to protest His reason? He believes that troops are dying in war because America has become tolerant of gay people.

Yeah, he's a scumbag. And even Bob thinks so.

Problem with Bob is that in countering the arguments of Rev. Phelps, he decided to read off Bible verses saying that we should love our enemies and do good to those who persecute us (Christians).

But Bob doesn't believe the rules apply to him. He believes it's fine to demonize people (even other Christians) who have different political opinions than him. When it comes to the war in Iraq, he believes that instead of withdrawing and putting troops into the just war in Afghanistan, we should continue an unnecessary war in Iraq. And while I haven't heard him say it (I don't listen to Bob as much as I used to), he probably feels the same way about Iran.

If only Bob agreed with his own words, his world view would be much better.

Bobbo on Science: The Wonders of Ignorance!

Hey Bobbo,

Sorry I haven't written in a while. I haven't been able to listen to your show for quite some time, but today I made time. I know you've missed me, because of all the plaintive e-mail you've sent, asking me if I'm okay. Your caring is touching. It's very Christian of you.

Anyway, in listening to todays show, I heard you explain that because the story of Genesis lists the order in which God created the objects in the universe, that theistic evolution is wrong. You also said that science and the book of Genesis are compatible.

Um, what?

Here's the thing Bobbo: Science doesn't care what the Bible says about creation. Mainly because the Bible is not, and never was, a treatise on science.

But I understand why you think they're compatible. You don't understand science!

It's strange, Bobbo. In all your blathering about science I've never heard you once explain the scientific method!

And you know something? I don't think you can. So here's my challenge to you Bobbo: Explain, in detail, the scientific method. And once you've expounded on the step-by-step process that is the scientific method, explain your design for a scientific experiment that demonstrates the existence of God.

I bet you can't.

Your in Dawkins,

Irl

Jesus Commanded Prayer, Right?

Hey Bobbo,

I think it's really nice that everyone over at WMUZ prays for the troops.

But here's what I don't get: Jesus specifically commanded us to pray for our enemies. How come you don't?

Luke 6:27-36 states:

But to you who hear I say, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic. Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. For if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do the same. If you lend money to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit (is) that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, and get back the same amount. But rather, love your enemies and do good to them, and lend expecting nothing back; then your reward will be great and you will be children of the Most High, for he himself is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

Bobbo, I've heard you pray for the troops, listeners, the and President. But I've never, ever heard you pray for the terrorists. Why don't you want to follow Christ's commandments?

Yours in the Republican Party,

Irl

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?

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.

Bob's "Reasoning" Insults Faith

Faith, according to chapter 11 of Hebrews, is "the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen." For Christians, faith allows one to "understand that the universe was ordered by the word of God," making the "visible [come] into being through the invisible."

But what does this mean?

To start with, it means that faith is not produced by the intellect. No matter how forcefully one exercises the mind, faith will not germinate as a result. Faith is "the act of the intellect assenting to a Divine truth owing to the movement of the will, which is itself moved by the grace of God." Faith, stated plainly, is a divine gift. When God moves human will, faith is produced.

Consequently, since faith is the divine gift of God acting upon the will, it stands that faith is the evidence for the existence of God, not a product of arguments for the existence of God.

With this in hand, I want to ask a question: Does Bob Dutko have any faith at all? I don't think he does.

First of all, Bob constantly claims that Christianity is the most "reasonable" of all religions. To support his proposition, Bob points to the Bible. Bob uses the claims Christ made about his own Divine nature, the various miracles performed by Christ, and the 500 witnesses who attested to witnessing the resurrected Christ as historical proof of Christ's identity. Using the Bible, Bob reaches the logical conclusion that his faith is the most "reasonable."

But if Bob had faith, why would he need to prove anything? Remember, faith is a product of God's action upon human will. If he had faith, he could simply rest upon his faith and need not prove anything.

But Bob is even worse than this! He suborns science to "prove" his faith.

I've already covered how Bob distorts the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the Fact of Evolution. Bob even makes wild-eyed claims about dinosaurs living on Noah's Ark! All of this in an attempt to prove his faith is the product of "reason!"

But faith isn't the product of reason! Faith is gift from God that makes us leap into action, no matter what the evidence shows! In the face of true faith, science and argument must stand mute.

Do you want to see truth faith? Look to Mother Theresa. It's faith that led her to care for the sick and dying of Calcutta. It's faith that led Dorothy Day to campaign for the poor, forsaken, hungry, and homeless. It's faith that led Martin Luther King Jr. to become a political activist and head the Civil Rights Movement.

Is there anything that Bob does that reflects a person moved by faith? Not to me. All I hear Bob do is blame liberals for all social ills, attack Islam, and claim that he can browbeat anybody who doesn't agree with him.

By insisting that his faith is "reasonable," Bob insults God by arguing His Divine gift isn't enough.

How very sad.

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 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 Loves to Gossip

Have I ever told you the story of when I met Bobbo? I remember it like it was yesterday.

Imagine my surprise when I'm in a local Meijer's store and see a guy that looks like Bob Dutko. I know what Bobbo looks like because he has his picture on the WMUZ website. Being curious, I approached this stranger.

"Excuse me," I started, "Are you Bob Dutko?"

His response was shocking. Bob looked at me and sneered, "What the h--l do you want?"

"Well," I said, "I listen to your show and just wanted to introduce myself."

Then the obscenities started. "I don't give a flying s--t who you are, just leave me the f--k alone!"

"Excuse me?"

"You c--k suckers are always approaching me, bothering me, wanting to talk to me! Just because I'm on the G-d d--n radio doesn't mean I'm your friend! F--k off and get your faggoty a-- away from me!"

