The Danger of Playing God

Dallasblog.com | Tom Pauken:

“Abortion remains one of the most controversial issues in our society. Pro-life supporters like myself and others believe it is wrong to take the life of the innocent unborn. Who are we to play God and decide for ourselves which of the unborn babies are to live or die? The London Times reported recently about a doctor in Milan who played God with the lives of unborn twins in a story that ended in a double tragedy.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Yes, this story is a tragedy. But Tom Pauken sees it more as an opportunity for demagogy. You almost see his wicked glee as he opens his newspaper and recognizes a chance to exploit a family's suffering for his political gain. Tom Pauken delights in demonizing the grieving parents. Playing God. Baby killers. Nazis.

George B. Chamberlain lets Tom Pauken have it with both barrels in his response on Dallas Blog. I reproduce it here because I suspect it will disappear under Tom Pauken's iron hand of censorship in that forum.

Mr. Chairman,

The %!*## person Texas Republicans helped put in the whitehouse is doing exactly that. He is playing god. He is about to attack another country, his administration is falling apart and you decided to address the abortion issue one more time. Texas Republicans seem incapable of setting priorities. You are pandering sir.

Honor the Texas flag

Dallas Morning News | Greg Abbott:

Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible.

“One state under God. Those four words are new to the state pledge of allegiance, and, despite protests, they should stay. ... Neutrality is the aim. The First Amendment does not permit government to endorse religion, but neither can it exhibit hostility toward religion. It's a delicate balance, to be sure, but including the words 'under God' in the Texas Pledge successfully and constitutionally walks that line.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Nonsense. Adding "under God" to the Texas pledge is not neutrality. It clearly and plainly endorses religion. D'oh. That's the whole point, isn't it? And it endorses a particular variant of religion, besides. A simple test for the Attorney General is this: would he support adding "under Allah" to the Texas pledge?

That said, this brazen act of endorsing religion will probably pass Constitutional muster. There are enough precedents, from the "under God" in the pledge of allegiance to the United States flag to the "In God We Trust" on our currency to the "So help me God" in courtroom oaths. All of these, too, are plainly and clearly acts of government endorsement of religion, but they are so well established that no court will dare rule them unconstitutional now.

So, let's move on. Let the fundamentalists have their daily endorsement of God by government edict. But don't be hypocritical about it and claim that adding "under God" is somehow neutral, somehow isn't a government endorsement of religion. Don't insult our intelligence, Attorney General Abbott.

'Gay' activist accused of illegal heterosexual lewd activity

DallasNews Religion | Jeffrey Weiss:

“Not really. And I'm just wondering why I've never heard of that happening. ... No matter what you or I think about the morality of homosexuality versus heterosexuality, when was the last time you heard of ... a putatively gay man arrested for trying to hire a female prostitute?”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Jeffrey Weiss' idle question provoked much reader response. "Steve" (apparently Steve Kellmeyer), a public speaker and self-published author of religious works, thinks he knows why gays don't hire female prostitutes. Some of his arguments are just plain ludicrous, but others, while sounding reasonable, show such a fundamental lack of understanding of science that they deserve a serious response.

First, some of Steve's more ludicrous statements:

"Homosexual sex is not only illicit, but invalid - it cannot be ordered towards life-giving. Perhaps that's why homosexuals don't pursue opposite sex prostitutes - it would be a step up, and our fallen nature tends to bring us down."

Basically Steve tells us that homosexual sex is more sinful than adultery. More sinful than even rape. In fact, Steve says that masturbation is more sinful than rape. Steve says his reasoning comes from Thomas Aquinas. I'll just note that if the sinfulness of one's sex life is proportional to how much it deviates from the purpose of procreation, then Aquinas' own priestly celibacy would top the list of sins.

"God is the source of life. The Holy Spirit is the Lord and Giver of Life. Given that fact, ..."

Fact? Hope, I'll give him. Opinion or faith-based belief, maybe. But fact? Come on. If you can make up the facts, you can draw any conclusions you want.

"Morality, being a science of divine knowledge, ..."

This is a travesty of the usual meaning of science, but Steve's aim appears to be to muddy the differences between science and religion. He can call religion a science (and call science faith-based), but that doesn't make it so.

"Physics, chemistry, biology, math, etc., are all faith-based systems in much the same way theology is. Them's the facts. Go look it up."

This reveals a profound misunderstanding of science.

Religion attempts to define Truth. Truth can't be proved or empirically demonstrated, so it must be taken on faith.

