WND Rejoices that “Famous Atheist” Richard Dawkins Says Something Stupid Because No Christian Ever Has Said Something Stupid

This is going to be a very short post on a very current event. FYI, I’m very busy for the next two weeks, so it’s unlikely there’ll be many updates here unless I do it while I’m on a plane.

Anyway, here’s the post: “Famous Atheist Slapped for ‘Disturbing’ Rape Tweets.” By Chelsea Schilling.

The jist is that Richard Dawkins said some stupid stuff. I’m sure it sounded reasonable in his head, but not out loud when vetted. Like, “Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse. If you think that’s an endorsement of date rape, go away and learn how to think.”

Same thing with pedophilia.

Problem is that rape is rape, and his comparison in another tweet of “mild pedophilia” versus “violent pedophilia” is similar. And why did he chose pedophilia and date rape as his examples instead of, say, political corruption?

And there’s an up cry. And WND decided to post on it. It’s just two hours old from when I’m writing this up, and it already has 60 comments. They even have a poll going for it. And the majority of them are crowing about how amoral atheists are and you can’t be good without god and all this other stuff.

Because no Christian – nay, no religious person regardless of religion – ever, has said something stupid and insensitive. It’s only atheists.

Q.E.D.

Fear-Mongering About Yellowstone

It’s rare that something I talk about in my Exposing PseudoAstronomy blog is also something I talk about on this blog due to WND picking it up. It happened with the whole “Blood Moon” think (which, by the way, WND is still trying to promote with near-weekly stories about it, I’m just not talking about it anymore because it’s the same drivel).

In this case, it’s WND’s story posted yesterday by Steve Elwart, “Prediction: 2/3 of U.S. Could be Devastated.” I haven’t seen stories by him before, so here’s his blurb: “Steve Elwart, P.E., Ph.D., is the executive research analyst with the Koinonia Institute and a subject matter expert for the Department of Homeland Security.” For those like me until 15 seconds ago who don’t know what a “P.E.” is, it’s a Professional Engineer licensure / certification by a state board which generally requires at least a bachelor’s degree from an accredited institution. He doesn’t have a personal website I can find, but he does have a LinkedIn page. His articles for WND seem to focus recently on Fukushima doom and gloom.

Anyway, Steve’s story reports on what I reported, though with a more conspiratorial twist. Here’s my take on it:

This post falls under the pre-emptive part for bad media reporting in the charter of this blog. Many media sources are reporting that roads are melting in Yellowstone National Park, in this particular case, closing one of the more popular areas off.

The obvious implication for any “Earth Changes” conspiracy person is that the Yellowstone supervolcano (supervolcano being a term invented just a few years ago in a TV special) is gonna blow. Which means that most of North America will be completely uninhabitable after people within a several hundred kilometer radius die very, very quickly from the event. And worldwide severe weather changes because of the massive amounts of ash.

I want to nip that in the bud, so to speak. At issue is statistics and probability. The Yellowstone area is the site of a massive volcano (for Earth, with a caldera 10s of miles across. Just for the record, that would be a somewhat small volcano on Mars, where for example the Arsia Mons volcano has a caldera that is about 100 km in diameter (~65 miles). Last year, it was reported that the magma chamber under Yellowstone – which is responsible for all the thermal features – is twice as large as previously thought (which isn’t as dangerous as it seems).

The large “supervolcanic” eruptions took place 2.1 Mya, 1.3 Mya, and 0.64 May (millions of years ago). And OHMYGAWD if you take an average of 3 WE ARE OVERDUE FOR A MASSIVE ERUPTION AMIRIGHT!!!!!

Except there’s the rub. We have never observed a supervolcano erupt. I hate to bring in Ken Ham’s “Were you there?” thing, but this is really a case where it’s very difficult for volcanologists to understand how these erupt, the frequency with which they erupt, how to predict when/if they’ll erupt, and what the precursors are to an eruption. It should also be noted that Yellowstone has had smaller eruptions more recently than 640,000 years ago, such as flows that have been dated to 70,000 years old.

Anyway, Yellowstone is an active thermal feature. Hydrothermal because water is involved. It’s no secret that it could explode again. What is lesser known is that it may never explode again. We just don’t know. But what is also clear is that we have no way to predict it. And not knowing means that there’s a certain argument from ignorance fallacy that can be invoked — because scientists don’t know (or won’t tell us because of the conspiracy), then the doomsday guy making the definite claim can clearly know better and tell us what’s gonna happen. (FYI, that’s sarcasm.)

But why don’t the latest thermal melting of roads mean that it’s gonna erupt?

Because it happens frequently. Earthquakes happen there frequently. Sulfur dissolving away metal grates happens there frequently. Like, every year. And that whole video thing last year of bison all stampeding out of the park because they knew it was gonna erupt? That was a video of bison running INTO the park, but that didn’t stop conspiracy and doomsday websites.

I think that the only reason we’re hearing about this particular example is that it melted a road to a popular feature. Keep in mind that very little percentage of the park is a road. So if a capricious thermal feature is going to migrate around and warm a part of the ground to the melting point of asphalt, the likelihood of it being a road is very small. Meaning the likelihood of it being a popular road is even smaller. Meaning the likelihood of it being something that’s widely reported is even smaller.

