"I'm pro-life and I voted for Beto O'Rourke"

Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa penned an op-ed for The Dallas Morning News explaining why she voted for Beto O'Rourke for US Senator from Texas. I love Destiny, and not just because she was the only one who begged me "Please don't go" when I quit blogging in 2010. She's probably one of the few writers who could successfully coax me to come back. She's a terrific writer, but she is also open-minded enough to consider alternative viewpoints. How else could a pro-life feminist consider voting for Beto O'Rourke?

Anyway, so here I am back at the keyboard. Read her op-ed, then come back here and read my open letter to Destiny.

Life, Too Cheap to Meter if You're a Bluefin Tuna

But d*mn precious for us humans

William McKenzie, in The Dallas Morning News' late, lamented Religion blog, asks a panel of local religious professionals the question, "Do we put too great a premium on our biological lives?" Essentially none of them give a direct answer, so your lowly, humble layman correspondent gives it a go (by citing another, wiser layman, naturally):

No, we don't put too great a premium on our biological life. It's an instinctive part of our species' survival strategy. Other species have evolved other strategies. Wired magazine's Chris Anderson explains:

"Our brains seem wired to resist waste, but we are relatively unique in nature for this. Mammals have the fewest offspring in the animal kingdom, and as a result we invest enormous time and care in protecting each one ... However, the rest of nature doesn't work like that. A bluefin tuna can release 10 million fertilized eggs in a spawning season. Perhaps 10 of them will hatch and make it to adulthood. A million die for every one that survives. But there's good reason for it. Nature wastes life in search of better life."

Atheists and Nazis

Rod Dreher is back in town.

Rod Dreher spent the summer reading about theology and Chinese medicine. Did he learn anything? Apparently not. He's back and he's just as intolerant of those who don't share his religious beliefs as ever. In a new post in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, he condemns summer camps for kids run by atheists. Only it's never just "atheists" for Dreher. He calls it "atheist fundamentalism" or "militant atheism" or "evangelical atheism". He describes "atheism's savage legacy" which he calls "no accident." You know where this is going, don't you? That's right: Godwin's Law, which Dreher falls victim to right in his original post. He warns us against allowing militant atheism to gain power. "[B]oth the communists and the Nazis justified their own monstrosities as 'scientific.'"

Sigh. Dreher ironically goes on to condemn "narrow-minded cant" without a hint of self awareness. There's not much to learn from Rod Dreher, who seems to have wasted his summer. He seems to have taken copious notes on everything he already agreed with, but was deaf to anything that could have opened his mind. But, serendipitously, there is something to learn in the comments.

"libba" patiently explains the obvious, that atheism is not the same as Nazism: "I am an atheist and I do not know any 'fundamental' atheists. All atheists I know are loving, giving, caring people who want to believe, or not, freely and allow others to do so as well."

"Glock21" gives us the real story on summer camps run by atheists: "[M]y experience with the Camp Quest in the Smoky Mountains this year was absolutely nothing like the 'atheist fundamentalist' indoctrination you are describing here. ..."

"Chucky Jesus" takes issue with Dreher's claim that campfires at atheist summer camps are places where kids are taught that the world is "disenchanted." He explains that atheists can be just as enchanted as any religious person: "Yes, this is not a demon-haunted world, but no enchantment through the eyes of an atheist? Hardly. Just gaze at any picture from the Hubble telescope and marvel at what the natural world offers, and no, it wasn't designed, which is all the more marvel."

"Chucky Jesus" goes on to explain what an atheist "church" is all about:

"I'm a member of the North Texas Church of Freethought, and you obviously have pre-conceived notions of what 'an atheist church' does. We don't celebrate 'non-existence' of anything, we celebrate life, the pursuit of knowledge based on reason, and yes even fine art and human expression.

I see you put in an obligatory link to our church, but did you even bother reading anything of the site?

This is the description of our church at out site:

We are a rational approach to religion, offering atheists, agnostics, humanists, and freethinkers all the social, emotional and inspirational benefits of traditional faith-based churches, but without appealing to tradition or superstition. Our growing community of freethinkers provides a positive, affirming environment for leading a good life, free of the illogic and intolerance of other religions based on holy books and supernaturalism."

The only thing spoiling this reasoned response is the alias this freethinker chose: Chucky Jesus. There's a thin line between ridicule and intolerance, "Chucky Jesus."

Finally, "Santi", who sounds like he is very familiar with Rod Dreher's writings, says sardonically, "I'm extremely disappointed by this column. I was fully expecting a clear headed condemnation of Woodstock."

2010 SBOE Election

We're not just voting for governor

The Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) has been the target of the social conservatives for some time now. The SBOE determines the curricula for Texas schools, including textbook selection. The religious right now has a majority, or close enough to it, on this board, to push Creationism and other right-wing causes.

The religious right achieved their power on the SBOE at the ballot box. Conservatives like vouncher proponent James Leininger funded one far right candidate, Cynthia Dunbar, with tens of thousands of dollars, even though she faced no Democratic opponent. Dunbar is famous, not just for being a fervent Creationist, but for predicting the "end of America as we know it" should Barack Obama be elected President. She claims his election is null and void because he isn't a United States citizen. She says that if America suffers a terrorist attack, it will likely be part of a conspiracy by Obama to impose tyranny through martial law. Obama is not the only subject of her conspiracy fantasies. She claims that America is under daily attack by the "militant leftist Judicial branch."

You might wonder how such an extremist achieved a position of such influence over the classrooms of our children in Texas. It's because moderates and liberals haven't paid enough attention to these elected positions. Maybe that's all about to change. According to Burnt Orange Report, organizers are taking notice of the upcoming 2010 election in which Cynthia Dunbar's place on the SBOE is before the voters. "Education First", a network of residents of Cynthia Dunbar's District 10, is holding meetups 17 months before the election "to promote educational excellence by reducing the influence of politics and ideology on the board."

