the balance of power, which was a vital Christian contribution

Journal Gazette | 04/25/2005 | Frist frosts Democrats with filibuster talk at faith forum

Charles W. Colson, head of Prison Fellowship Ministries [and Nixon’s hatchet man], also appeared by videotape. He said Senate Democrats are trying to use the filibuster “to seize what they lost at the ballot box and to prevent the appointment of judges, holding the judiciary hostage.”? Their actions, he said, “are destroying the balance of power, which was a vital Christian contribution to the founding of our nation.” [?!?!]

James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family, spoke from the church’s pulpit and criticized the Supreme Court, seven of whose nine members were named by Republican presidents. The court’s majority, Dobson said, “are unelected and unaccountable and arrogant and imperious and determined to redesign the culture according to their own biases and values, and they’re out of control.”

The Creation Museum

About the Creation Museum

The Creation Museum will proclaim to the world that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of faith and practice and in every area it touches on. This “walk through history” museum will be a wonderful alternative to the evolutionary natural history museums that are turning countless minds against the gospel of Christ and the authority of the Scripture.

LOCATION: The Creation Museum is currently under construction in Petersburg, Kentucky, USA.
—–
ENSI/SENSI Papers & Articles:Ans. to J. Wells’ 10 Questions

Responses to Jonathan Wells’ “Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher”
From the National Center for Science Education
Defending the Teaching of Evolution in the Public Schools

Jonathan Wells, the author of Icons of Evolution, composed “Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution”, based on the anti-evolutionary claims he makes in his book. However, many of Wells’ claims are incorrect or misleading; Icons of Evolution and “Ten questions…” are intended only to create unwarranted doubt in students’ minds about the validity of evolution as good science.

[mjh: follow the closest link above for responses to those questions.]

He’s Fleck — Fleck! — exciting!

frink!ABQjournal: AP Members Confer Honors on Journal

The Albuquerque Journal took first-place honors for science writing, columns and sports writing in the New Mexico Associated Press Managing Editors annual contest.

Awards for excellence in news coverage for 2004 were given in three circulation divisions for newspapers in New Mexico, as well as those along the state borders that receive the New Mexico state AP wire.

Longtime Journal writer John Fleck swept all three places for science writing. …

Science Writing? 1. Albuquerque Journal, Landfill debate deadlocked, John Fleck. 2. Albuquerque Journal, Changing landscape, John Fleck. 3. Albuquerque Journal, Larger brains, longer lives, John Fleck.

But this is not the first time Fleck has been recognized. See mjh’s Blog: A Man of Science.

Recently I locked horns with an ornery Vulcan. That made me nostalgic for the gentler tussle John and I had. See mjh’s Blog: Balance — who cares about fair. (That seems like ages ago — it was 8 months.) mjh

Come to your own conclusions and express them freely

I begin to understand that Matt Bohnsack and I have a fundamental communication problem. As some know, we’ve gone back and forth on a couple of issues on several different blogs (links below). In his recent response, he writes about the original article: “his article on cock fighting in New Mexico” and, later, “I wasn?t interested it the cock fighting.”

Do check out that article and note, since it isn’t obvious, that it wasn’t really about “cockfighting” except metaphorically. I’ve expressed elsewhere my views about New Mexicans pitting rosters against each other for money and blood.

To me, what that piece was about is summed up here:

[mjh:] You should definitely read for yourself and come to your own conclusions (see the links at the end of this entry). And that is what I am here to celebrate.

By which, I meant the Internet, the Web, and the blogosphere, including people I disagree with. Matt and I both celebrate that one can reach one’s own conclusions by burrowing through the accretions of the Web.

I understand now why Matt is so miffed. He’s very personally invested in Rathergate. I am not. My glib parenthetical remark pissed him off. That observation will surely bother him, as well.

I assume Matt is not reading this. Why return to someone who you believe cannot express himself to your satisfaction? What’s the point. Isn’t a pop-definition of insanity doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results? It might be insane to think I can persuade Matt of anything.

[Matt writes about my] “unveiled contempt for religious beliefs that are protected by the Bill of Rights

First of all, the same amendment that protects me from a State Religion also protects my right to express my contempt. Which right trumps the other? Secondly, my contempt is for those people who believe there IS a State Religion and it is Evangelical Christianity. That is contemptible.

[MB:] “Surely Mark doesn?t believe that only speech he agrees with should be free.”

Correct. In fact, I think it is vital that speech I disagree with be widely distributed. No sarcasm. I actually believe in the Marketplace of Ideas. For some reason, Matt insults me for giving “the weakest lip service to these freedoms.” I do the best I can; perhaps I’m simply weak.

[MB:] “All I want to know is why Mark thinks one kind of speech or press is good and protected, while other kinds erode the fabric of of democracy?”

It’s not the medium of speech (press, TV, blog, etc). It’s the specific expressions. I have a right to disagree with anything and to say so without being accused of repression (a technique for bullying others). Matt has the same right, as do we all.

[MB:] “All Americans should be troubled that Mark finds one kind of speech more precious than another.”

People who speak to or for ALL Americans kinda scare me. Most Americans shouldn’t have the slightest interest in me or Matt.

But, I do like that word “precious.” Freedom of Speech is precious to me. But that doesn’t mean I find every expression equally precious. Consider the grade schooler who called me “a pussy” after reading about my wife and me getting shot in the back by ruthless paintballers (even after seeing a rather grim photo). Note that I left that remark up and I did not notify his school — I let his remark stand, in part because I think I know how some will react. I have to wonder if Matt regards that remark the exact equivalent in every regard to his own writing.

[MB:] “[H]e?s also quite wrong in claiming that I suggested that he would try to to silence bloggers. He?s wrong, because I?ve never made this claim …. I?d ask Mark to please quote and cite the source”

From his first comments at theFix:

[MB:] “[E]xplain how you suggest that we should strengthen this important freedom in the future. Should we ban or regulate blogging?”

I know it’s more a question than a suggestion, but that plus the whole tone of his original comment sure made me sound like a bad guy. That view has certainly gotten clearer: “All Americans should be troubled” by me.

From his second comments at theFix:

[MB:] “You should be ashamed of yourself. … Please stop it.”

Stop expressing myself freely? Stop enjoying my freedom in a way you disapprove of? I’m not about to be bullied by you.

[MB:] “Give me validation or strike me down…. I?m going to keep asking these questions, until he provides me with a coherent answer.”

I clearly can’t satisfy Matt. It would be insane to keep asking the same question. I hope he continues to enjoy his freedom, as I do mine.

By the way, I’m not a member of the ACLU. And I was DTS (“Declines To State” or Independent) for many years. Peace, mjh

Quotes are from:
(1) Media Watch: Cockfighting in New Mexico
(2) bohnsack.com ? Rathergate
(3) mjh’s Blog: Conservatives For a Free Press

Good Stewards

ABQjournal: Dumped Cattle Carcasses Increase in Curry

CLOVIS — The Curry County sheriff says the area is seeing an increasing number of cattle carcasses dumped on the rights of way of roads and highways.

“It’s mostly Holsteins and it’s mostly calves,” said Sheriff Roger Hatcher.

He predicts the problem will get worse with the growing dairy and cattle industry.

New Mexico law requires livestock owners to dispose of dead animals by burning, burying or contracting with a removal service. …

Hatcher said the problem isn’t fuel prices? it’s a blatant disregard for the law.

Identifying marks, such as ear tags, are often missing from the dumped carcasses, he said.

“People are doing this at night. They know it is wrong,” he said.

Ranchers can’t be doing this! They’re good stewards of the land! No, it must be environmentalists feeding wolves. Yeah, that’s it. mjh

Petard

[Lifted from Whiskey Bar: Rush to Judgment, where there are still more. Well done, Billmon.]

We have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods, which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.

Rush Limbaugh
Rush Limbaugh TV Show
October 5, 1995

I warned you about this ever-broadening interpretation of the so-called right to privacy. It’s not a ‘right’ specifically enumerated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

Rush Limbaugh
Rush Limbaugh.com
August 22nd, 2003

Let’s be clear about something, folks. All these so-called human rights groups like People for the American Way and so forth, ACLU, all these Democrats, they claim to be standing up for human dignity and human rights. Well, like hell they are.

Rush Limbaugh
Truth Detector
January 5, 2005

Limbaugh has maintained his innocence throughout the investigation and argues that the case threatens the privacy rights of all Floridians — a point which has drawn the support of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Associated Press
Florida Supreme Court refuses
to hear Rush Limbaugh appeal
April 28, 2005

This aggressive new strain of right-wing religious zealotry is actually a throwback

Breaking the Rules to Destroy Our Courts
Remarks as prepared by former Vice President Al Gore

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist # 78, wrote that the “independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill-humors which the arts of designing men… have a tendency, in the meantime, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community.”

When James Madison introduced the Bill of Rights, he explained that “independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves… the guardians of [these] rights, … an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislature or executive.” …

[T]he Republican leader of the House of Representatives responded to rulings in the Terri Schiavo case, by saying ominously: “The time will come for the men responsible for this to pay for their behavior.”

When the outrage following this comment worsened Rep. DeLay’s problems during the House Ethics scandal, he claimed that his words had been chosen badly, but in the next breath, he issued new threats against the same courts: “We set up the courts. We can unset the courts. We have the power of the purse.”

In previous remarks on the subject, DeLay has said, “Judges need to be intimidated,” adding that if they don’t behave, “we’re going to go after them in a big way.”

Moreover, a whole host of prominent Republicans have been making similar threats on a regular basis.

A Republican Congressman from Iowa added: “When their budget starts to dry up, we’ll get their attention. If we’re going to preserve the Constitution, we must get them in line.”

A Republican Senator from Texas directly connected the “spate of courthouse violence lately” to his view that unpopular decisions might be the explanation. “I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions, yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds and builds to the point where some people engage in violence.”

One of the best-known conservative political commentators has openly recommended that “liberals should be physically intimidated.”

The spokesman for the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee said: “There does seem to be this misunderstanding out there that our system was created with a completely independent judiciary.” Misunderstanding?

The Chief of Staff for another Republican senator called for “mass impeachment” by using the bizarre right-wing theory that the president can declare that any judge is no longer exhibiting “good behavior,” adding that, “then the judge’s term has simply come to an end. The President gives them a call and says: ‘Clean out your desk. The Capitol police will be in to help you find your way home.'”

The elected and appointed Republican officials who made these dangerous statements are reflecting an even more broadly-held belief system of grassroots extremist organizations that have made the destruction of judicial independence the centerpiece of their political agenda.

Tony Perkins, leader of the Family Research Council, who hosted a speech by the Senate Majority Leader last Sunday, has said, “There’s more than one way to skin a cat, and there’s more than one way to take a black robe off the bench.” Explaining that during his meeting with Republican leaders, the leaders discussed stripping funding from certain courts, Perkins said, “What they’re thinking of is not only the fact of just making these courts go away and recreating them the next day, but also de-funding them.” Congress could use its appropriations authority to just “take away the bench, all of its staff, and he’s just sitting out there with nothing to do.”

Another influential leader of one of these groups, James Dobson, who heads Focus on the Family, focused his anger on the 9th circuit court of appeals: “Very few people know this, that the Congress can simply disenfranchise a court. They don’t have to fire anybody or impeach them or go through that battle. All they have to do is say the 9th circuit doesn’t exist anymore, and it’s gone.”

Edwin Vieira (at the “Confronting the Judicial War on Faith” conference) said his “bottom line” for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Stalin: “He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him whenever he ran into difficulty: ‘no man, no problem.'”

Through their words and threats, these Republicans are creating an atmosphere in which judges may well hesitate to exercise their independence for fear of Congressional retribution, or worse.

It is no accident that this assault on the integrity of our constitutional design has been fueled by a small group claiming special knowledge of God’s will in American politics. They even claim that those of us who disagree with their point of view are waging war against “people of faith.” How dare they?

Long before our founders met in Philadelphia, their forebears first came to these shores to escape oppression at the hands of despots in the old world who mixed religion with politics and claimed dominion over both their pocketbooks and their souls.

This aggressive new strain of right-wing religious zealotry is actually a throwback to the intolerance that led to the creation of America in the first place.

James Madison warned us in Federalist #10 that sometimes, “A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction.”

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." — Sam Adams