So … is Yellowstone gonna blow? Maybe. But this latest event should NOT be construed as an increase in activity that indicates an imminent eruption.

WND commenters, as is typical with a science story, seem to not want to talk about the science. I, in my more cynical and not polite and exaggeration moments may say that’s because they’re not smrt enough to comment on the science, but I won’t say that here.

No, instead, the majority of the top-rated of the 287 comments are all about Obama and how he needs to move to Yellowstone. Yup, that’s the level of comments on World Net Daily. Good job, guys.

A Massive Update on WND’s Take on The Gay

Quite awhile ago, I said that the legal march in the US towards equality and non-discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation is continuing, perhaps accelerating, and fervently opposed by the über-conservatives which World Net Daily embodies. And because of that, I was getting somewhat annoyed with the broken-record that I was reporting on here. So this is just a summary of some of the news I flagged over the last two weeks (yay TAM break!).

First off, on July 6, we had Scott Lively write, “‘Gay’ Agenda? What ‘Gay’ Agenda?” Which under normal circumstances I would think is a skeptical look at the vast conspiracy thinking that holds that a massive number of gays and their supporters are trying to take over the world. But this is Scott Lively writing on WND:

Mentioning the “gay” agenda in the presence of an LGBT activist or any other cultural Marxist is like pulling the string on a Sheriff Woody doll. You hear precisely the same recording each time: “What gay agenda? There is no gay agenda.”

But, of course, the audacious lie that the now-global LGBT political movement has “no agenda” is as transparent as the emperor’s new clothes. Indeed, their agenda is not only undeniable, it has unfortunately become unavoidable.

The rest of the post is an attempt to support his concluding paragraph, which I summarized in one sentence above:

In summary, the “gay” agenda is to eliminate the existing Judeo-Christian model of civilization, grounded in marriage-based procreative sexuality, to make way for an irrational and impossible cultural Marxist model which imagines family-less, unlimited “sexual freedom” (anarchy), while somehow preserving orderliness in every other aspect of human society. It reflects an insane and Satanic delusion that breeds chaos, and can only be stopped by unceasing reaffirmation of biblical values and the natural family by the rest of us.

It’s difficult to try to make light, humorize, or parody this kind of thing because it is its own parody. “Insane and Satanic delusion”? Really?

Moving on, in the totally not-gay business of baking cakes and decorating them with colorful icing, Bob Unruh on July 7 informed us that “Another Baker Ordered to Endorse Homosexuality.” In Northern Ireland. Grand! But there’s hope in the US, because Bob reported on July 17 that in Colorado, “Baker Appeals Government Re-Education Order.”

A Lakewood, Colorado, bakery owner has appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals an order from the state’s Civil Rights Commission that he take his employees through a mandatory re-education process because of his religious objections to promoting same-sex marriage, which the state constitution does not recognize.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, who represents Masterpiece Cakeshop artist Jack Phillips, says the order by state bureaucrats requires Phillips to “re-educate” his employees so that they “endorse all views.” Phillips also must file quarterly reports for two years proving that the “re-education” has been implemented.

The title is a clear allusion to Communism and totalitarian societies.

Meanwhile, Selena Owens declared on July 8, “Marriage: Not an Experiment!” She’s correct, it’s not. It’s a social and religious contract that has been a tradition only in its coarsest of ideas for thousands of years, but the specifics have varied not only by society and country, but by almost decade after decade. It was when governments got involved and granted literally hundreds (and in the US, over 1000) legal rights to people who are married (such as hospital visitation, joint tax filing, can’t be compelled to testify against spouse, etc.) that those legal protections were wanted by same-sex couples who love each other just as much as opposite-sex couples who have >50% divorce rate in the US. (And let’s not forget Britney Spears’ 54-hour “just for fun” totally-not-an-experiment marriage from a decade ago.)

But no, totally not an experiment, totally set in stone and totally unchanging. But I digress, since her column is actually about a stupid new reality TV show:

“Married at First Sight” is a new “social experiment” show from A&E’s new FYI network, (based on a Danish version of the show) that pairs three couples who agree to marry upon their first initial meeting. That’s right; the very first date for these couples will be when they actually walk down the aisle to join together in matrimony. The show “will follow the classic lifestyle stories of newlyweds – from the honeymoon to early nesting to other relatable events of married life. After several weeks together, the couple must make a decision: Do they remain together or do they separate?”

But since I already wrote my rant, I’ll leave it in.

In the continued march towards state recognition of marriage equality, on July 9, “Judge Tosses Colorado ‘Gay’-Marriage Ban,” and on July 18, “Federal Court Rules for ‘Gay’ Marriage in Oklahoma.” But just like last time when there was a flurry of judicial rulings that pointed out the prohibited discriminatory nature of not letting same-sex couples wed, Bob Unruh charged in on July 19 to remind people, “Activist Judges Push ‘Gay Marriage.'”