SBOE District 12, including Richardson, is represented by Geraldine "Tincy" Miller, who is a mild pro-science member of the SBOE, but whose vote for teaching science in our schools' science classes and not Creationism is far from assured. It wouldn't hurt for the moderate voters in Richardson to pay attention to SBOE races, too, to keep the Creationists from taking over the SBOE entirely. So, don't get distracted by all the sound and fury that next year's governor race is going to generate. Save just a little attention for those down-ticket races for SBOE.

Richardson candidates forum

The Nightly Build

---

My Trip to the Mosque

I thought I was going to a forum for candidates for Richardson City Council, but the mosque stole the show. The forum was held in the gymnasium. (Who'd have thought Allah was a basketball fan?) Our moderator missed no opportunity to talk up the mosque. (It's not just a mosque but a community with public services and a school and great relations with the city and neighborhood, thank Allah.) After a round of introductions and a single question, we broke for thirty minutes to allow those who desired to move to the mosque itself to pray. (Men over here, women over there, please.) Afterwards, before the forum could resume, we had twenty minutes of awarding plaques. (Thank you, retired police chief Larry Zacharias and retiring council member Rhea Allison and this mosque board of directors member and that mosque board trustees member.) By the time the program ended two and a half hours after it began, I estimated the candidates had only a total of five minutes each to talk to the voters. Not a single one ran over their allotted time.

In their introductions, the experienced campaigners had the presence of mind to thank the American Muslim Alliance and the Dallas Central Mosque for hosting the forum. Jennifer Justice added the nice touch of opening with "As-Salamu ‘Alaykum." John Murphy one-upped that by recalling his attendance at the ground-breaking for the mosque a decade ago. Dennis Stewart then one-upped that by recalling his days with the Richardson Police and how they took preventive steps to defend the mosque against potential violent backlash after the 9/11 attacks.

As for the questions the candidates answered, I'm afraid to report that there wasn't much of substance there. There was time for only three questions:

1. What does transparency mean to you?
2. How do you spend your typical day?
3. What one nice thing can you say about your opponent?

The first question, about transparency in government, held out the promise of some fireworks. Sheryl Miller came out with guns blazing, declaring "Richardson's bankrupt" and city hall doesn't want you to know and blaming it all somehow on the Sherrill Park golf pro. John Murphy, as usual, parried Miller's attack deftly, declaring the city is financially sound and "not one dollar made it into my pocket." Bob Townsend said, if transparency means televising city council meetings, the city looked into it but decided it was cost prohibitive. One by one, the challengers took him and the rest of the incumbents to task, calling for streaming video, open checkbooks, plain language meeting agendas and a code of ethics. The force of the attack diminished as the long line of candidates talked to the question one by one, until Bob Macy had to object to the implication that "we're not doing a good job now." You'd have thought he forgot for a moment that he was the challenger. Even Pris Hayes thanked him for his comments. Dennis Stewart said that up until this election campaign, "no one has been beating down the door" for more transparency. As a couple of the incumbents pointed out, Richardson has been taking advantage of technology to gradually make more and more city business available online. Finally, Mayor Steve Mitchell said the city simply had to provide some kind of streaming video and an open checkbook online. As he is running unopposed and didn't have to make any kind of commitment at all, I'll take that as a promise likely to be kept no matter who is elected in the other places.

If the first question fizzled out, the second question seemed designed more for comic relief than serious discussion. One by one, the candidates told us how early they got up in the morning and how productive they were. Mayor Mitchell was up twice during the night last night dealing with his young kids. Amir Omar gets to bed at midnight and is up at four to train for marathons. Tom Bache-Wiig is up at 5:30 every morning to read the Bible, then run two and a half miles. John Murphy has his alarm clock set permanently at 5:00 AM and eats Cheerios and a banana for breakfast ("... OK, and a pancake once in a while ... that's transparency"). By the time we reached the end of the row, I expected one of the candidates to claim he never slept at all.

If the second question was comic relief, the third question anticipated the "they lived happily ever after" phase of the election. The candidates all sounded sincerely complimentary as they said nice things about one another. Even Diane Wardrup, who accused Gary Slagel of ethical violations in a questionnaire for The Dallas Morning News, tonight said, "Gary has served the city well for 22 years." I almost looked forward to another prayer break. As-Salamu ‘Alaykum.

NY beheading; Texas legislature; Smoking ban

The Nightly Build...

---

Muslim Killing in New York

Bruce Tomaso, in The Dallas Morning News Religion blog, passes on, without comment, a CNN report that "Muzzammil Hassan, who founded Bridges TV in upstate New York with the aim of countering negative stereotypes about Muslims, has confessed to beheading his wife."

1. Tragic.
2. Ironic.
3. See. Muslims are fanatic killers.
4. See. Religious fundamentalism is dangerous.

That this is tragic is simply true. My condolences to the woman's family.

The irony, of course, lies in the parenthetical comment that the man who sought to counter negative stereotypes about Muslims is now accused of beheading his wife.

Whether or not this says something about Muslims in general or religious fundamentalists in general is a point of contention that will probably keep bloggers busy for days. Bruce Tomaso offers no editorial comment, but don't expect readers to show such restraint.

Reader "JohnFranc" says, "if any Christians wish to claim this is a typical example of Islam, fairness requires you to accept Jim Jones, David Koresch, Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph as typical examples of Christianity."

Reader "Claire" objects, "I'd have to say this is indeed typical and socially acceptable in many Islamic countries" and the Christian killers, on the other hand, are "hardly typical."

Surprisingly, no one took the fourth attitude, that religious fundamentalism, not Islam or Christianity per se, is what's dangerous. It probably comes closest to my reaction. I think that it overstates the danger, in general, but obviously not for this one victim in New York, in particular.

