When Dominionists Try to Control Media

I've recently found a charming (tongue firmly in cheek) little blog called GetReligion. It is supposed to be a blog where discussions of journalism and religion stories happen where the authors discuss how to make the stories more balanced. There's a recent article about the cross to be placehttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifd at ground zero where we find out that the article isn't as good as it could be because there are no mention of atheists that don't want a lawsuit to block the cross. Apparently, the article lacked because it didn't paint atheists in a negative enough light.

The next article they published showed us how articles that report on the gay marriage victory in NY are flawed unless they include people who are upset by this because they are acting on their deep, religious principles.

In short, it's a religious apologetics site that whinges that there's not enough pro-Xian and anti-everyone else stuff published in certain news reports. At least that's what I surmised from reading and commenting. It doesn't take a genius to scan through their articles and start to see the hints they leave. Gays = bad. Atheists = bad. Not enough mention of Xianity in a positive light = bad. Story supportive of Xianity = good. Etc. My comments were also routinely edited and/or outright deleted for not being sufficiently focused on journalism, while other comments not at all related were approved - so long as they supported the Xian stance. When called out on it, they started to make accusations of bigotry against journalists, which is funny since I never uttered a word against journalism or journalists (In fact, if they had to delete my comments for not being about journalism, how can I then be accused to posting bigoted rants against journalism/journalists?) I figured they were the run of the mill clueless gobshites that one meets all over the web. But, of course, it actually goes deeper than that.

I had linked to my blog on my comments, and wouldn't you know it, one reader hopped over here to post an excellent link that shows this blog for what it really is (HT to Jay in the comments). It turns out that GetReligion is a front for Xian Reconstructionists AKA Dominionists. These radicals want to make the Bible into our law book with such draconian measures as death for such "crimes" as homosexuality. In short, they are theocrats that want nothing more than to turn the US into a theocracy with their version of Xianity being the rule of law. And, this GetReligion blog seems to be a front for them.

Yet, the GetReligion group tries their best to proclaim that they are merely interested in journalism and they try to advocate in measured tones. This is nothing short of rank dishonesty on their part. And, what does it tell you when the advocates of Xian theocracy feel they have to lie about their motives? Well, for one it says that even they probably recognize the ridiculousness of their aims and that they can't hope to actually gain converts without deceit. It also points out the contradictory nature of a group that would seek to install Biblical law -thou shall not bear false witness - by doing just that, bearing false witness. It also shows that to them, the ends justify the means. Their vitriolic hatred of others (gays, atheists, etc) burns so hot and bright that they will do whatever they can in order to strike out at those others, no matter what it takes and no matter how dishonest and underhanded they have to be. What makes someone hate their fellow humans so much? Oh yeah, I remember - it's fundamentalist religion.

A Rather Fragile Ego

Dr. Dembski's Course at SWBTS

AP410 This is the undegrad course. You have three things to do: (1) take the final exam (worth 40% of your grade); (2) write a 3,000-word essay on the theological significance of intelligent design (worth 40% of your grade); (3) provide at least 10 posts defending ID that you’ve made on “hostile” websites, the posts totalling 2,000 words, along with the URLs (i.e., web links) to each post (worth 20% of your grade).

AP510 This is the masters course. You have four things to do: (1) take the final exam (worth 30% of your grade); (2) write a 1,500- to 2,000-word critical review of Francis Collins’s The Language of God -- for instructions, see below (20% of your grade); (3) write a 3,000-word essay on the theological significance of intelligent design (worth 30% of your grade); (4) provide at least 10 posts defending ID that you’ve made on “hostile” websites, the posts totalling 3,000 words, along with the URLs (i.e., web links) to each post (worth 20% of your grade).

AP810 This is the D.Min. course. You have four things to do: (1) take the final exam (worth 30% of your grade); (2) write a 1,500- to 2,000-word critical review of Francis Collins’s The Language of God -- for instructions, see below (20% of your grade); (3) write a 3,000-word essay on the theological significance of intelligent design (worth 30% of your grade); (4) develop a Sunday-school lesson plan based on the book Understanding Intelligent Design (worth 20% of your grade).

This is simply pathetic. Many creationists claim that students are indoctrinated with evolution, yet here, we can clearly see what indoctrination is about. Dembski is basing grades on whether the students go and proselytize his theological ideas on "hostile" websites. Are you kidding me? And, does anyone doubt that the "theological significance of intelligent design" better be that it's the greatest thing since sliced bread and that when he asks for a critical book review what he means is that he wants them to be critical of Collins? (Note: I'm no fan of Collins, but to basically instruct your students to pan the guy is pretty low.)