The reason I’m not talking about the comments on these, like the 624 (so far) on Bob’s story, is that they are exactly what you would expect from WND, complaining about judicial activists or crying about Jesus being banned.

Speaking about Jesus being banned, Joseph Farah used his July 11 column to remind us, “Christians Are Not Hostile to ‘Gays.'” Nope, and the very fact you put scare-quotes around “gay” just proves how loving you are. (Remember: Farah is the founder and CEO of WND.) Farah takes the common BS reminder that Christians hate the sin, not the sinner:

The job of evangelicals is to evangelize.

You don’t evangelize non-sinners. The act of evangelizing is to confront sinners with their fallen state – their shortcomings, their appointment with death. It is that act that brings sinners to salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus. That’s why He died on the cross – to give sinners a chance for eternal life. He died for them, us, you and me. And He conquered death for them through this sacrificial act when He rose from the dead.

Neither Jesus nor any true evangelical would ever be “hostile” to sinners. In fact, it is an act of love to share the gospel with them. But sharing the gospel means confronting the reality of sin, not excusing it, condoning it, glorifying it or participating in it.

The problem with this is found in the Bible itself, in Matthew 7:16: “By their fruit you will recognize them.” (NIV) So you can preach whatever “love” you want, but when your actions are hostile, violent, and denying of basic human equality, they belie your tender words. But of course, Christians think that it’s them who are under attack: “Left Moves to Outlaw Christianity,” by Matt Barber, also on July 11.

But The Gay is permeating society, with beloved comic character Archie from the eponymous comic series sacrificing himself: “‘Archie’ Dies Saving ‘Gay’ Friend.” Sigh.

And while we’re talking about WND devolving into a tabloid, also on the LGBT “news” track is a story form July 15 by Joe Kovacs, who wrote “Ellen’s Wife ‘Secretly Filmed Abuse to Expose Her.'” And so far as I can tell, this is one source from one celebrity rumor site with no substantiation and no public confirmation by anyone. But as I have pointed out many times on this blog, Joe Kovacs, despite being “an award-winning journalist and, since 1999, executive news editor of WND,” tends to report rumors that are completely unsubstantiated that would make even most bloggers blush at trying to report as genuine.

Also on July 15, it was announced that the town of Salem, MA, is terminating (really, just not renewing) its contract with Gordon College because Gordon College discriminates against LGBT people (and it’s allowed because it’s private, and it does it because it’s Christian; don’t’cha feel the love?). In particular:

That changed last week when the president of the small Christian college on the North Shore, D. Michael Lindsay, joined a group of 14 religious leaders in asking President Obama for an exemption from a planned executive order banning discrimination in hiring on the basis of sexual orientation. Surprisingly, such discrimination is not explicitly banned now.

The group sent the president a letter in which they tried to frame their request for an exemption as a matter of religious freedom. They claimed that the proposed ban would “come at an unreasonable cost to the common good, national unity and religious freedom.”

So, what actually happened was: “Mayor Kim Driscoll sent a letter to President Lindsay this morning notifying him and his Board of Trustees of the City’s termination of their management contract of Old Town Hall due to the institution’s non-compliance with the City of Salem’s fully LGBT-inclusive Non-Discrimination Ordinance.”

What’s great about this – besides the obvious – is that Glen Beck decided to tell his massive audience about it, and the Salem Mayor’s office got a lot of angry phone calls. Why is that great? Because “Mayor Kimberly Driscoll pledged to donate five dollars to an LGBT youth charity for every angry phone call her office gets from conservatives bent on harassing city employees over the decision.” Ha!

But, on July 17, WND decided to try to remind people that they are being Oppressed by a tiny portion of society: “‘Gay’ Population Smaller than Thought.” This reports on a recently released poll:

Based on 2013 data collected by the government in The National Health Interview Survey, 1.6 percent of adults identify as gay or lesbian and 0.7 percent identify as bisexual. The numbers were lower than earlier approximations, which placed gay and lesbians at closer to 3 percent of the population. More than 96 percent identified as straight, and 1.1 percent did not provide an answer or said they were “something else,” or “I don’t know the answer.”

Personally, I think this under-estimates the population. That’s because there are many people who say they are straight but still “just have sex” with people of the same gender. I have a cousin who worked with an HIV clinic in outreach to that population of “men who have sex with men” but don’t consider themselves “gay.” Similarly, this was a survey conducted by the government. For a group that is actively marginalized and discriminated against, the idea that they are going to be 100% honest and tell the government if they’re gay is ridiculous. This may have been attempted to be corrected for (I haven’t read the analysis methods in detail), but it’s definitely something that must be considered.

For those reasons, at best, I would say this sets a minimum on the population. But let’s say that ~2-3% is accurate. So what? It’s okay to discriminate against 2-3% of the population but not 5%? Or 10%? Where’s the cut-off? Anything under 77% because it’s 77% that’s Christian? FYI, at that same link, only 1.7% of the population of the US is Jewish. Gays outnumber Jews. Hmmmmm…

Finally, today, Monday July 21, we finally have President Obama accomplishing via Executive Order what ENDA has been trying to do for decades but failing to get through Congress: A ban on LGBT discrimination in the federal workforce. As in, any government agency, and anyone who contracts with the government for that particular project, canNOT discriminate based on sexual orientation. AND, he did not include any exception for religion (which would have made it a toothless EO).