Science takes nothing on faith. If it can't be observed, science has nothing to say about it. And even if it can be observed, science knows that more than one explanation can fit the observed facts. If a notion is useful in making predictions, scientists will use it. If it isn't useful, scientists will discard it. Scientists are like that, notoriously UNfaithful, just the opposite of religious believers who cling to their faith-based Truth regardless of evidence or logic.

Science doesn't reveal the Truth, only more or less accurate models of the way things behave. Scientists used to believe that those models reflected some underlying reality of the universe, but even that notion has been called into question by 20th century quantum physics. More and more, it appears possible that there is no underlying reality separate from our observations. This calls into question the most fundamental assumptions of science, assumptions even Einstein had difficulty letting go of. In the end, he admitted that the quantum model was useful, if not complete. Science never will be complete, as long as scientists don't cut off questions with faith-based answers.

Mathematics makes even less attempt to reveal Truth. Mathematics is a purely human invention, beautiful and elegant and sometimes useful, but ultimately arbitrary. Its foundation is a priori assumptions. Change the a priori assumptions and change the whole edifice. Mathematicians are more than willing to do just that. Geometry can be Euclidean, where straight lines go on forever. Or geometry can be non-Euclidean, where straight lines might eventually bend back on themselves. Both are logically consistent systems and equally valid and elegant. Mathematicians don't care that there is more than one. Newton found one system more useful to make predictions about the universe. Einstein found another system more useful. Mathematics is a tool for physicists. Asking which geometry is the Truth is as non-sensical as asking whether a hammer or saw is the Truth.

So, science is not faith-based. Mathematics is not faith-based. Both recognize that the Truth is beyond their realm. This doesn't bother the scientists or mathematicians, but it drives the religiously faithful crazy. Why they can't be as comfortable with their faith as scientists are comfortable with their lack of faith is an eternal mystery.

"There are harmonies between [natural science, mathematics and theology], but each is faith-based, since each requires the acceptance of assumptions which cannot be rigorously proven or dis-proven by logical analysis alone."

It is true that natural science and mathematics are based on assumptions called axioms or postulates. These are arbitrary. Postulates that lead to useful logical systems or theories of nature tend to get reused a lot. But scientists and mathematicians know that the postulates are simply convenient assumptions. Scientists are eager to devise experiments that will test how useful these assumptions are in making predictions. Assumptions that fail that test are readily dropped in favor of different models based on different assumptions.

Religious assumptions are treated as something quite different -- as universal and eternal truths that are not subject to change. God created the universe. God is good. God became man. God cares deeply and personally about my sex life. Etc. No amount of empirical evidence is allowed to upset one's belief in the fundamental truth of these assumptions. That's not how science works. That's how faith-based religion works. Steve would have you believe there's no difference between science and religion in this regard. He is wrong.

Dallas County Homeowners Win a Victory

Dallasblog.com | Tom Pauken:

“The decision by the Dallas County Commissioners Court to restore the $69,500 property tax exemption for older homeowners at Tuesday’s meeting is a major victory for Dallas homeowners.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

More accurately, it's a major victory for soon-to-be senior citizen homeowners. Namely, Baby Boomers. Today's decision is a loss by young, working-class citizens, homeowners and renters alike, who will be required to pay more than their fair share of taxes in order to preserve a tax break for senior citizen homeowners. It's favoritism. Favoritism not based on need, not based on merit, not based on anything but age. Baby Boomers have had things their way from childhood. They know how to swing their demographic weight around. Today's decision is just a continuation of a lifelong sense of entitlement. It's probably no coincidence that Tom Pauken himself is a Baby Boomer.

Watch the lawsuits start pouring in

Dallas Morning News | Kathy Miller:

“As if they weren't busy enough at this time of year, local schools across Texas are struggling through a legal minefield laid by legislators in Austin last spring. ... The mandate comes in HB 3678, which supporters claimed would protect the right of students to express their religious views in public schools. Sadly, the law is a lesson in what happens when elected officials play politics with the religious faith of families and their children.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

The law was designed to get official, public prayer re-introduced into the school programs. Backers promised that it would clarify the law and reduce lawsuits. It will likely do neither. The ironic conclusion will come when the Christian evangelicals discover that it's not just prayers to Jesus that their children will be forced to participate in. Christian evangelicals had a fit this year when a Hindu led a prayer in the US Senate and when a Muslim said a prayer in the Texas Legislature. Wait until it's their children who have to show the same tolerance in school.