Funny thing is that at SWBTS, Dembski is pretty likely to end up having students that are devotees of Answers in Genesis which as an organization is lukewarm to ID. But, the real question is, is Dembski's ego so fragile that he has to force his students to suck up to him like that? I think the answer is, yes.

Thoughts About Washington State

By now, we're all aware that the Washington State capitol building was host to a plethora of holiday displays, including a nativity scene and an atheist sign. Now that the hoopla has died down, I had some thoughts that I decided to share.

First off, I would like to thank Gov. Gregoire for sticking to her guns and not caving in to demands from Xian fundamentalists that the free speech of atheists be suppressed. This was courageous on her part. That said, she put herself into a tough situation by allowing the government to become entangled in religious speech in the first place. Once the government opens the doors to one religious viewpoint, it must open the doors to all. This creates an impossible burden, however, as it is simply not possible for everyone to get their say. Some one will always be left out, and this creates a de facto endorsement of some religious ideas over others. The only way to not create this situation is to not let it get started in the first place, which would also satisfy actual separation of church and state by not entangling the state with religion in the first place. This protects the rights of all of us.

Apparently, this stance is untenable for some Xians. For seeking to uphold the rights of all, I've been derided as an intolerant bigot. Yes, you read that right. I'm intolerant because I believe that church and state should be separate and that the state should not entangle itself with religion and should not open up fora for this purpose. Of course, what's really happening is that these Xians can not defend their position, so they resort to name-calling. It's a tried and true tactic to shout down your opponent with such labeling in an attempt to shame the person from the field of debate.

But, I think for some Xians this is just part one of a three pronged attack. If they get to speak out and the atheists don't show up, they win. The other two prongs are as follows: if they speak out and the atheists speak out as well, they get to denounce the atheists (no matter what message the atheists use) as a bunch of zealots that are seeking to take away everyone's religion. (See, it's not wrong to want to put up a nativity scene, that's normal - but wanting to criticize it is zealotry.) Heads I win, tails you lose, and if you don't flip the coin you're a bigot. I'm sure Jesus would be proud of such despicable tactics.

Vote

First of all, I want to remind you all to vote.

Second, I think it's important that we consider the issues. Since this is an atheist blog, I want to bring up a specific issue that should concern us all, and that is the separation of church and state. Many Xians believe that church/state separation should not be held as an ideal and will do what they can to erase the wall that has been built. The Republican party has been the standard bearer of this movement for years now, and is there any doubt that Palin was brought onto the ticket in order to assuage voters from the religious right?

But, make no mistake about this, if these people gain the ability to destroy the separation of church and state that we enjoy, all of our rights will be violated, not just those of us in the non-Xian community. Liberal Xians - your rights will also be violated by these people, as they strive to ensure that you believe in the correct way, that you worship as they do, that you bow to their will. Is this really what you think this country should stand for? Do you really think we should become a Xian version of Iran? Some people do, but I'm hoping the majority don't want this.

Although the Democrats have made some moves as well that are troubling on this front, they are the lesser of two evils by far in regards to this issue. I hope that you all will consider this issue when going in to vote for your candidate. Even if you vote for the party that pushes this agenda, I hope that you will see fit to find ways to rebuke that party and let them know that you do not want your right to freedom of religion to be usurped.

What I have to put up with

"I checked out the site very briefly. Presenting the gospel to a militant atheist seems to me to be a waste of time, since the person has apparently already rejected the gospel. Jesus told His disciples to wipe their feet as a testimony against those who rejected the gospel they presented, and not to cast pearls to swine (in other words, don't waste your time trying to tell someone the Good News of the gospel if they obviously refuse to accept it). Though only God can change hearts, and He can change any heart He chooses to change [for example, Saul, a persecutor of the Church, was changed by God to become Paul, the greatest Christian missionary of all time]; nevertheless, unless I feel led by the Lord to witness to someone who has apparently already rejected the gospel of Jesus Christ, I don't see much purpose in it, other than merely starting a fight, which is pointless. You can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped. However, we can and should pray for him to come to Christ, so that he will not suffer eternal torment in Hell."

Introduction

For those of you who jumped to conclusions after reading my provocative title, I am not a fundamentalist: if God strolled up to me in a bar and performed a couple of miracles I would become the most rabid apologist in the West; sadly, due to the poor quality of His representatives I am obliged to differ. This blog is basically a chance for apologists to put forward their arguments to someone.