Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
And this blog confirms what I have found in almost every atheist blog I've visited: atheists lose their moral foundation, when they jetison God, and eventually end up foul-mouthed, pornographic, hate-filled, humorless individuals. It's because the mind can't actually cope with the implications of atheism. The personality begins to deteriortate. It's a mentally unhealthy state of mind. PZ Myers simple confirms it.
Yes, I'd definitely have to say that PZ Myers is the perfect example of how your mind deteriorates when you become an atheist. Definitely.
Anyway, out of a somewhat perverse curiosity I clicked over to the Troll's Home. And found out that:
Our specific mission is to fight the spread of atheism in society...
Some days, there's nothing I like better than to go find a forum somewhere where a Christian (normally) is trying to convert an atheist.
I used to be a regular forum poster at Austin Cline's About Atheism forum, but after a year or so, I seemed to have little enough to say any more. But I still like to read them, even if responding to the threads seems pointless any more. I hope to regain some desire for re-engagement soon, but it's no challenge to plink at such a large target. OE's (Online Evangelists) are a game permanently stuck in god mode. And like video game zombies, there are always hordes more of them banging on the door, no matter how easily they go down.
But I do enjoy reading the fight, especially in the morning. It angries up the blood.
This morning, on the forum of my local newspaper, The Indianapolis News (which is either a wholly-owned organ of the Republican Party or staffed entirely by Gun-snatching, Constitution-hating, ACLU-membering Nazi Communists, depending on who is complaining at the time), I read through a lengthy and pointless...and ongoing...clash between an atheist and an OE.
Father Raniero Cantalamessa, writing a "Gospel Commentary for Palm Sunday" in Zenit, the Catholic news service from Rome, Italy, has redefined atheism so that it means, well, theism.
How incredibly convenient!
[link] Jesus on the cross has become an atheist, one without God. There are two forms of atheism: the active or voluntary atheism of those who reject God, and the passive or suffered atheism of those who are rejected (or feel rejected) by God. In both forms there are those who are "without God." The former is an atheism of fault, and the latter is an atheism of suffering and expiation. Mother Teresa of Calcutta, about whom there was much discussion when her personal writings were published, belongs to this latter category.
On the cross Jesus expiated in anticipation all the atheism that exists in the world, not only that of declared atheists, but also that of practical atheists, the atheism of those who live "as if God did not exist," relegating him to the last place in their life. It is "our" atheism, because, in this sense, we are all atheists -- some more, some less -- those who do not care about God. God too is one of the "marginalized" today; he has been pushed to the margins of the lives of the majority of men.
So, as you can see, all atheists really do know that God exists, but they either choose to "reject" Him, or they are going through so much suffering that they lose sight of Him. Mother Theresa's atheism is a good thing, you see? It means that God was heaping on extra punishments and torment for no reason - because she was so saintly and good. Obviously she needed to be tortured her entire life. And this is proof that He exists! Hallelujah!
And God Himself is "marginalized"! The horror! The poor, put-upon, all-powerful Universal Creator of everything is sad because every time He punishes one of his most faithful creatures over the course of years, then refuses to provide any evidence that He actually exists in any real sense, they stop believing in Him. It makes me weep, really.
That means that all of us atheists who make the simple claim that god-belief of any kind is absent within us are delusional liars.
Thank you Father, for your enlightened Palm Sunday commentary in which you attempt to marginalize and demonize 12 to 15% of the world's population. But that seems to be one of the things the Catholic church does best. Create the illusion that a group of fellow human beings are somehow sub-human, then use that perception to get the upper hand politically
Great job! Mission accomplished! I am SO looking forward to your God making me suffer. Maybe I can be as big an atheist/theist as Mother Theresa if He keeps me alive long enough, and I get painfully tortured enough!
Yes! Religion is so great! And Catholicism is the best religion ever!
Update: D'oh! The Manka Bros punked me with this one. Nicely done satire!
Dammit. I missed the obvious "white Christian teen rapper" angle when I was looking for my multi-million dollar record deal.
I strongly encourage all you pagan atheists to have a stiff drink before watching this delightfully insane video. (I'm 100% serious here. Have a drink of something before clicking the Play button. Make sure you swallow first.)
And yes, I am well aware that more exposure for this tweener singing/rapping dynamic duo means that they will probably sell more records - and I am perfectly OK with that. More power to 'em. Fleece the sheep for all they can bear, seems to be their father/producer/manager's motto. It's a textbook lesson in exactly how one can indeed worship God and mammon, contrary to what their holy book says.