WND reported on this in a snippet from NBC News (“Obama Signs Ban on LGBT Discrimination”). People who are less familiar with how the US government works (such as those on WND) may wonder how he can do this. It’s because the Executive branch of government is the one that implements and enforces the laws. While the Legislative makes the laws, it’s the Executive who, well, executes them. While Congress designates what receives funding, the office of the President is the one who distributes them. And unless there is a law against it, he can choose how to do that within the scope of what Congress said. And since even the current Congress wouldn’t be stupid enough to explicitly say that LGBT persons must be discriminated against in the workplace, then Obama can emphasize the opposite.

It also has a huge amount of precedence. For example, this EO is just an amendment: “In the 1960s, President Lyndon Johnson signed an order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating “against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Obama’s executive order added sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected categories.”

Or, in a completely different example, while Congress approves money for federal medical research, the Executive works within that to appropriate funds. And in 2001, President G.W. Bush issued an EO stating that NO federal money could be used for stem cell research other than already-existing lines.

So, this bit of good news – that is fully within the Executive branch’s power, is what I’ll wrap this particular update post up with.

WND Still Doesn’t Understand Atheists

I find fascinating when people who don’t belong to some group seem to think they know exactly what the group is, much better than those within the group. True, sometimes this is a valid situation, such as scientology, where it is well documented what the “end game” of information is with that belief system, which is hidden from the people who just start out. But in open groups, it’s hubris.

But, I don’t think that anyone’s ever accused WND of not having hubris. In this case, we have a poll, “Oh, My Godless,” where the question is, “Do atheists exist?”

The poll’s only been up for a day, and it only have a bit over 100 votes, but over 1/3 don’t know what an atheist is. The most popular choices at the moment are simply Biblical things, that either atheists exist but the Bible calls them “fools,” or that atheists don’t exist because “we are mad win the image of God to know God” (which is a massive non sequitur).

But the third-most-popular response is, “No, people who fight against something they say does not exist are either crazy or they’re suppressing what they know to be true,” and the fourth is “”Atheist” can mean “no God” or “against God” – there’s no doubt the latter exists.” Ummmm… no.

“Atheist” does not mean “no God” nor “against God.” That would be “adeist” or “antideist.” “Atheist” means not (or without) theology / religion. The Christians here are so self-centered that they think it’s about them; rather, atheists are simply non-theistic about all religions.

With that in mind, that third option – which currently runs at 21% of the votes – is non-sensicle (that’s, “doesn’t make sense,” not “anti-sense”).

As for “suppressing what they know to be true,” well, I’ll just hijack this point and direct you over to Gay Homophobe, a website that tracks how many days it’s been since a virulently anti-gay person was revealed to be gay.

Fool-Proof Way the Über-Conservative Can Convert a Liberal in 5 Minutes! (Or Your Money Back?)

I love these things that people put out, touting definite ways to convert someone to their way of thinking. One of the most memorable, for me personally, was when I worked for two weeks at Kings Island after I graduated from high school (no, I was not fired, I hated it and turned in my 7-day notice after a week). But, a group of teenagers (my age) was attending a local Bible camp, where they were learning outreach practices, and by night to help pay for the camp, thy were working at Kings Island, too.

I got along really well with one of the guys, and we bonded over washing dishes. One night, as we were headed back to our respective cars in the employee lot, he asked if he could try something on me … and it was a magical night for both– wait, I mean, he had learned a sure-fire way to convert anyone to Christianity, in 3 minutes or less!

I said “sure” and in my perpetual state of assholery asked if he wanted me to time him, too.

What proceeded was basically the argument of, “Why wouldn’t you *want* to be saved?” (The whole, Jesus died for you, it’s a gift, offers blah blah blah, etc.)

I told him simply that it wasn’t an issue of whether I wanted something or not, it was an issue of whether I believed that everything he premised it on was real or not in spite of having zero objective evidence.

So much for the conversion.

My issue with these things is that they presuppose a certain arrogance on their part and ignorance on the other person’s part: They are the ones who are Correct, and we are the ignorant boobs who have just never thought of the issues before.

What this gets to is Gina Loudon’s column from four days ago, “5 Ways to Convert a Liberal in 5 Minutes.” Color me skeptical.

1. Civil discourse and tolerance

This is supposed to be the hook, because as we liberals always assume, conservatives are whack jobs, and we gotta be shown that they aren’t: “Their dirty little secret is that they believe we don’t have any ability to engage in either civil discourse or tolerance. If we engage with promotion of those two ideas, and dispel those myths, we open the door.”

Okay, so we have a perhaps false dichotomy, but definitely a false major premise. Most conservatives, like most liberals, are perfectly normal, rational people, and most of us recognize that. This is why in my blog I’m careful to talk about the “über-conservatives” on WND rather than all “conservatives” in general.