Kenyan Monkeys Accused of Sexual Harrassment

Dallasblog.com | Tom McGregor

“ 'A troop of monkeys has been making ‘lewd signs’ at women and children trying to harvest crops south of Nairobi, and the farmers feel so harassed that Kenya’s Wildlife Service is sending in animal control teams to confront the animals,' according to the Telegraph of London.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

This is what Dallas Blog has sunk to. It was never a serious news source, but at least it showed promise. Yes, there was too much coverage of how bad a person was the latest prisoner put to death in Huntsville, or the latest crime committed by an illegal immigrant, or the latest sign of collapse of Christian civilization in Europe, or how atheism is taking over American schools. There was too much sniping at The Dallas Morning News by former employees (fired or retired, who knows).

But still, there was something refreshing about a blog that also gave space to people like Ed Ishmael and Ken Molberg and allowed a free-wheeling discussion in the reader responses. Their voices are long gone and contrary opinions in the reader responses are now as likely to be censored as allowed. Most stories now attract zero comments.

Lately, Tom McGregor feeds us a steady stream of links to stories from the Times of London, the Telegraph, the Guardian and other British newspapers. Including this story about Kenyan monkeys making lewd gestures. Can the stories on Saddam and Osama's gay wedding and Hillary adopting a space alien baby be far behind?

P.S. No sooner did I post this item when Tom McGregor posted today's Dallas Blog link to another Telegraph story, "Mustached Men Struggle against Discrimination." Impeccable timing, Tom.

And to anyone clicking here to find out about Kenyan monkeys or mustached men, I'm sorry that you won't find any more information here. Next time, go to Dallas Blog.

Mitt on the Mormon massacre

DallasNews Religion | Bruce Tomaso:

“ 'That was a terrible, awful act carried out by members of my faith. There are bad people in any church and it's true of members of my church, too.'
— Republican presidential Mitt Romney, on the 1857 massacre of travellers in a wagon train by Mormon settlers in Utah.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Gov. Romney sidesteps the crux of the issue. That is whether the massacre was ordered by the President of the Church and Mormon hero Brigham Young. It's easy to acknowledge that any church has bad people. It's something else to admit the possibility that an early hero of one's church might have been a murderous zealot.

The Islamic pusherman

DallasNews Religion | Bruce Tomaso:

“The New York Times has a story about how opium production is soaring in Taliban strongholds of Afghanistan. ... Doesn't it seem particularly loathsome that what could be the world's most fundamentalist Muslims organization is engaged (as it has been all along) in producing and selling narcotics?”

Ed Cognoski responds:

The Taliban distinguish between cultivation and use. Opiate production and export that is used to finance jihad and weaken the West is sometimes seen as justified by the Taliban. At the same time, opiate use by Muslims can be condemned and even harshly punished by the Taliban. There's a lot of hair-splitting and hypocrisy in this argument, but war is like that.

Smoking bans

DallasMorningViews | Mike Hashimoto:

“Fort Worth, where the West once began, moved a step closer to banning smoking in all public places. ... Why don't we just fast-forward to a complete ban on growing, manufacturing, distributing and/or possessing tobacco products?”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Because the growing, manufacturing, distributing and/or possessing tobacco products is not a health risk. Smoking is. And smoking in the presence of others threatens their health. Fort Worth's ban on smoking in public places is a reasonable measure to protect the health of the public, without overreaching and forbidding practices in private that affect only the persons who willingly choose to indulge. It's a long-established principle that your right to swing your fist in the air stops at the end of my nose. That doesn't justify laws requiring you to keep your hands in your pockets at all times.

Surely, Mike Hashimoto understands this logic. Why would he even ask the question he does? Perhaps to implicitly suggest that banning smoking in public places is somehow logically and morally equivalent to banning smoking in private? Or maybe that it's at least a slippery slope from the former to the latter? Mr Hashimoto must know the argument is flawed, the logic faulty, but what the heck, if he can get people to believe it, it just might slow down public health regulations, which, I gather, is the outcome his innocent-sounding question is probably intended to promote.

The end of the Rove era in Republican politics

Dallasblog.com | Tom Pauken:

“A few weeks after the Republicans were routed in the November 2006 elections, a longtime Bush Republican from Texas told me that it was time for Karl Rove to go.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

What a complete waste of a golden opportunity. Karl Rove and George Bush made their move to take over Texas government in the early 1990s, when Tom Pauken was chairman of the Republican Party of Texas. By the time Bush and Rove decamped Austin for Washington, D.C., and the White House, Tom Pauken was a footnote to history. Today, he's publishing and writing for an amateurish rightwing rag called Dallas Blog. And missing a golden opportunity to provide a unique personal insight into the early rise to power of Rove and Bush in Texas.

Mr Pauken tells us that Rove was the "consummate political pragmatist [who] used the lessons he learned from Machiavelli’s The Prince to reach the pinnacle of political success" but he fails to give us any first-hand accounts. Karl Rove climbed to power over Tom Pauken's back. It would serve the public good for Tom Pauken to provide a first person account of that.

P.S. Due to Tom Pauken's censorship, this comment cannot be posted on Dallas Blog itself.

Cooler Heads on Global Warming

Dallasblog.com | Caroline Walker:

“Newsweek’s Robert Samuelson weighs in this week on his own publication’s sensational hatchet job against global warming 'deniers.' ”

Ed Cognoski responds:

What an odd, jumbled way of killing the messenger, of blaming the failure of the world to address global warming on those who first sounded the alarm, the environmentalists.

Caroline Walker says that "Samuelson is not attempting to deny that global warming is taking place, but seeking simply to advocate a more rational approach to the problem." Samuelson argues that we ought to reduce American dependence on foreign oil. Denmark's Bjorn Lomberg argues that we ought to be investing in "research and development of non-carbon emitting energies like solar, wind, carbon-capture, energy efficiency."

Would Samuelson, Lomberg, and Caroline Walker have us believe that environmentalists haven't been calling for exactly these measures for decades? This is the way to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions, the only way to arrest global warming. Because of long-term foot-dragging by the global warming deniers, aided and abetted by misleading articles like this one by Caroline Walker, the chances of us succeeding grow slimmer each passing decade.

It looks like now the battleground is shifting from denying that we are in a fight against global warming to arguing over who lost the battle. This article may mark the opening salvo by the right in trying to pin the blame on the environmentalists. It'll be a nice trick if they can pull that one off.

P.S. Censorship on Dallas Blog prevents me from posting this comment on that blog directly.

Commenters: Your Word Arrows Sting

FrontBurner | Adam McGill:

“I did read Schutze's post and got my feelers hurt by some of the comments thereafter. I'm sensitive like that. Someone named 'space' wrote:

DMN never utters a word without an agenda and that 'D' is just crap. I've said it before elsewhere and I'll say it again here now, reading Frontburner is like eavesdropping on the breakroom in a Park Cities hair salon. It's horrible.

First of all, I imagine eavesdropping on the breakroom in a Park Cities hair salon would be pretty entertaining. Secondly, who is this 'space' man? ... Thirdly, the topic of 'Comments on Blogs: Allow Them Or Not' is an interesting one. 'Space,' 'whatever,' and other anonymous commenters make a good argument for keeping FB comment-free for now.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Thank you, "space," for expressing so aptly what many of us readers have only vaguely felt. And thank you, Mr McGill, for letting his comment get through Frontburner's "no comments" wall. His comment was the best reading on Frontburner in some time. More comments, please.

NFL's Web Fumble

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

“In what figures as one of its screwier policies, the No Fun League wants to limit news organizations to posting to their Web sites no more than 45 seconds per day of video shot at a team's facilities. ... The NFL figures that restricting video access to news organization will drive football hungry fans to the league's Web site for exclusive clips. In turn, the league will reap advertising dollars. ... It's time that the NFL lighten up and serve its fans.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

No one should be under the illusion that The Dallas Morning News cares a whit about the fans. It's in a fight for its life. Everywhere the old, dead tree media turn, there's someone stealing their advertising dollars, from Craigslist to ESPN to the NFL Web site.

For decades, newspapers grew fat, dumb, and happy putting out papers that often look more like house organs for the local NFL team than general information newspapers. The Dallas Morning News has more front page stories on the Dallas Cowboys than any single other subject. It often publishes two (!) sports sections, one devoted almost exclusively to the Dallas Cowboys.

I'm sure the NFL and the Dallas Cowboys appreciate all the free publicity the News has given them in its paper over the years, but now they want to keep some of that advertising dollar in house. The NFL may not have wanted to get into the newspaper business (who wants to get into a dying business?), but there's no barrier to entry for the NFL setting up a Web site and having advertisers pay them for their product. It's just as easy for fans to type nfl.com into their Web browser as dallasnews.com. The fans are still going to get all the Dallas Cowboys stories they want on the Internet. They just won't be getting it from the local newspaper's Web site. There's no reason to mourn for the fans. Or predict the demise of the haughty NFL. It's the newspapers that are doomed, not the NFL.