OK, one more for John Shore, the folksy, friendly Christian apologist. He doesn't seem to be getting it.
John wrote a post on his blog called "Inquiring Atheists Want to Know: What, Exactly, Was the Sacrifice Jesus Made?. Atheists responded in the comment section. One in particular, "Instrumann", responded quite forcefully, with the correct argument; that is, that atheists are NOT "angry at God". Rather, we do not believe that God exists. So, how can we be angry at an imaginary magical being? What we are angry at is the fact that believers in this magical man in the sky influence the laws that are passed in our society, and sometimes insist that everyone kowtow to their own particular flavor of religious fairy tale.
[Instrumann] I don’t hate god. That’s a ridiculous statement. I don’t believe in any god so how could I hate one? I hate the fact that so many people invest so much of their time and energy believing fairytales and living their lives according to the rules of the fairytales.
I have to share my world with lunatics, simpletons, delusional people and people who are just too lazy to bother questioning what’s been force fed to them since they were kids. I do hate that fact.
John Shore, responding to Instrumann's comment, had this to say:
[John Shore] The harshness of your proclamation does compromise you being taken seriously. It’s too mean. Once you show people such bilious disrespect, you kind of forfeit your own right to be respected. Which is kind of a shame, because (as you know) there is much reasonableness to all you’ve said.
John, he was not showing anyone "bilious disrespect". He wasn't respecting your wacky religious beliefs, and he explained exactly why he does not respect them.
Listen very carefully, John. He is certainly disrespecting your magical thinking, but he is not disrespecting you.
I am the same way. I am kind to people, and I respect them as human beings. But my respect for them as people does not automatically spill over into respect for any strange, weirdo idea that happens to pop into their heads. For example, one of my dearest friends in the world is a believer is astrology. She is one of the few folks outside my own family that I would quite literally do anything for, up to and including giving my own life for hers if it came down to that. However, I will also tell her that I think she's being an idiot when she starts yacking-on about star signs and "readings".
Do I respect her? Absolutely. Do I respect her belief in astrology? Emphatically NO.
The problem is that religious beliefs in our society have traditionally been given a free pass - essentially having an unspoken immunity from criticism. So, when one of us dirty, nasty atheists says something critical about your beliefs, you seem to consistently misinterpret it as a personal attack.
It's just the way you were raised, John. Just the same way that you were raised to believe in magical sky men.
But we won't sit down and shut up any longer. Your fairy tale has too much influence on my life and on the lives of my family for me to keep quiet about it any more.
THAT is what all the comments are about. We are trying to stem what we see as a massively irrational and dangerous tide coming in that threatens us and our families personally. We are doing it by disagreeing with your ideas.
And you know what? Except for a few isolated lobbying groups, we are mostly doing it with words. Blogs, comments, books, and articles. There are no "militant" atheist groups - unless you stretch the meaning of the word "militant" completely out of shape until it ceases to have any real meaning at all.
Respect, in some situations, is given freely - like the respect that I give to every human being by the simple virtue of them being human.
Ideas have to earn my respect. Yours have not.
John Shore is a Christian writer and apologist whose folksy-language approach to apologetics, and his focus on talking to unbelievers makes him a very likable guy.
In other words, I can see myself hanging out with and having a beer with John. I like reading his stuff, but I still think he's dead wrong. Heh.
There's some interesting conversations going on over at John's blog about the Christian theological concept of Atonement, and whether or not the Christian God is gaming the system that He Himself created - and why exactly? Fun stuff. Check it out and contribute if you get a chance.
Ah, I see. Being confident, and writing books that disagree with your magical happy-land fantasy world is now considered "ferocious". Thereby it follows that those awful atheists that write books must also be "militant".
I get it now.
[link] As more atheist-centered books and movies make their way to mainstream culture, two best-selling Christian apologists are encouraging churches to better equip their congregation to respond to what they call a more outspoken and "confident" atheism.
"The arguments are not really new but the ferociousness" with which atheists are lobbing their attacks "are coming much stronger," Mark Mittelberg, primary author of Becoming a Contagious Christian, said in a teleconference on Tuesday.
Be sure and catch the new Fox television series "When Atheists Attack!"