2. Compassion

I don’t quite understand this one as she has laid it out. And if you want to convince me of something quickly, you gotta make it clear. What I did get from it is that she thinks that liberals think that conservatives don’t have compassion. Another false major premise.

But she also insults liberals: She says that liberals have a less tolerant view of culture.

I would like to turn that back in her face and ask who, in the US, is most likely to reject any culture other than their’s? Just in general. Well, I’d say it’s the conservative party – Republicans – who want to severely restrict immigration and who are most islamophobic. You get that much more from Republicans (specifically Tea Partiers) than you do from Democrats. So much for compassion.

Oh yeah, and The Gay. Need I go further with “compassion?”

3. What Works

‘kay, maybe this will be the zinger. Oh wait, it’s a video. It starts out (when I clicked) with a 30-second ad for a Genesis movie that includes people like Banana-Man Ray Comfort and AiG CEO Ken Ham, along with other names I quickly recognized like Falwell.

After that plays, there is a 6-minute 48-second TV clip. So much for 5 minutes. Since that’s over the time limit, I didn’t watch.

4. Freedom

Here’s the premise on this:

a) Government is force (coercive).

b) Even if government wanted to help the vulnerable, it can’t. It fails every time.

c) Economic growth is important for everyone – especially the poor.

d) Economic liberty is as important as civil liberty in a compassionate society.

e) Freedom is about more than economics. It is compassion for your fellow man.

f) Spontaneous order is powerful.

Gina in the next paragraph uses the term “evolutionist” which made me roll my eyes.

5. Connect first, contend later

This is really her first argument, but the intent is basically “hook ’em, then blast ’em” with your conservative-is-best arguments: “Focus on the things you agree upon. Find those pivotal issues that transcend politics. Build the relationship on those things first, and then when the conversation allows, introduce the points above.”

For example: “Instead of talking about abortion, talk about life. Instead of talking about Second Amendment freedoms, talk about saving lives. Rather than talking about economics, talk about equality and freedom. Instead of talking about illegal immigration, talk about compassion. Authenticity and heartfelt compassion is key. This isn’t about manipulation; this is about relationship. Connect first, contend later.”

Converted Yet?

Nope. And the commenters pretty much realize this AND they show exactly why Gina is wrong when trying to paint conservatives in broad brushstrokes, just as she’s trying to paint liberals. Tolerance? Compassion?

Ahem … take “s gre” who has the highest-rated comment:

The above is an attempt to reason with liberalism. The problem is that liberalism is a mental disorder! One CANNOT reason with a crazy person! Crazy people (liberals) can only be rebuked, restrained and contained so as not to harm themselves and others. Unfortunately, the so-called “American people” keep electing crazy people to public office! In the words of the great American philosopher Forrest Gump, “Stupid is as stupid does”.

Also with the same number of up-votes comes “hugomossner”:

For the most part I despise liberal progressives in leadership positions, and I strongly resent those that put them there. I am so opposed to these people and their mindset that I really don’t even want to try to find a point of agreement with them. I want them to have their own country, their own leaders, their own controlling punitive regulations. (then they would be like most 3rd world cesspools) Then in a generation or two they will see the error of their ways, and either beg to come back or gin up a lie to stir up their people to go to war against us to try again to take what they have not earned, and do not deserve.

I think we’ve seen enough. If anyone is convinced by her arguments, let me know in the comments!

Marriage Equality Continues, Now in Kentucky (Sorta)

I was waiting for WND to do this post, since it actually happened yesterday (Tuesday, July 1): “Judge Tosses Kentucky ‘Gay’-Marriage Ban.” It comes courtesy of the Courier-Journal as opposed to any of pretty much ALL the news outlets yesterday that talked about it.

Here’s why I wanted to talk about it: Because the Federal Judge (Senior U.S. District Court Judge John G. Heyburn II) pulled no punches with his ruling, calling the state’s defense “bewildering and irrational.” From The Raw Story:

“In America, even sincere and long-held religious beliefs do not trump the constitutional rights of those who happen to have been out-voted,” Heyburn wrote in his ruling.

The judge sharply rejected the only justification for the ban offered by Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear’s lawyers – who argued that traditional marriage contributed to a stable birth rate and the state’s long-term economic stability.

“These arguments are not those of serious people,” Heyburn said.

“Though it seems almost unnecessary to explain, here are the reasons why,” Heyburn continued. “Even assuming the state has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation, the Court fails to see, and Defendant never explains, how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to get married, the number who choose to have children, or the number of children they have.”

…“The state’s attempts to connect the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage to its interest in economic stability and in ‘ensuring humanity’s continued existence’ are at best illogical and even bewildering,” Heyburn wrote.

That’s right, Christians: “Even sincere and long-held religious beliefs do not trump the constitutional rights of those who happen to have been out-voted.”

And that’s right, Christians: If gays get to marry, it’s not going to suddenly cause all the straights to stop having children.