Stunned and feeling like I was in an episode of Deadwood, I could only walk away. I never thought that someone who puts on a Christian face in public could be so offensive in private. So I left the store, disillusioned, understanding that Bob needs only to be Christian in public and his private life can be entirely different.

By the way, I've never met Bob Dutko. I made the entire story up.

Offensive, isn't it?

But I do have a point: I manufactured this story to demonstrate the technique that Bob uses when attacking Hillary Clinton. Last week, Bob has recounted all sorts of personal anecdotes to prove that Hillary Clinton is "unfit" for the office of the President. He repeated the same claims on today's show. This is nothing more than Bob attacking a sitting U.S. Senator by spreading gossip.

Of course, Bob defends the people spreading these stories by appealing to honor. Bob approves of gossip if it comes from a person who carried the nuclear football. Bob approves of gossip if it comes from a former Presidential bodyguard. Bob approves of gossip if comes from someone who worked in the White House kitchen.

However, it doesn't matter where the stories come from because gossip is a sin.

The Bible defines gossip is idle talk about someone else behind their back, usually with malicious intent. It's wrong for Bob to spread these stories because they have no other purpose but to destroy reputations. It's also really important to note that Bob is quoting from books, where people are making money trading in this trash. The fact that these stories are told with the profit margin in mind should raise serious questions about trusting any of them.

The Bible is clear in condemning gossips. Sirach 28:13 states, "Cursed be gossips and the double-tongued, for they destroy the peace of many."

And what of those who listen to gossip? Sirach 28:16 states, "Whoever heeds [gossip] has no rest, nor can he dwell in peace."

So Bob Dutko is not only actively sinning, he's spreading discord among his listeners.

I just hope Bob is a Christian in private, because he he sure isn't one in public.

Bob is a Whitewashed Tomb

If you listen to Bobbo long enough, you'll start to see patterns in how he handles these things. He has a grab-bag of tried-and-true rhetorical devices, all designed to divert attention away from the bile being spewed by the moonbat wing of the Republican party.

On today's "Newshour," Bob showed us one such rhetorical devices. It's best understood as "Remembering Democratic Sins." To use this device is quite easy: Read a list of "sins" committed by Democrats, compare them with the conservative sin, and announce that Democrats are far more evil that anything Republicans do.

Bobbo demonstrated this rhetorical device in his coverage of the controversy surrounding Ann Coulter's remarks at CPAC. As you know, Ann Coulter called John Edwards a "faggot" and managed to get condemned by the John McCain, Rudy Guliani, and Mitt Romney. After mildly condemning Coulter, Bob took a different tack.

Bob enlisted the help of the the "Reverend" Pat Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition and cranked up this device to full power. After Bob and Mahoney talked about how funny and smart Ann Coulter is, they started to list all the sins of Democrats. We got to hear about how Bill Maher said bad things about Dick Cheney, how Howard Dean called Republicans names and how the media doesn't want to report about the bad things that Democrats say.

But there's a problem here and Mahoney alluded to it. Ann Coulter is a professing Christian. If that's true, Bob has a responsibilty to hold his Christian sister to account for her transgressions. Galatians 6:1 is quite clear: "Brothers, even if a person is caught in some transgression, you who are spiritual should correct that one in a gentle spirit, looking to yourself, so that you also may not be tempted."

Instead of correcting Coulter, Bob downplays and dismisses her transgressions by listing the supposed sins of Democrats and saying "See, Ann's not so bad! She's funny and a sister in the Lord! She's OK!"

By weakly rebuking Coulter and downplaying her transgressions, Bob proves that he is more concerned with the outward appearances and maintaining political power, not with ensuring the Christian community actually follows Christ.

If you look up Matthew 23:27-28, you can see how Christ described people who are concerned with outward appearances. He called them "whitewashed tombs." Christ said they are "beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men's bones and every kind of filth. Even so, on the outside you appear righteous, but inside you are filled with hypocrisy and evildoing."

Sounds like a decent description of Ann Coulter and Bob Dutko.

Jesus: Lord of War

If there is one thing that is most disturbing about Bob, it’s his unequivocal support for the Iraqi war.

On today’s “Best of” show, Bob once again stated his support for the war and Bush’s plan to place another 20,000 troops in Iraq. Bob supports the war because he believes that we need working democracies in the Middle East and it’s better to fight the terrorists there because it prevents them from executing terrorism here.

Regardless of what you think of George Bush or the Iraqi War, I want to ask a very simple question: How can Bob, a self-professed Christian, support this war in good conscience?

Violence was something Jesus frequently spoke about. He didn’t like it. In Matthew 5:39, Jesus stated, “When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.” In Matthew 26:51-52, Jesus’ servant struck off the ear of the high priest’s servant. What was Christ’s reaction? Jesus told his servant to put the sword away because “all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” And, most importantly, in Matthew 5:9, Jesus told us who shall be called the Children of God: The peacemakers.

So Jesus abhorred violence. In fact, for Christ, violence was within the purview of God only. In Romans 12:19-20 Jesus says “…do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’ Instead of seeking vengeance, Christ spoke on how we should treat our enemies: "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head."

To support his idea that Jesus was pro-war, Bob uses Matthew 10:34. True, in this passage Jesus did claim to bring a sword. The purpose of the sword was to cleave man against his father and daughter against her mother. Reading the passage in context, it’s clear that it’s about separating the faithful form the non-believers. It isn’t a commandment to his followers, it's a description of the effect on those who take Jesus’ message to heart.

When Bob distorts the message of the Bible to support his bloodlust, he distorts Jesus. For Bob, Jesus is no longer a heavenly messenger, sent to heal the weak and infirm. He is a harsh patriarch sent to inflict wounds upon anyone who disagrees.

By doing this, Bob robs Jesus of the title of “Prince of Peace.” He does, however, grant Jesus a new title: “Lord of War.”