I understand it was horrible. Andy Rooney's fangs speared from his demonic slash of a mouth, ripping the Christian flesh off of poor, poor evangelist Tony Didlo's throat, spilling his blood in the street like a fountain. Then Andy Rooney howled like a wolf and started rooting around in Didlo's guts while he cried for mercy from the curmudgeonly old atheist. Random atheists on the street - you know, because there's so many of us - cheered as Rooney smeared blood all over his face and swung a loop of intestine around and around, smacking the whimpering, dying Christian witness repeatedly in the face.
Then he went to the Super Bowl and enjoyed the game, leaving the evangelist dead in the streets of Phoenix, like us atheists always do when we come across defenseless Christians.
[Baptist Press] PHOENIX (BP)--As thousands of people thronged Phoenix for the Super Bowl, a small contingent of Christians spread out across the metropolitan area to share their faith in Christ.
One of them had a chance to talk with Andy Rooney, the commentator whose curmudgeonly complaints wrap up the weekly "60 Minutes" program on CBS.
"I was standing on a corner and turned around and there was this little old man walking across the street," said Tony Didlo, a member of Grace Church, a Southern Baptist congregation in Des Moines, Iowa. "I knew right away it was Andy Rooney."
Didlo held out a Gospel tract and asked Rooney if he had received one yet.
"Yeah, I've got one of those," Rooney replied, according to Didlo's account of the Jan. 31 encounter.
"Sir, do you believe in God?" Didlo asked.
"No, I'm an atheist," Rooney said. "I think it's sad you people believe in that stuff."
Didlo tried to pursue the conversation, asking if the existence of creation didn't imply a creator, but Rooney's cameraman stepped in between them and said, "We've got to go."
"He wouldn't let me go any further with it," Didlo said. "I was surprised he thinks people are totally off their rockers for believing in God."
I've heard and seen much mockery focused on the Tom Cruise Scientology video over the past couple of days. (I apologize if that link no longer works, but the video has been on and off the net and that's the best link I can find at the time of this article.) The truth is, while I believe that atheists (especially agnostic atheists), in general, have a leg to stand on in this case, I don't think the rest of the godders, or innumerable other groups, do. Let's look at a few things that Cruise says.
Tom Cruise: ...I think it’s a privilege to call yourself a Scientologist, and it’s something that you have to earn because a Scientologist does... has the ability to create new and better realities and improve conditions. Being a Scientologist, you look at someone and know absolutely that you can help them.
"But that’s what drives me... I know that we have an opportunity to really help... effectively change people’s lives and I am dedicated to that. I am absolutely, uncompromisingly dedicated to that.
Replace the words “Scientologist” with the words Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Nazi, Feminist, Vegan, vegetarian, socialist, communist, capitalist, geek, Sikh, or even self help guru and you'll see what I mean. This statement, minus the maniacal laughter, could have come from any of the groups I listed and a whole lot more. Let's move on to the next set; shall we?
more below the fold
This is my review of Vox Day's new book called "The Irrational Atheist". I'd like to make some things perfectly clear before I proceed with this review. I am still, and barring some pretty convincing evidence that I find personally credible, will most likely always be an atheist. What I mean by "atheist", as I have written volumes about in the past, is someone in whom god-belief of any kind is absent.
I have lately (within the last few years) come to the conclusion that the entire social and political "atheist movement" is a big, fat exercise in futility. Atheists are not, in any way, shape, or form, a "group" in the same sense that Methodists, Shriners, or Republicans are a group. The atheists who blog and organize activist marches and identify themselves as part of this "atheist movement" group are lying to themselves. There is no "atheist group". Rather, a movement has emerged and become politically active lately that has co-opted the perfectly reasonable descriptive word "atheist" and has twisted its meaning into something that I do not agree with, endorse, or really even recognize any longer. Ellen Johnson telling all of us atheists to "Vote your atheism first..." was the last straw for me. I mean, what in the heck does that even mean? I am not a member of your little club, Ellen.
I have my own opinions, political views, and values. I have my own, personal rationale for being a person in whom god-belief is absent (an atheist). I recognize no "atheist leaders" or spokesmen, and I endorse no one who claims to speak for me, or insinuates that they speak for me in any way.
I speak for myself, and myself alone.