Most WND commenters of course disagree. Take “pi10107” who wrote, “Another activist judge without an IQ high enough to understand the Constitution. Judges do not have the right to overturn the votes of the people just because it does not go along with that judge’s personal desire. Our country is being ruled by an illegal alien Muslim ignoring our laws and our Constitution and the judges are in his pocket.” That’s actually true (that a judge can’t do something just because of their “personal desire”). But the rest is hogwash. A role of the judiciary is to protect the minority from the majority when the majority is violating the minority’s rights. Hence, this ruling. And, hence throwing out one of the lamest defenses ever offered against marriage equality (that it will lower birthrates among heaters).

I’m writing this post as comments are being posted to the very newly-posted WND snippet, and this response was just posted by “sirjonk” and I fully expect it to be deleted by a moderator: “lol. Harvard Law educated judge selected by Mitch McConnell, appointed by GHWB. And his IQ is low, and you, the anonymous internet poster, is the intelligent one. HAHAHA” (Update a half hour later, though still before this post goes up: Yes, his comments have been deleted.)

“American Tax Payer is a world of crazy:

Whatever State legalizes “gay marriage” will see an influx of homosexuals and then they will start demanding the “Right” to be parents (adopting) and then they will start demanding the “Right” to be propelled into positions they’re not qualified for just because they’re homosexual like the non-whites do with their Affirmative Action.

The problem is, homos are never happy. First they said they just wanted the same “Rights” so we gave them Civil Unions. Then they said they “needed” to take our word, “Marriage” from us so they could be “equal” and next, they’ll demand the “Right” to adopt our children so they can trick uninformed normal people into believing they can actually procreate like normal people can.

The threat to the Population of Kentucky comes in the form of Heterosexual Flight. It works the same way White Flight does.

I would actually argue that “[Christians] are never happy;” fully recognizing that most Christians are perfectly happy living and let living, I’m talking about those on the über-right wing. Those Christians won’t be happy until “God” is plastered on public buildings, the Bible is mandatory reading in schools, every public assembly/meeting starts with a prayer, and Biblical law is followed. If you think I’m exaggerating, read RightWing Watch for a week, and you will see that I’m not.

“Homos” won’t be happy until they have equal rights. It’s really that simple. The patronization to say that “we gave them Civil Unions” just says it all, and gives further credence to the need of at least one branch of government to tell this majority to STFU.

Maybe “Leonard Corwin” would be disappointed to learn who appointed the judge: “Toss the judge. The fool is incompetent and not fit to serve on the bench. Which screwball democrat appointed him?”

Ahem: “On the recommendation of Senator Mitch McConnell, Heyburn was nominated by President George H. W. Bush on March 20, 1992 to a seat vacated by Thomas Ballantine, Jr. as Ballantine went on senior status. Heyburn was confirmed by the US Senate on August 12, 1992 on a Senate vote and received commission on August 17, 1992.” —Wikipedia. Hardly a conservative or conservative-appointed jurist. But facts never get in the way of righteous indignation, with “Frank” asking, “so who bought off this judge?” and “Patti_Mi” responding, “He’s probably an Obama plant.”

Of course, there are a few commenters who agree with the ruling, such as “Dancewithme”: “I guess my (heterosexual) parents wouldn’t be allowed to get married in Kentucky since my mom can’t have kids and thus they can’t procreate….what a b*llsh*t argument by the govener!!!!” “Dancewithme” also responded to “Frank”‘s indignation: “Making a bad case in court doesn’t really equate to buying someone off…if you present a crappy case in court you’ll most likely loose.”

Obama Is the Worst President Since WWII … Except, So’s Bush, Clinton, Nixon, Carter, …

The American electorate has a very short-term memory. It’s unfortunate that they tend to forget things in politics for the latest— OMG something shiny just went by!!!!

Okay, where was I? Ah, that’s right. Several news sites yesterday had headlines along the line of what WND posted from Washington Times today, “Poll: Obama Worst President Since WW II.”

And taken at its face, without any context or looking at any other polls or the history of said poll, this is true. But putting it in context – unlike the myriad of WND commenters – takes more work, but it is rewarding because it shows that most people think this about the sitting president.

Fortunately, the Washington Post‘s Philip Bump did that extra work so we don’t have to. The article has a lot more to it than I’m going to put in here, but really, this table tells it all (reproduced from the article):

July 2006	July 2014
George W. Bush (34 percent) Richard Nixon (17 percent) Bill Clinton (16 percent) Jimmy Carter (13 percent)	Barack Obama (33 percent) George W. Bush (28 percent) Richard Nixon (13 percent) Jimmy Carter (8 percent)

 

That’s right: This time back in GW Bush’s presidency, a statistically same number of respondents thought he was the worst president in history (and I would’ve been one of them). 16% said Clinton. I would expect that this time in the next president’s term, ~15-20% will say Obama, and this time in the next-next president’s term, he will be off the top four.

Corporations Now Have Religious Beliefs

“Corporations are people, my friend.”  –former Presidential nominee, Mitt Romney

The Roberts Supreme Court may be known for many things when looking back on it in a century, but I expect that one of them will be taking broad steps to give the same rights to corporations that are enjoyed by individuals. Yesterday (Monday, June 30), the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling that many of us more progressive folks, and almost certainly non-religious folks, had been watching closely, and dreaded: In Burwell et al. v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. et al., SCOTUS in a 5-4 decision ruled for Hobby Lobby.