I think the best reply was a single word by an unknown blogger, whose comment was deleted for some unknown reason. He said, simply, "Facepalm".

---

The Flip Side of Partisanship

Jim Mitchell, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, asks if new Speaker of the Texas House Joe Strauss' honeymoon is over. Democrat Matt Angle is criticizing Republican Strauss for making committee assignments that are "unquestionably partisan and ideological."

Let's see. Republicans have a majority in the House. Strauss is Republican. What did the Democrats expect him to do other than appoint Republicans to run the House? Angle notes that Strauss owes his election to Democrats. Not really. Democrats didn't have enough votes to elect a Speaker, so they played spoiler. That's all the power they had. They voted against Tom Craddick. Strauss owes them nothing.

All this sounds depressingly similar to the whining going on in Washington by Republicans. Republicans complained that Democrats weren't voting for their amendments to the stimulus package. President Obama told them, "I won."

It looks to me like the losers in Washington and Austin both have a naive understanding of what bipartisanship is and is not.

---

Statewide Ban on Smoking?

Jim Mitchell, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, notes that there are 24 states and 28 Texas cities that have public smoking ordinances in place. Mitchell lobbies for the Texas legislature to follow suit, leaving no exceptions for types of businesses or service areas, leveling the playing field, making sure no business anywhere in the state is at a competitive disadvantage.

Needless to say, readers quickly took sides. Most took the position of "Trey Garrison" who said, "Smoking is smelly and stupid and unhealthy -- but no one makes me go to a place where people smoke."

Smoking is a health hazard not only for customers, but for workers. We have workplace safety rules for many things. This is just one more. There's a legitimate debate whether the health hazard is serious enough to regulate. There's a legitimate debate whether the ban's effect would drive businesses to close. This is a question of where to draw the line, not a matter of fundamental rights, in my opinion. Let the people decide this one.

Iran and Alabama; Stimulus

The Nightly Build...

---

Rule of Analogies

Bruce Tomaso, on The Dallas Morning News Religion blog, passed along a survey by Gallup that indicates that Iran and Alabama rank about equally high in the percentage of their populations that regard religion as important. Gallup headlined their story, "What Alabamians and Iranians Have in Common." Tomaso included photos of the Ayatollah Khomeini and Governor George Wallace. That's when the sh*i hit the fan. Who didn't see that coming?

Reader "corinne" commented, "shi'ite bap'ists." Reader "Mike Bratton asked if the juxtaposition of photos was Tomaso's "tacit equivocation of the totalitarian political system/religion of Islam with Christianity?" Even NewsBusters.org chastised Tomaso , making him feel like he was called a "a condescending, secular, elitist lefty putz."

This thread illustrates a corollary to Ed Cognoski's Rule of Analogies: "Don't use 'em." The corollary is: "Two incendiary topics will spontaneously combust if brought anywhere near each other."

P.S. I learned the Rule of Analogies ("Don't use 'em") from long experience. Your debate opponent will inevitably latch onto any differences between the subjects and ignore the similarities. And there are always differences. Otherwise it would be an equivalence, not an analogy. Before you know it, you're arguing the analogy, not the original subject, and the point is lost. Hence the Rule of Analogies: "Don't use 'em."

P.P.S. Segregation still sucks.

---

Dealing with Electoral Grief

Now that that the $800 billion stimulus bill stands on the verge of passage, the GOP rearguard is fighting delaying actions. Mike Hashimoto, on The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, wants more time to read the bill, as if he just might support it if only he can study it a little longer.

I'd say we're clearly at stage two of the Kübler-Ross model of grief:

1. Denial: "Voters rejected Bush, not true conservatism."
2. Anger: "It's not fair. They didn't vote for my amendment."
3. Bargaining: TBD
4. Depression: TBD
5. Acceptance: TBD

The Reason for God

The Nightly Build...

---

Tim Keller book wins Christianity Today award

Sam Hodges, without comment, tells us on The Dallas Morning News Religion blog that Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God" has won Christianity Today's award for best apologetics/evangelism book of 2008.

The title sounded promising. Reason and God together. Could Tim Keller make a logically compelling case for the existence of God? The judges' blurb seemed to say yes:

"The best apologetics book of the new millennium. This powerful study by the charismatic pastor of New York's Redeemer Presbyterian Church synthesizes most of the strongest arguments for Christian faith, boldly answers the 'New Atheists,' and posits Christianity as the world's only hope for peace."

The book is divided into two sections. The first considers and rebuts the most common objections to belief in God. The second offers seven reasons for belief in the Christian God.

Sadly, the book does not live up to its promise. The rebuttals to atheists' arguments amount to little more than pointing out that atheists can never prove that God does *not* exist. God can do anything and his ways are mysterious, so suffering, injustice, miracles, etc., no matter how inconsistent with our notion of a good and loving God, or how inconsistent with our scientific knowledge, are all still possible, even if humans can't make any sense of God's doings.

No argument from me on this front. Atheists can't prove God does not exist. Likewise, no one will ever disprove the existence of Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot, orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars, too small to be seen by even our most powerful telescopes. But don't take that as an argument for belief in its existence, either.

The second section offers reasons for belief in God. Keller eventually admits that "there cannot be irrefutable proof for the existence of God." Keller calls his reasons "clues" whose accumulated weight can be formidable. For example, he says everything we know in this world has a cause outside itself. So, he reasons that the universe itself must have a cause outside itself -- God.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that what we now know of quantum physics, the classical notion of cause and effect, what everyone considers common sense, is simply wrong. Things do happen without cause, strange as that might seem. Also, if the universe (which is everything, including time and space themselves) had a cause outside itself, then that cause is also part of what we call the universe, by definition. As logical as Keller thinks he is by saying the universe must have a cause, he is just as illogical by saying that there's something that isn't part of everything.

Keller's other "clues" are equally fallacious. Perhaps Keller's biggest fallacy is his inconsistency in reasoning. His implicit claim is that the accumulated weight of his clues for God makes a convincing reason to believe in God. But he does not accumulate the weight of all the clues against (remember? suffering, injustice, miracles, etc.). On Keller's balance scale, the clues against God get discarded one by one because individually they don't pass his proof test, leaving an empty balance pan on one side, whereas the clues for God get piled up on the other side until their weight tips the scale in favor of God.

At the end of his book, Keller talks about the plausibility of Christianity and calls on readers to make a faith commitment, an "all-or-nothing choice" of allegiance to Jesus. Keller doesn't say it, but that leap of faith is needed because reason alone won't get you there. And that's what makes this book ultimately disappointing. It fails to live up to its title, "The Reason for God."

Science curriculum; Education accountability

The Nightly Build...

---

SBOE: On Step Forward, One Back

Steve Blow, in The Dallas Morning News Metro blog, weighs in on last week's preliminary votes by the Texas State Board of Education on science curriculum standards. Blow's opinion? "The right-wing bloc basically wants humans exempted from evolution."

The way I read it, the right-wing bloc wants all life on earth exempted. The lost the vote to keep the requirement to teach "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution, then slipped in a requirement to teach arguments "for and against" common ancestry and "sufficiency and insufficiency" of evolution to explain the fossil record.

Wonder what kind of lessons that language would enable? During the hearing, Don McLeroy, the chairman of the State Board of Education and a dentist in private practice, suggested that the fact that teeth fit together so perfectly was a sign of the weakness of the theory of evolution.

When people say Texas is becoming the laughingstock of the nation regarding science education, I don't think they are exaggerating. Steve Blow cites a New York Times editorial on the subject:

"The lesson we draw from these shenanigans is that scientifically illiterate boards of education should leave the curriculum to educators and scientists who know what constitutes a sound education."

Texas voters should retire the SBOE members who want our kids to learn religion instead of science in science classes. SBOE members like Don McLeroy, Cynthia Dunbar and Terri Leo don't know the damage they are doing to Texas' reputation and, more importantly, the education of our children.

---

TAKS' Mismeasured "Achievement Gap"

William McKenzie, in a Viewpoints essay in The Dallas Morning News, takes a crack at improving education in America. He bases it on his observation that Barack Obama is a product of Columbia University and Harvard Law School and Michelle Obama graduated from Princeton. McKenzie asks:

"Why wouldn't everyone in this country want to devote as much attention as possible to enabling every child to have those same opportunities? ... Why are we even having this debate? What parent doesn't want his or her child learning at grade level?"

Let me take a crack at answering. The measurement system called for by the federal "No Child Left Behind" act and the state program "Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills" (TAKS) defines a minimum level that students must achieve. It's all well and good to require our education system to do its very best to prepare children to get over that low bar. But let's not pretend that getting over that low bar will get our students into Columbia, Princeton, and Harvard. Only the top students will achieve that and then only if our schools pay attention to them, too. So, one explanation for some of the dissatisfaction with the TAKS system is not that it "teaches to the test" but that the test is only minimally helpful. We need programs tailored to all our students, from underachievers to overachievers. TAKS is not that program.

One of the ironies of TAKS is that it doesn't even necessarily measure one of the main goals of the program, what McKenzie calls closing the "achievement gap" between white and minority kids. TAKS measures how many kids get over that low bar, not by how much they exceed the standard. Say we reach the state where every last kid in class gets over that bar. TAKS would say the "achievement gap" has closed to zero. In reality, the minority kids all might be just making it over the bar, while the white kids are vaulting higher and higher each year. The real achievement gap between white and minority may be as wide as ever and even growing. TAKS is not designed to measure that.

Those are just a couple reasons why we are even having this debate. It's not that people have a problem with the goal that every child should learn at grade level. It's that many people want more than that. They want every child to learn to his maximum potential.

EightMaps.com

The Nightly Build...

---

Rod Dreher Comes for You

Last week, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, Rod Dreher defended the free speech rights of an anti-Islamic politician, Geert Wilders, who is being charged with inciting hatred and discrimation against Muslims. This weekend, in a Viewpoints column in The Dallas Morning News, Rod Dreher stands up for the contributors to the anti-gay Proposition 8 in California that discriminates based on sexual orientation. So far, Rod Dreher is being consistent, supporting the bigots in both cases.

It's the logic Rod uses in each case that twists his principles into knots. In the case of Geert Wilders, free speech is the overriding principle Rod defends. No matter that Wilders is considered to be a despicable bigot (a point Dreher never makes), I agree with Dreher that he has a right to speak his mind, no matter how much civil, enlightened people disagree with his vile politics (Rod Dreher excluded).

In the California case, however, it's the people exercising their free speech rights who Rod condemns and wants to suppress. California law makes public the names and addresses of donors to political causes. Someone has taken those long lists of names, sorted alphabetically, and reformatted them geographically, using Google Maps. He published the result on a web site EightMaps.com. How would such information be useful? Grass-roots organizers can use it to drive get-out-the-vote efforts, avoiding the strongholds of the anti-gay faction. Activists can use it to identify the locations of people to lobby to change their position. And everyone can use it to identify which neighbors might be a danger to their civil liberties. After all, if today they come for gays, tomorrow they might come for you.

In an older Opinion blog posting, Rod Dreher suggested he might become sympathetic to striking down the law that allows sites like EightMaps.com to exist. In his latest essay, Dreher has the effrontery to quote Robert Bolt's play "A Man for all Seasons" to support his inclination to suppress sites like EightMaps.com.

Roper: Cut a road through the law to get after the Devil? Yes. I'd cut down every law in England to do that.

More: And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? ... I give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake.

If there's a William Roper at work in Dallas, it's Rod Dreher himself. He may think the gay rights activists are devils, but he ought to give his devils the benefit of the law for his own safety's sake. The bigotry he aims against gays today may someday be aimed against bigots like himself.

Geert Wilders

The Nightly Build...

---

Free Speech on Trial in the Netherlands

Rod Dreher, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, reports that Geert Wilders, the far-right, racist, Islamophobic Dutch politician has been ordered to stand trial for incitement of hatred and discrimination against Muslims. Dreher is livid. How much of Dreher's outrage is in defense of free speech and how much is in defense of this bigot's anti-Muslim politics is not clear. Combine the two and you can be sure it gets the full Rod Dreher treatment.

"It boggles the mind to imagine it."
"It is infuriating to watch..."
"It's outrageous to think that now people in the Netherlands risk criminal prosecution for criticizing religion and religious believers."

Think back seventy years. The people Rod Dreher would be defending would be the Nazis. The free speech he would be defending would be Nazi incitements to hatred and discrimination against the Jews. The Dutch, who suffered in the Holocaust, naturally are less enamored of racist bigots exploiting free speech rights than is Rod Dreher, who himself doesn't have much good to say about Muslims, the targets of today's hate speech.

The lesson Dreher draws from this is a classic case of blaming the victim. He argues that "the Dutch court's action goes a long way toward vindicating Wilders' claim that the Dutch are losing their freedoms and their democracy because of the Muslim presence among them." In fact, Muslims are the targets of Wilder's hate speech, not the reason the Dutch are losing their freedoms. Lay the blame for that on Geert Wilders, who is testing the limits of free speech rights in the Netherlands with his despicable, racist, bigoted public utterances.

Personally, I stand for the right of free speech, not out of sympathy for the likes of Geert Wilders, but for myself. Thomas More, in the play A Man for All Seasons, dramatically said, "I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!" Geert Wilders is a despicable man with despicable politics. But free speech must be a right for the despicable if it is to be a right for the rest of us, too. The trouble with Rod Dreher's blog is that one can't help but suspect that Dreher admires Geert Wilders' extremism as much as or even more than he cherishes free speech.

I summarized the above in a one sentence comment posted on The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog: "I can't tell if Rod Dreher is upset because free speech is under attack or because a racist Islamophobe is under attack." I was censored. My comment was deleted. Ironic, no?

P.S. Before you apply Godwin's law to my post, note that Geert Wilders himself has compared Muslims to Nazis. So, a case can be made that I wasn't the first to raise Nazis in this debate. That's my story and I'm sticking with it.

Inauguration; Hope

The Nightly Build...

---

Inaugural Prayers

Did it seem to anyone else that everywhere you looked in Washington, DC, the last few days, someone was praying? And someone was complaining about said prayers? Opening prayer at Sunday's kickoff concert at Lincoln Memorial. Inauguration day morning prayer service at St. John's Church. Inaugural invocation. Inaugural benediction. Blessing before Presidential luncheon. Prayer for Senator Ted Kennedy. Whoever said liberals banished God from the public sphere must not have been listening. The Dallas Morning News Religion blog had no shortage of topics, spilling over to the Opinion blog and Trailblazers blog.

The Rev. Rick Warren may have been given the prime speaking spot, with the inauguration invocation, but the Rev Joseph Lowery stole the show with the benediction. Long after people forget what Rick Warren said (like immediately), people will remember and smile at Joseph Lowery's closing:

"We ask you to help us work for that day
when black will not be asked to get back,
when brown can stick around,
when yellow will be mellow,
when the red man can get ahead, man,
and when white can embrace what is right.
That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen."

---

Inaugural Hope

Blogger Bethany, in a post on her blog, The Eleventy Billionth Blog, reasonably points out that, "whether you were pleased with the results of the election or not, ... hope should be the overwhelming response of any Inauguration Day, regardless of who is taking the oath."

Leave it to Trey Garrison, in a comment, to disagree.

"I think the desire to rule over your fellow free men and women is a sickness. I’m further repulsed by the kind of drive it takes to achieve this power at whatever level, from city council to the office of POTUS."

Trey Garrison mischaracterizes the American experience. He sees government, not as us, but as them. He sees our President not as a leader of free people, freely chosen, but as an authoritarian ruler of a "nationalist, quasi-police state." He sees American government not as the world's longest-lasting democratic republic, but as anathema to liberty. Garrison says that "It’s far beyond the point that any viable man or party will enact my wishes -- for a government that leaves honest people alone to live as they choose -- so I won’t waste my time trying to reform it."

It must suck to be Trey Garrison. For someone who says he doesn't care what Obama and others of his kind have to say, Garrison sure does spend a lot of time criticizing it. Garrison is not able to rejoice in community, in common cause, in Abraham Lincoln's America and its noble cause of "government of the people, by the people, for the people." Garrison probably doesn't want my sympathy, he probably feels good about himself, but he sure makes depressing reading for others. He is Typhoid Trey, immune from the disease himself, but spreading pessimism and despair to others.

To get the bitter taste of Trey Garrison out of my mouth, I'll close with a quotation offered by Peggy Noonan yesterday. She quoted from William Wordsworth's poem about the French Revolution. The spirit of the early days of that historic time was similar to the feelings that many Americans will take away from yesterday's inauguration of Barack Obama:

"Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,
But to be young was very heaven!"

Opening inaugural concert

The Nightly Build...

---

We Are One. No, We're Not.

Hundreds of thousands turned out Sunday afternoon on the Mall in Washington, DC, for "We Are One: Opening Inaugural Celebration at the Lincoln Memorial." A good time was had by all. Well, not all.

Jeffrey Weiss, in The Dallas Morning News Religion blog, grouses (his word) that the only television coverage of the concert was on HBO. He asks what if Martin Luther King, Jr, sold exclusive television rights to his "I Have a Dream" speech to the highest bidder in 1963.

The analogy is not all that apt. This year's event was entertainment, a celebratory concert. 1963's was the culmination of a protest march on Washington. Obama's speech was covered by free broadcast television. Only the entertainment portion was reserved for HBO. To cover some of the costs of putting on such an extravaganza, the inaugural committee sold exclusive television rights. Even with that, HBO made the concert available to cable providers for free presentation to their cable customers. HBO also made the concert freely available on its Web site, HBO.com, for anyone with an Internet connection. Should Obama have paid for his inaugural festivities by holding some private $1000 a plate dinners for well-heeled donors? Or worse, held the concert indoors where only those well-heeled donors would have heard U2, Springsteen and the rest of the entertainers? I don't think so. The inaugural committee balanced the demands of paying for the concert against the desire to open it up to as many people as possible. Jeffrey Weiss' grouse is only that, a grouse.

Another controversy erupted over the invocation prayer by the Rev. Gene Robinson, the openly gay bishop of the Episcopal Church. First, the prayer was offered before the start of the show televised by HBO. Second, there was a sound system malfunction that prevented even the people on site from hearing the bishop's prayer, which included this passage:

"Bless us with anger - at discrimination, at home and abroad, against refugees and immigrants, women, people of color, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people."

The blogosphere lit up with conspiracy theories. Obama invited Robinson, but made sure no one would hear him. Obama deliberately suppressed the prayer. Reader "Mark" is certain it's a snub:

"I am horrified that once again 'WE' are to stay in the background, ignored and unrecognized. I am canceling my HBO service. I EXPECT AN APOLOGY from Barack Obama to all Gay people. This is not an acceptable CONSOLATION PRIZE."

Even before Obama takes office as the President most openly supportive of the LGBT cause in history, the LGBT community has decided that Obama has rejected their cause. They are now rejecting him. Politically, this is stupid, except that Obama is that rare politician who will do the right thing whether a constituency is for him or against him. He will continue to welcome and listen to all voices and promote equality and justice, whether the LGBT community appreciates it or not. The LGBT community would do well to take to heart Bishop Robinson's words:

"And God, we give you thanks for your child Barack, as he assumes the office of President of the United States. Give him wisdom beyond his years, and inspire him with Lincoln’s reconciling leadership style, President Kennedy’s ability to enlist our best efforts, and Dr. King’s dream of a nation for ALL the people. Give him a quiet heart, for our Ship of State needs a steady, calm captain in these times."

Gaza; Richardson PACs; GOP sarcasm

The Nightly Build...

---

Futility in Gaza

Rod Dreher, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, kicks things off by passing on a reader's report of seeing a bumper sticker with a picture of a mushroom cloud and the caption "Obliterate Israel." Dreher concludes that "Jew-hatred is getting to be very scary." Dreher is, of course, correct. Dreher doesn't point out that Muslim-hatred reached scary levels years ago, but selective umbrage is nothing new for Dreher. As usual, blog readers who pointed this out had their comments deleted.

But that's not what drew me into the discussion. One reader accused Israel of firing weapons containing white phosphorous into Gaza. White phosphorous has an incendiary effect that greatly increases the chances of collateral, civilian casualties. Reader "Peterk" dismisses the accusation with "the WP allegation is a non-starter." Reader "ce" pointed out that a UN relief and works compound had been hit by Israeli shells, which, according to a UN spokesman, allegedly contained white phosphorous, "according to breaking news on CNN." Reader "ce" then says, either defensively or sarcastically, "I realize this is not fair and balanced like Fox, but it is where I get my news."

Chalk up a minor victory for conservatives. People are all too aware that CNN's reputation has been tarred, that it is no longer considered a legitimate news source, that a news report can't be trusted until it's reported by Fox News. This has gone too far. Don't ever let anyone make you feel like you need to apologize that you get your news from CNN. Just make sure that you also check out other news sources as well, including Fox News. By the way, Fox News is reporting that UN "spokesman Chris Gunness says the building was hit by what was believed to be three white phosphorous shells." Also, that Ban Ki-moon "says Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has told him it was a 'grave mistake.'"

Over on the Religion blog, reader "DeSoto" defends Israel with, "If a group of thugs is threatening my family, I'm not going to be very judicial in my defense." With all due respect, the dilemma here is the very real doubt that Israel's tactics are making Israeli families safe or only perpetuating a cycle of violence. If Israel can capture or kill the "group of thugs" threatening Israeli families, all well and good. But perhaps Israel's actions spawn more "thugs" than they eliminate. If so, then Israel is not getting closer to its goal.

---

Dirty Politics in Richardson

The Richardson Coalition sent out an email asking a lot of vaguely alarmist questions.

"Which City Council candidates got union PAC money during the 2007 election?"
"How much did they get?"
"What might that mean to our city?"

The accompanying editorial reports the results of a push-poll conducted by the Richardson Coalition to promote the allegation that union PACs are bad and city council officials who accept union PAC money are suspect. The question asked in the push-poll:

"During the last election, the largest contributor of funds to City Council candidates was a union-oriented political action committee. The primary receivers of this PAC’s funds are also the four newest members of the City Council. Do you see this as an attempt to influence votes to support the union’s cause?"

So what? Isn't any PAC contribution to political candidates an attempt to elect representatives sympathetic to the PAC's interests? The purpose of the poll and the email seems to be to cast doubt in voters' minds about certain City Council members, who just happen to be the most recently elected members and the newly elected mayor Steve Mitchell.

What the Richardson Coalition doesn't tell voters is that the Richardson Coalition is itself a Political Action Committee, or PAC, the same as the "union PAC" that the Coalition tries to scare voters about. This hypocrisy, this lack of transparency, this attempt to taint council members by association, amounts to nothing more than dirty politics.

I am generally sympathetic to the agenda of the Richardson Coalition, but I am disappointed by this attack. The Richardson Coalition should stick to promoting better government, not attacking others who get involved in local government as well, not using scare tactics to divide our city. The Richardson Coalition does Richardson no good with these tactics.

---

Sarcasm is the Protest of the Weak

John Knowles, in "A Separate Peace," has his character Gene say, when reflecting on his youth, "This was my sarcastic summer. It was only long after that I recognized sarcasm as the protest of people who are weak."

Two essays today remind me of the wisdom in Gene's self analysis. The first, by former Dallas Morning News columnist William Murchison, is titled, "Those Poor, Poor Terrorists." The second, by NRO's Jay Nordlinger, is titled, "Cheney's a Monster, W.'s Stupid & Palin's a Bimbo." Both headlines drip with sarcasm. Nothing demonstrates more how weak the Republicans are.

By the way, I didn't bother to read either essay. Gene's reminiscences made valuable reading because of the benefit of hindsight (Gene's). Maybe someday, Murchison and Nordlinger will gain that wisdom of hindsight, too, but for now, sarcasm is all they offer, and there's not much value in that.

Craddick comeback; Kirpans; Mean blogs

The Nightly Build...

---

Craddick Comeback Depends on Lots of Luck

Paul Burka, on his own blog, asks if former Texas Speaker of the House Tom Craddick can mount a comeback in 2010 and regain the Speakership. To do so, Burka outlines a credulity-stretching series of events that must happen, some of them contradictory. He says Barack Obama must have a failed first two years of his Presidency, so the country turns against Democrats. Likewise, he says that the presumptive Texas Republican Speaker Joe Straus must have a failed term also. The result would be Texans electing a new Republican House in 2010, but with different Republicans. The new Republicans would be the old Republicans who would elect Tom Craddick to the Speakership again. I'd say stranger things have happened in politics, but I'm not sure that's true. This comeback, if it happens, would be the equal of the most unlikely political comebacks of all time.

---

Of Kirpans and Letter Openers

Bruce Tomaso, in The Dallas Morning News Religion blog, reports of a Sikh woman who was fired by the IRS in Houston who is suing because she claims her freedom of religion was violated because the IRS prohibited her from wearing a kirpan, a ceremonial dagger that Sikhs wear as a duty of their religion.

What complicates the case is that the government allows scissors, letter openers, box cutters, and knives in the same building where the kirpan was banned. I don't know if the kirpan should be banned. I don't know if it should be allowed. But I do contend that kirpans, letter openers, and scissors are of similar size and shape and are equally capable of being used to stab, cut or slice. If one is setting security rules, and considering only the safety aspect, all of these should be treated alike. Either allow them all or ban them all. That's not what's happening in the Houston case.

What seemed simple logic to me obviously didn't seem simple logic to others. One reader, "sjjcrand," oblivious to the fact that Sikhs are not Muslims, exclaimed, "The violence associated with Muslims has to stop!"

A second reader, "Peterk," argues that a kirpan should be banned, but not the scissors or letter opener, because those latter objects have non-lethal purposes, but the kirpan doesn't. This reader is oblivious to the fact that security rules are based on the potential threat of objects, not whether the objects have common, everyday uses other than terrorism. Even if you accept this reader's logic, he ignores the fact that kirpans aren't used for stabbing, cutting, or slicing, unlike the objects he's willing to allow. Kirpans are often too dull to be of much practical use. Terrorists would probably prefer to be armed with a pair of scissors than some of the kirpans worn by Sikhs.

Another reader, "Heathen," offered the opinion that what makes the kirpan more dangerous than a letter opener or scissors is that "a religious zealot is attached to the kirpan." I'm not sure how he knows that, unless it's a blanket characterization that anyone who wears religious symbolism is automatically a zealot. Kind of a Catch 22 rule... You can wear a kirpan if you're not a zealot. But wearing a kirpan automatically makes you a zealot. Interesting logic, but difficult to apply in a nation with freedom of religion.

---

When Snarkiness Sinks to Meanness

Tim Rogers, of Frontburner, unintentionally uncovered an example of what plagues all too many blogs. A regular reader and commenter, "Bethany," has been missing from the comments section for a while, Rogers noted. It turns out that "Bethany" explained why on her own personal blog...

"I’ve been a long-time commenter on D Magazine’s Frontburner. In the halcyon days when I first began commenting, it was fun. There was some good-natured ribbing here and there, but it was a pleasant read, and I was genuinely excited about taking part in some small way in the conversation when the ability to comment was added. But nowadays, it’s turned into a mean-spirited, modern-day Roman arena, where the object is more often than not to tear down and destroy, not engage in civil conversation."

Do you think this lament by "Bethany" caused Frontburner readers to reflect and resolve to raise their level of discourse on that blog? Think again. After a flurry of mean-spirited responses directed at "Bethany," Tim Rogers was forced to shut off comments. Ironically, in purging the remaining comments, even Tim Rogers' own announcement that he was shutting off comments was purged. What's left leaves no moral drawn, no lesson learned, no closure to this unhappy episode in the blogosphere. Perhaps that's to be expected from a blog that prides itself on being called "a snarky celebration of ignorance." Or perhaps all the blogosphere is infected with the virus.

Fairytales; Icing Trees; Indy Star

The Nightly Build...

---

New Front in War On Christmas?

Dallas Blog extended its slide into self-parody for a second straight day with a story by Tom McGregor titled, "Demise of Fairy Tales to Political Correctness." Apparently, the counterattack against the War on Christmas has gone so well that Dallas Blog has decided to open a new front. Turn to Dallas Blog for all the latest news on the efforts to defend the Seven Dwarfs from vicious attacks by over-protective parents.

---

What Not To Do About Icing Trees

Extending the parody theme, I am not sure whether Frontburner's Tim Rogers was kidding or not when he blogged that his tree is "so laden with ice that its lowest branches are drooping to the ground. Now then. My backyard thermometer reads 34. So I got my garden hose and sprayed some of the boughs, thinking that the warm(er) water would melt the ice." Rogers ought to just tape a sign on his back, "Kick me." Frontburner readers obliged, as expected.

---

Not a Prayer

Jeffrey Weiss, in The Dallas Morning News Religion blog, reports that the Indianapolis Star made some changes to its newspapers. Change always elicits reader complaints. In this case, the most controversial move seems to be the elimination of the daily prayer on page A2.

Someone has to say it. At the rate they are losing readers, newspapers don't have a prayer.

Predictions

The Nightly Build...

---

Long Range Predictions for Science

Rod Dreher, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, asks readers, "What game-changing scientific ideas and developments do you expect to live to see?" Dreher himself says he expects "to see quantum physics lead the way in breaking down the barrier between science and spirituality."

I very much doubt that quantum physics is going to give scientists new insights into spirituality. On the other hand, what insights spiritualists like Rod Dreher will claim to derive from quantum physics is anyone's guess.

I expect to see genetic engineering advances that will enable us to create new species. More controversial will be genetic manipulation of the human genome to create babies with almost any physical traits the parents desire.

NYT Christmas editorial; Emerson and happiness

The Nightly Build...

---

NYT Editorial Offends Christians

Bruce Tomaso, in The Dallas Morning News Religion blog, tells us about The New York Times Christmas Day editorial that fails to mention Jesus. Instead, it focuses on de-emphasizing consumerism and reducing the carbon footprint of the holiday. Predictably, knee-jerk conservatives criticized the editorial. Reader "joe bailey hyden" called it an "absurdity" and says "the ny times is the epitome of sophisticated religious bigotry against observant christians."

The reaction to the NYT editorial is evidence of a shift in conservative Christian attitudes regarding Christmas. The editorial calls on Americans to leave the material Christmas behind. In years gone by, you might think conservative Christians would cheer the development. In the past, they had a two-step program for restoring the religious holiday. First, de-emphasize the commercial nature of Christmas, the advertising, the shopping, the gift-buying. Second, put Christ back in Christmas.

Lately, however, conservatives have dropped their opposition to consumerism. They don't object to department stores' lavish displays and extended hours and sales, sales, sales. What they object to is sales clerks wishing shoppers "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." Conservative Christians want to tighten the link between consumerism and Christmas.

So, the NYT committed two sins. First, they criticized consumerism. Second, they didn't pay proper respect to the reason for the consumerism, Jesus Christ. Irony abounds in this season of joy.

---

The Source of Happiness

The day after Christmas, Bruce Tomaso chose for the quote of the day on The Dallas Morning News Religion blog this wisdom from Ralph Waldo Emerson: "Nothing can bring you happiness but yourself."

Reader "Dale," the Bible-quoting, self-identified true Christian, dismisses Emerson with, "Emerson would have fit in well with today's modern society. Its all about me and my happiness".

Reader "Asinus Gravis" finds the reaction ironic.

"Even more odd, not to say self-contradictory, is to be lectured about avoiding thinking 'its all about me' by someone who stresses how supremely important it is that I should seek and secure MY OWN salvation while I have the chance in this life, so I can avoid receiving MY just punishment in the hereafter."

Jesus is usually thought of as stressing selflessness, giving up one's worldly goods, putting the last first, doing unto the least of one's brethren. Yet, the followers of Jesus have somehow subverted this message into putting foremost and almost exclusively the notion that securing one's own eternal salvation is what it's all about. Doing good works won't do it. Having a large carbon footprint won't deny it. In fact, conservative Christians imply that you can have it all, material possessions and eternal salvation, too. Saying "Merry Christmas" with Jesus in your heart is all it takes.

Somehow, I believe that Jesus and Emerson would both suggest that material possessions are not only insufficient for salvation or happiness, but the pursuit of material possessions is a distraction, a barrier, to what brings true fulfillment. It's Christians like "Dale" who have lost the true message of Jesus and fail to understand Emerson at all.

Obama and Rick Warren

The Nightly Build...

---

All Hands on Deck for Inaugural

William McKenzie, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, chooses as the topic of the day the controversy over Barack Obama's choice of Rick Warren to give the invocation prayer at the Inauguration. Warren is controversial because of his stand against gay marriage, especially his support for California's Proposition 8. McKenzie thinks the choice was a masterstroke by Obama, reaching out to a leader of a group, evangelical Christians, that voted against him in the election.

Look. The economy is in crisis. We're fighting two wars. Nuclear proliferation is accelerating. And, if that's not enough, the planet is in peril environmentally. Gay rights is important, but it's not the country's, nor Obama's, priority one, or two, or three, or even four. Obama's choice of Rick Warren signals that Obama wants all hands on deck for these priorities, no matter what side they take on the gay rights issue.

Nigerian violence

The Nightly Build...

---

Clashes Between Muslims and Christians

Nigeria's population is about equally divided between Muslim and Christian, with Muslims dominating the north and Christians the south. The city of Jos is located in between and recently saw violent clashes between the two communities that left 500 dead. Time magazine's coverage of the violence reports:

"In every household, church and mosque, people blamed followers of the other religion with planning and executing the attacks with a vitriol that does not bode well for the future of the city or the region."

Tom McGregor, in Dallas Blog, confirms the vicious violence on both sides, saying that 400 of the dead were Muslim and 100 were Christian. Yet how does Dallas Blog headline this tragedy? "Nigerian Muslims Destroy Christian Churches."

I guess a conservative Christian blog in Dallas, Texas, is not going to have much influence on what happens in Nigeria. Thank God, because the bias and slant of the coverage would only exacerbate the religious divisions behind the tragedies. Dallas Blog's influence on attitudes of conservative Christians in Texas is another matter.