I find it troubling that one of the recent trends in the "atheist blogger" community is to label someone who does not seem to toe the party line as an "appeaser" or as a "concern troll". It's complete crap. I didn't sign a fucking "atheist loyalty oath", and my lack of belief in a god isn't dependent on kowtowing to the self-anointed leaders of this misguided abortion of a political movement, whether or not they exist. If after this review someone uses the "no true Scotsman" fallacy on me in this fashion, they can go fuck themselves. With a jagged stick. Sideways. The political and social issues that concern me - personal liberty, civil liberties, honesty, personal responsibility, fiscal responsibility, freedom, justice, the American Way, all of that, don't require my allegiance to some new political movement. I was concerned with those things before I started calling myself an atheist, and I still am today. Atheism has nothing at all to do with any of that stuff. (See my first paragraph above.) Nether does "theism" for that matter.
I evaluate the books I read, the beliefs I come across, and the philosophies I examine fully, and with an eye towards the facts. I have a highly-sensitive bullshit meter, honed through 20-plus years of discussion, research, study, debate, and arguments with theists (that is, folks in which god-belief of any kind is present.) So, when you read the review below, keep in mind that I was really, really trying hard to find something that I could latch onto and argue intelligently and forcefully against. I was positive that it had to be there. I had my BS meter cranked up to 11 as I read through the book twice in an attempt to sniff out something that I could use - and the damned thing only went off a couple of times, and only when Day was explicitly talking about God and/or Jesus and his personal belief in the Christian mythology.
Shit. Double shit.
Ah, well. I am ethically and morally bound to review TIA honestly, and that is what I will do - regardless of how much it hurts me to do so. Heh. ;)
So, hang on to your hats and join me below the fold.
Ray Comfort confronts yet another strawman atheist in his rhetorical post "Hey Mr. Atheist". I thought it would be fun to answer his questions honestly, as a real atheist. Enjoy.
Hey Mr. Atheist
Hey Mr. Ray Comfort!
I have a couple of questions for you.
What is it that you trust in to give you peace and joy?
My children, my wife, my family, my friends.
What gives you your sense of security for the future?
The fact that I am very good at what I do, but also the fact that if needs be, I could work at one or two of more than a dozen different jobs and provide for my family.
Let me see if I can guess where your faith is directed.
More below the fold...
God revealed to me two things about the timing of the rapture. God specifically told me 2007 was the year, because I was only going to have from 3 to 3 1/2 years to spread the message after my book was published. It was published in June 2004. ...
...The prophetic dream God gave me was about the rapture and how the rapture related to my own personal life and the town I live in. The prophetic message that I believe God wants me to share is that the rapture of the church (God's children) will happen this year 2007!!
Mitt Romney appeared on Meet The Press with Tim Russert, and immediately Russert hammered him with the atheist/atheism question. Romney stumbled a bit, but managed not to wedge his foot too firmly in his mouth, I thought.
But what in the heck is this "common bond of humanity" he says that he shares with atheists? Is the Mittster a Humanist now? He's trying too hard. He seems to be trying to be all things to all people, and that's just a recipe for disaster.
Transcript below the fold...
Alicia Colon, writing an op-ed piece for the New York Daily Sun, is upset that in the city of New York, Christian nativity scenes are not given parity with other religious displays on public property.
I actually agree with her on this point. If this is indeed the case, then it is a wrongheaded and illegal move by the school board. The Constitution protects all faiths - even Christians - and non-faith. To say otherwise is simple ignorance.
[Alicia Colon] The tyranny of a small but vocal minority has completely warped this time of year into a season of litigation and constitutional confusion. Our own Department of Education, which bans Christian religious symbols in schools, needs to educate itself on exactly what the Constitution says about God and country.
Well, the Constitution doesn't say anything about God. It does say a lot about country though.
A City Council member, Tony Avella, has introduced a resolution granting parity to Christians so that crèches will be permitted alongside menorahs and the star and crescent in city schools. At present, the education department will not allow it, though there is no constitutional bar to this nativity display. At a press conference at City Hall this week, Mr. Avella and other community activists demanded equal justice, but the mere fact that this is an issue demonstrates how little is understood about the First Amendment, which does allow the "free exercise of religion."
First of all, there is no city resolution anywhere in America that can "grant" anyone a right that is already guaranteed by the Constitution. If Councilman Avella thinks that he has this kind of power, then he needs to re-think his place in the world. I mean, thanks a bunch for trying to help, Councilman, but there is no reason to act like a fool doing it.