At issue, to the layperson like myself, was whether the federal government could force a publicly owned corporation to provide a service to its employees just as all other corporations, but against this corporation’s religious beliefs. SCOTUS ruled “no.”

I opened over two dozen stories about this yesterday and today, and it’s actually not quite as bad as I thought. The “real” issue, or at least the legal justification of this much narrower decision than it could have been, is that the mandate to provide contraception as part of the health care plan offered to employees actually conflicts with a 1993 religious freedom law (“Religious Freedom Restoration Act”):

The legislation said that “governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification.” It went on to say that the measure’s purpose was “to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.” –NY Times

SCOTUS decided that requiring Hobby Lobby to provide contraception under the 2010 Affordable Care Act, against those in charge’s religious feelings, violated the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. They did not issue a blanket ruling saying that the ACA was unconstitutional, that the 1993 law is constitutional, or anything like that.

Which means that there are two very clear ways around this. First, the government could subsidize birth control for women who do not have it covered by their employer. Second, Congress could repeal the 1993 Act. I think that the former via Executive Order is much more likely to happen in this political environment than the latter. Though they may be trying for the latter at the moment.

So now that you’ve suffered through my legal opinions, let’s go for some linky-dinks (the “dinks” because we’re talking WND here):

• “Supreme Court Rules on ‘Hobby Lobby’ vs. ObamaCare” –Bob Unruh
• “1 SCOTUS Ruling at a Time” –unattributed
• “ObamaCare Decision a ‘Rebuke’ to President” –Josh Ely, Josh Noble, Andrew Ireland
• “Top 6 Reasons ObamaCare Is Probably Illegal” –unattributed

You can get a good idea from the headlines where they’re headed with this, and among the hundreds of comments (435 alone on Bob’s), most are quite pleased.

Most liberals are not. There are many implications, and perhaps the most scathing dissent from the majority was by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But before I get to that, the LGBT community is particularly worried about the implications.

Top-rated comment by “GeorgiaPeachie” on Bob Unruh’s article tells you why: “WOOHOO!!! This ruling can be used by Christians when sued by HOMOSEXUALS. The Wedding Cake, Wedding Photography and others related small businesses now have a ruling in their favor!!! HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY DAY!!!”

Yeah … now, I’m no “law-talkin’ guy” (lawyer), but it seems to me that if the justification for the mandate being illegal (not unconstitutional) is that employers can impose their religious beliefs on the kinds of services offered their employees, then what’s to stop a Christian-bent company owner from refusing to honor the marriage (and therefore spousal plans for health insurance) to a same-sex couple that is legally married in that state? Or innumerable other things. RightWing Watch has already pointed to many of the leaders of the anti-gay movement saying as much.

With that taste in mind, here are several other articles that have a more liberal feeling on the ruling, generally in temporal order from when I found them:

• “Supreme Court Rules on Hobby Lobby Case: Corporations (Somehow) Have Religious Beliefs” –The Friendly Atheist (Hemant Metah)
• “Hobby Lobby Wins Supreme Court Case, Limits the ACA Contraception Mandate” –The Raw Story
• “Hobby Lobby: Religious Rights For Secular For-Profit Corporations … Just This One Time” –RightWing Watch (Brian Tashman)
• “The FFRF’s Take on the Hobby Lobby Decision” –Why Evolution Is True (Jerry Coyne)
• “Hobby Lobby Opens Up a Minefield” –RightWing Watch (Paul Gordon)
• “Religious Right Reacts To Hobby Lobby Decision: A Victory Over King George III And ‘Subsidized Consequence Free Sex'” –RightWing Watch (Miranda Blue) ——you really should read this one
• “White House: Supreme Court Jeopardizes the Health of Women with Hobby Lobby Ruling” –The Raw Story
• “Dumb Conservative Dudes Weigh in on Hobby Lobby, Remind Us They Don’t Know How Contraception Works” –The Raw Story (Amanda Marcotte)
• “Americans Are Really Confused About Whether They Like the Supreme Court’s Birth Control Decision” –The Washington Post (Aaron Blake)
• “Faith Groups Divided in Their Reaction to Court’s Decision Affirming Religious Rights” –The Washington Post (Michelle Boorstein)
• “Answers to Questions About Supreme Court’s Decision on Contraception Mandate” –The Washington Post (Sandhya Somashekhar)
• “George Takei: Boycott Hobby Lobby” –Joe.My.God (Joe Jervis)
• “Anti-Gay Activists Hopeful Hobby Lobby Will Lead To License To Discriminate” –RightWingWatch (Miranda Blue)
• “4 Reasons the Supreme Court Contraception Ruling Means Less Than You Think” –Time (Kate Pickert)
• “The Time A Corporation Cited Religious Freedom As A Way To Avoid Desegregation” –RightWing Watch (Brian Tashman)
• “The Hobby Lobby Majority, Summarized in (Relatively) Plain English” –The Washington Post (Eugene Volokh)
• “Why Liberals Can be Grateful for the Hobby Lobby Ruling” –Time (David Van Biema)
• “After Hobby Lobby, Right-Wingers Pray Gays Are Next” –The Advocate (Trudy Ring)
• “18 Tweets That Point Out the Absurdity of the Hobby Lobby Ruling” –The Advocate (Jami Smith)
• “Hobby Lobby Still Covers Vasectomies and Viagra” –The Huffington Post (Alexander C. Kaufman)