Haters need to admit the truth

Dallas Morning News | Mark Davis:

“What we believe we see is driven heavily by what we want to see. ... this explains how people can believe that a candidate with no chance of success is a sure thing; it explains how believers in a doomed business insist that a change of fate is just around the corner; and it explains a big chunk of the war debate now that the surge may be starting to work.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

I read the headline and wondered who the haters are that Mark Davis was talking about. I was pretty sure it wouldn't be anyone conservative. I was right. It's the left that Mark Davis identifies as haters. Bush haters. War haters. No surprise there.

Mr Davis leads with a long explanation of how sports fans' perception of close calls in games are colored by their loyalties. Of course, they always think the proper call is the one that benefits their own teams. I wondered who in the war debate Mark Davis would accuse of that tendency. Sure enough, not himself, but those opposed to the war. He admits that he is a war supporter. He says his faith in the war was unshaken despite four years of debacle. He says he "recognize[d] that this war that I believe in with my whole heart might just fail." Now, he's ready to say his hint of doubt was wrong. The war is actually going splendidly, or at least "there is a basis for objective optimism." And those who don't join Mark Davis on the Bush war bandwagon "actively want us to lose."

Sorry, Mr Davis, but you are the one blindly seeing the close calls the way your heart wants them to be. Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack's New York Times op-ed piece "A War We Just Might Win" is one such close call. Your grasping at it to support your faith in this war and this President is just another example of what those psychiatrists told you to beware of. You're seeing with your heart, not your eyes.

Colleges add footbaths for Muslims

DallasNews Religion | Sam Hodges: "

“But not without controversy. Here's today's New York Times story.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

It's much ado about nothing. But I do have to chuckle that some Christians seem to be all bent out of shape because some non-Christians have more interest in personal hygiene than they do.

Personal grooming is a multi-billion dollar business in this country. Once that business discovers the bucks to be made in selling personal footcare products, the Muslims are going to have get in line behind the rest of us at those foot baths in public rest rooms. ;-)

Fear Factor: State needs to scare up funds for risky bridges

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

“Take this alternative idea to scare up proper support for transportation: Post signs at the edge of each legislative district that would say, for example, 'Now entering the district of state Sen. Foghorn Leghorn, home to 23 structurally deficient bridges.' ”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Public scorn can accomplish good, but it's easy for it to get out of control and demean public discourse. Not to worry, though. Legislators are never going to fund a program that targets themselves for such scorn.

Instead, the public needs to keep up a steady insistence on funding and repairing America's decaying infrastructure. But I don't expect that to happen, either. Spend money on maintenance? Americans are even more likely to complain about lane closures and traffic diversions for roadworks than they are to complain about the potholes that signal the need for such maintenance. And raise taxes to do it? Legislators who push such a course won't be in the legislature long. Legislators know that newspapers like The Dallas Morning News will soon forget the looming threat... at least until the next bridge collapses. Or levee fails. Remember that one? Think back. Way back about... two years. The public's attention span is short.

Obama's bowed-up foreign policy

DallasMorningViews | Rod Dreher:

“Hillary Clinton effectively challenged Barack Obama's manhood in the last debate, when she cast his willingness to sit down and talk to America's enemies as naive. Now Obama has fought back, saying that as president, he'd consider sending US troops into Pakistan to fight al Qaeda. Obama would have the United States invade a nuclear-armed Islamic country and humiliate a government that, however weak, is an American ally? Good grief, maybe he really is as naive as Hillary says.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Launching military operations in a nuclear-armed Islamic country is highly risky, with or without the country's dictator supporting you. But Senator Obama has not done that. He has suggested that the option would not be ruled out in an Obama administration. That's saber-rattling. Saber-rattling itself is a risky tactic to use, but wielded skillfully, it can prevent war rather than initiate it.

Should we give Obama the benefit of the doubt and trust that he would wield the saber skillfully, not recklessly? I might have been inclined to say yes, if not for the sad example of George W Bush. Congress voted authorization for him to go to war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Some considered the authorization to be a saber for Bush to rattle. Bush took it as an excuse to quit relying on diplomacy and sanctions, in other words, to quit relying on saber rattling, and actually go to war.

I'd like to think Obama wouldn't make the same mistake, but who knows. I'll be much less trusting of the basic wisdom of our political leaders this time around.