I also have an issue with the way Miss Colon attempts to support her contention about the city excluding Christians. She tries to make the case that because the founders said "God" a lot, and because they wrote about God a lot, then Christians should be free to place their own religious displays alongside other religious displays on public property.
She also uses Newt Gingrich's achingly dominionist film "Rediscovering God in America" as an argument for her position.
The thing is that she doesn't need all that stuff. The Constitution, and the First Amendment already give Christians "parity" to use the public square.
The U.S. Constitution is the only legal founding document we have. Other documents have undeniable historical value, but they do not carry the force of law. There is no dispute - the Constitution is the basic foundation of the laws of our land. Everything that is America flows from the ideas and concepts embodied within it.
So, how many times do you think "God" mentioned in the Constitution? How about "Jesus" or "Christ"? What about "Creator", "Supreme Being", "Thor", "Big Magic Ju-Ju Guy", or "Santa Claus"?
If you said "zero", you are exactly right. The Constitution is a wholly secular document by design. Our Founding Fathers were wise men to craft it as such.
The First Amendment guarantees us our freedom of expression, religion, and press. Inherent in that freedom is the freedom to not believe. That is what us atheists call "freedom from religion", and apparently what Miss Colon is objecting to in the headline of her column.
The very best course our government can take in this is strict neutrality. This is what the First Amendment means. That way, individuals may practice or not practice, believe or not believe, with our government staying strictly neutral - neither hindering nor helping. This concept has been borne out by more than 200 years of wildly successful religions and religious growth in our country, and lately in the rise of atheist, agnostic, and other secular people's voices, organizations, blogs, writings, and political awareness. We have the freedom to be religious - whatever we want to be - or not religious. There is no other country like this on the planet, with this type of unbridled religious freedom. And it is due to the secular, neutral stance that our government (should) take - the secular, neutral stance spelled out in the First Amendment to our Constitution.
The obvious example - especially at this time of the year - of what this means in practical terms is that you cannot allow a Christian Nativity scene on public property without also allowing everyone else the same privilege.
The problem here is that in most cases like this, the Christian majority wants to be "more equal" than the rest of us. They have enjoyed special preference by virtue of being the majority for so long, that they now consider it their right.
In some isolated cases like the one above in New York, the pendulum swings too far in the other direction. This is also wrong.
Alicia, you don't need a lot of god-talk to make your point. Our secular Constitution does it for you just fine.
So, in clearing out a drawer full of religious junk that my mother-in-law had accumulated over the decades, my wife and her sister came across a series of little booklets put out in the 50's and 60's by the "Back to the Bible" organization. Most of it just got tossed, but one title which caught my eye was this little gem: How to Win your Husband to Christ. As noted on the title page:
(An exposition of I Peter 3:1-6, given over the Network of the "Back to the Bible Broadcast" - September, 1943)
Oh baby! That's that whole "wives, be in subjection to your husbands" bit! I figured that it would be good for a laugh. I'd hoped for something that seemed really antiquated, at odds with modern thoughts on equality and marriage.
Florida State Board Of Education member Donna Callaway gets it so wrong that it's painful to read.
[link] Donna Callaway, a former middle school principal from Tallahassee, told the Florida Baptist Witness that evolution "should not be taught to the exclusion of other theories of origins of life."
She also said she hoped Christians would pray over the issue. "As a SBOE member, I want those prayers," Callaway said. "I want God to be part of this."
Evolution is not a "theory of origins of life", number one, and number two, the Christian God cannot, by law, "be a part of" the Florida State Board Of Education - unless you rescind the United States Constitution, or secede from the union.
But you've all heard this before, time and time again. It's been said, over and over, a thousand times or more. The facts are always the same; ignorant Christian creationist who does not understand what evolution is, or what science is gets elected to the school board. Then they convince other ignorant Christian creationists on the school board to "teach the (nonexistent) controversy" by reading the religious tracts put out by the Discovery Institute, WoTM, or Dr. Dino. Overworked civil-rights defenders like the ACLU and FFRF take the school board to court and win. Many indignant news stories and op-ed columns are written about the evil atheist plot to persecute innocent Christians by teaching science instead of Christian mythology in - ahem - science classes. Overwrought email chain letters get forwarded to everyone and their grandmother shouting about the nasty atheists and their evil plan to barbecue all the Christian children in the public school system for the crime of being Christian.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Things like this make me tired. It feels like we're bailing out a leaky boat with plastic beer cups. I mean, were doing something, going through the motions, making a lot of noise and fuss, but the reality of the situation is that the boat is filling up too fast. I fear that we are sinking, and that there is not a lot we can do to prevent it.
Still, we'll keep on bailing because what else can we do?
In arguments with theists, you'll often hear, "Well, why do you care? What harm is a person's belief doing?" You'll also hear folks get upset when R. Dawkins says that indoctrinating children into religion is child abuse. A story today on MSNBC shows a clear example of the harm that religion can cause.
In short, a 14 year old boy refused a blood transfusion because he'd been taught that it would make him "unclean". A child refused medical care, with his guardian's consent, because of his faith. I don't think there can be a clearer example of the damage faith can cause than this.
[Lee Strobel] "We have a defensible faith that stands up to scrutiny and investigation," said Lee Strobel, a former atheist and author of the bestselling book The Case for Christ.
Hahahahahahah! Good one Lee, you zany, kooky nut!
What's that? You were serious? Well, then I was serious about the nut thing too.
The title of the article above is "Militant Atheism Gives Rise to Christian Apologetics". It's a great example of how apologists twist things into something they are not. Atheists disagree with the silly conclusions that Christians have come to regarding an invisible, magical man in the sky. Apparently, disagreement with the status quo now equals being "militant". The last time I checked, none of the recent atheist authors has taken up arms, or started recruiting for an atheist militia bent on armed insurrection. The entire concept is laughable.
And yet they still do it. I wonder why that is?
I think that it is probably due to the inherent weakness of their "evidence", and on the fact that they do not have any new apologetic arguments. ALL of their stuff is re-hashed from apologetic arguments made time and time again over thousands of years by theists. The design argument, Pascal's wager, and anecdotes describing personal conversion experiences.
In other words, there's no "militant atheists" to "give rise" to anything at all. The fact of the matter is that there are merely a handful of atheist and secular authors, bloggers, and regular folks who refuse to drink the kool-aid. Our very refusal to kowtow to the majority religion, and solemnly rub blue mud into our belly buttons with the rest of the sheep when it is so incredibly, patently false, gets the natives all worked up into a righteous lather. So, they haul out the Big Book Of Apologetics™ and start paraphrasing.
This has been a successful strategy in the past, mainly because we didn't know a whole lot about how the world and the universe worked yet. Now that we know a little more, and are filling those god-shaped gaps faster and faster every day, it's really just an embarrassing bust for the apologists.
It's not going to work this time. We are not going to sit down and shut up. I think that we are right in the middle of crossing over the balance point from illiterate, superstitious animals, to conscious, self-aware, self-directing beings that can leave the primitive superstitions of our past - in the past where they belong.
It's about time.
Got a question from a friend this morning. Thought I would post it, and my quick response.
So, if atheists don't believe in religion, how do you deal with evil? I'm not talking about good v. bad stuff, I'm talking about things like genocide.
First off, we don't "don't believe in religion". Religion is a fact - it exists in many forms all around the world. It is "god" that we don't believe in.
As for evil, that's easy - we don't make excuses for it. No blaming it on the devil, or demons, or even it being "part of God's plan." Evil is entirely a human agency, due to many different factors, but always because of the actions of a person. And I have more than a little sympathy with the Steven Weinberg quote: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
Betty Dowdell is a Christian apologist who lives out here in my neck of the woods. She's the author of "How to be a Christian Without Being Annoying", and is touted as a home-spun apologist who speaks in plain words for the average Christian. She claims that most Christians don't even know what the word "apologist" means, so, basically, she dumbs it down for them into easily-digested chunks.
This doesn't make her any less annoying, regardless of what her book is titled. She repeats so many of the same, old, tired arguments that it make me tired to think about even starting to address them all. Again. However, one article she wrote stood so far out there with the astonishing assertion below that I couldn't let it go - I had to address it. It's just, well, a bald-faced lie. I mean, most of the time apologists leave themselves some sort of "out" so that they can later claim that they didn't really mean what they said, and that us nasty church-state separation supporters are obviously quoting them out of context, or some such.
Please, I strongly encourage you to read her whole article. You'll agree that her statement below definitely means what it says, even in context with the rest of the article. Here, just check it out for yourself:
[Betty Dowdell] ...the Constitution specifically provides for a Christian chaplain for each branch of Congress.
Well then Betty, I guess you won't have any trouble pointing out the specific part of the Constitution that actually says this.
More below the fold...