There are many things in these other writings that I like, and I’m going to quote several of them. From Hemant (first link):

Congratulations, conservative Christian business owners. You win. You can finally legally discriminate against women by denying them access to certain kinds of birth control normally available through their insurance.

Just remember this, Green family: While you’re reveling in victory, millions of young people are fully aware of what you’re really celebrating. It’s not about “religious liberty” because your rights were never up for debate. We know you’re happy because, once again, Christianity has been used as a weapon of discrimination. Enjoy your Supreme Court victory while it lasts because, in exchange, you’re about to lose even more of your social power.

This is just a continuation of all those other times you used your power to make others’ lives worse. Every time you stood in the way of marriage equality, more people left their churches, vowing never to return. For years now, we’ve known that the reputation of Christians is that they’re anti-science, anti-gay, and anti-women. You’ve only solidified those stereotypes and churches will pay for that as they lose members fed up with being associated with an organization that takes joy in denying others freedom and happiness.

The Center for Inquiry:

“This is not a decision that advances religious freedom — it is a decision that enshrines religious privilege over and above employee well-being,” added Lindsay. “This decision defies common sense, lacks compassion, and has the potential to harm us all.”

From RightWing Watch:

Writing for the majority in the Hobby Lobby case, Justice Alito emphasized [PDF] that the ruling, which partly overturned the Obama administration’s rules on birth control coverage, does not apply to other cases involving religious objections to government regulations.

… While Alito stresses that only closely-held corporations are involved in this case, what about a company board dominated by Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Scientists, or evangelicals like David Barton who believe “that the Bible opposes the minimum wage, unions and collective bargaining, estate taxes, capital gains taxes, and progressive taxation in general”?

With Congress currently debating the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, what if Hobby Lobby’s owners cited their religion as a reason to discriminate against LGBT employees? Or refuse to cover HIV/AIDS treatments?

The Washington Post, who showed a lot of different poll results:

It suggests that Americans’ opinions on the topic are quite malleable and — by extension — pretty soft. If Americans can offer such different responses based on just a few words being changed in the question, they probably don’t feel all that strongly about the issue or haven’t really paid attention.

That doesn’t mean that there aren’t people who feel very strongly. It just means they they are probably in the minority.

Which means today’s Supreme Court ruling is probably a lot more about precedent and legal wrangling than about the 2014 election.

The Washington Post’s Q&A article:

Does this mean I will no longer get free birth control through my company insurance plan?

It probably does not mean that — unless you work for Hobby Lobby or Conestoga Wood Specialties, or one of the more than 40 other companies that have filed similar complaints. Other companies might jump on the bandwagon, but a deluge is unlikely.

For one thing, the justices were specific that a company dropping this coverage had to be motivated by sincerely held religious convictions. Most companies, even if their owners are religious, are secular in their day-to-day operations.

Also, even before the law, most employers covered contraception, suggesting they do not have to be compelled to offer the benefit.

George Takei:

“In this case, the owners happen to be deeply Christian; one wonders whether the case would have come out differently if a Muslim-run chain business attempted to impose Sharia law on its employees. As many have pointed out, Hobby Lobby is the same company that invests in Pfizer and Teva Pharmaceuticals, makers of abortion inducing-drugs and the morning after pill. It also buys most of its inventory from China, where forced abortions are common. The hypocrisy is galling.

“Hobby Lobby is not a church. It’s a business — and a big one at that. Businesses must and should be required to comply with neutrally crafted laws of general applicability. Your boss should not have a say over your healthcare. Once the law starts permitting exceptions based on ‘sincerely held religious beliefs’ there’s no end to the mischief and discrimination that will ensue. Indeed, this is the same logic that certain restaurants and hotels have been trying to deploy to allow proprietors to refuse service to gay couples.”

Finally, from Justice Ginsburg’s dissent (copied from TFA):

Persuaded that Congress enacted RFRA to serve a far less radical purpose, and mindful of the havoc the Court’s judgment can introduce, I dissent.

… The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention. One can only wonder why the Court shuts this key difference from sight.

… the Court’s reasoning appears to permit commercial enterprises like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga to exclude from their group health plans all forms of contraceptives.

… Would the exemption the Court holds RFRA demands for employers with religiously grounded objections to the use of certain contraceptives extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations (Christian Scientists, among others)? According to counsel for Hobby Lobby, “each one of these cases… would have to be evaluated on its own… apply[ing] the compelling interest-least restrictive alternative test.”… Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision.