Darwinism, the real "phony theory"

LGF posted two blurbs defending "science" from the "superstitious," first from Charles Krauthammer (usually exceptional on items of national interest) and then from the Vatican

In Krauthammer's "Phony Theory, False Conflict" he writes:

Let’s be clear. Intelligent design may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud. It is a self-enclosed, tautological “theory” whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge — in this case, evolution — they are to be filled by God.

As far as I have heard, Intelligent Design does two things: it points out flaws with Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory and offers as an alternative to the ascientific concepts of abiogenesis and macroevolution the quite reasonable suggestion that the obvious purpose, design, and complexity of Life must be due to an Intellect.

Whatever definition of ID one uses, the real "phony theory" is Darwinism. Here's why:

Science is a way of knowing. It depends on strict adherence to certain principles for it to be useful at all. Real Science requires that a phenomenon be observable, measurable, testable, and that whatever truth claims one makes must be verified using repeated applications of the Scientific Method.

Unfortunately, Darwinists use the word "Science" to mean atheistic naturalism, and they use it to dismiss as "backwards", "medieval", or "superstitious" anyone who dares to criticize their philosophy.

A Designer greater than and outside Nature is beyond Man's ability to study in a laboratory, and since no human being was around to observe the Origins of the Species, both the idea of a hyper-intelligent Designer and Darwinism's abiogenesis/macroevolution are extra-scientific; they are beyond the bounds of what Science can know.

Since Science can tell us nothing of Beginnings, it is Darwinism that is intellectually dishonest. Is is the fraud. It claims to be Science when in fact it is not only without empirical support for anything beyond microevolution (such random, minor, genetic mutations usually devastate or kill an organism), much of what is scientifically-verifiable contradicts it.

So, a challenge for the Darwinists: Apart from the random, minor, genetic mutations that occur within an organism (which have never been observed to result in newer, more complex genetic program, stucture, or function) what is actually, scientifically, empirically true about Darwinism?

It is a “theory” that admits that evolution and natural selection explain such things as the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other such evolutionary changes within species [emphasis mine] but also says that every once in a while God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change and says, “I think I’ll make me a lemur today.” A “theory” that violates the most basic requirement of anything pretending to be science — that it be empirically disprovable. How does one empirically disprove the proposition that God was behind the lemur, or evolution — or behind the motion of the tides or the “strong force” that holds the atom together?

Here Krauthammer gets one right. Genetic mutations can result (when the organism survives) in changes within species. It does not result in newer, more complex, different kinds of animals. There is no empirical evidence demonstrating the massive number of transitional forms even Darwin admitted necessary to substantiating his explanation for Origins.

Krauthammer also hints at the fatal flaw of Darwinism: its theory of Origins is not only without empirical evidence for gradual transitional forms, it is contradicted by a growing body of scientific knowledge and human experience.

In order to justify the farce that intelligent design is science, Kansas had to corrupt the very definition of science, dropping the phrase “ natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us,” thus unmistakably implying — by fiat of definition, no less — that the supernatural is an integral part of science. This is an insult both to religion and science.

For Science to actually be Science, it must deal with that which is observable, testable, and verifiable. Since it cannot observe, test, or verify anything with regard to what occurred in the ancient past, but only with regard to what is happening now, Darwinism's Origins cannot be Science.

The school board thinks it is indicting evolution by branding it an “unguided process” with no “discernible direction or goal.” This is as ridiculous as indicting Newtonian mechanics for positing an “unguided process” by which Earth is pulled around the sun every year without discernible purpose. What is chemistry if not an “unguided process” of molecular interactions without “purpose”? Or are we to teach children that God is behind every hydrogen atom in electrolysis?

How does Krauthammer know that there is nothing (or no One) sustaining all things in Nature? Is he omniscient? Of course not, for that would make him God, Whom he seems so determined to discredit.

He may be, of course. But that discussion is the province of religion, not science.

That's better.

For the same reason the workings of God in Nature cannot belong to Science (no man can observe, test, and verify them), Darwin's explanations of the Origin(s) of Life and the Species must also be excluded from its realm.

The relentless attempt to confuse the two by teaching warmed-over creationism as science can only bring ridicule to religion, gratuitously discrediting a great human endeavor and our deepest source of wisdom precisely about those questions — arguably, the most important questions in life — that lie beyond the material.

If the Creation account in Genesis is false, then the God Who claimed to speak and it was so is a liar. In that case, all His morality is a fiction and should be discarded. This is why those who believe in an omnipotent, benevolent Creator must oppose Darwinism's anti-scientific elements.

It also why Darwinists must do everything they can to sustain their false worldview.

-------------------------------------

Posted with Krauthammer's contemptous anti-Christian contrivance:

VATICAN CITY, Nov. 18, 2005 (The Canadian Press delivered by Newstex) — The Vatican’s chief astronomer said Friday that “intelligent design” isn’t science and doesn’t belong in science classrooms, the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter the evolution debate in the United States.

That is fine. At least tell the truth about Darwinism's utter uselessness in accounting for the Origins of the Species.

Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was “wrong” and was akin to mixing apples and oranges.

If you try to separate religion and science, and science is defined in terms of what is rational, provable, and true, then what does that make religion? By conceding that false dichotomy, the battle is already lost.

-------------------------------------

Following are responses to some of the reader comments on the article.

#10 TMF 11/20/2005 08:28AM PST wrote:

Lets stop creating false dichotomys.

Science is science. Evolution is science, despite the presence of well known gaps and flaws in the theory, it has largely been proven, with evidence in the fossil record.

This is not true. Darwin expected the fossil record to support his ideas, and he admitted that without numerous transitional forms his theory was dead. Unfortunately for him, he didn't anticipate the fanaticism of the atheistic naturalists and their willingness to fabricate and fictionalize.

That said, any self proclaimed secularist/materialist who believes that the march of consciousness from subatomic particles through amino acids through protozoa through plants and animals, all the way up to the miracles of human accomplishment was the mere result of logarithmic probabilities or whatever Daniel Dennett is claiming these days, certainly push the enevlope of credulity.

Well said.

-------------------------------------

#11 FrogMarch 11/20/2005 08:28AM PST wrote:

The thing is - one can believe in GOD and evolution.

Scientists do it all the time.

I agree with Krauthammer on this.

Certain gods can be believed along with Darwinism, but not the God of Israel. He says He made everything perfect and it was very good. Christ referred to Genesis as literal.

Evolutionists believe Life formed through a process of chance, bitter agony, and death.

There can be no compromise; the two ideas are completely irreconcilable.

-------------------------------------

#13 ibrodsky 11/20/2005 08:30AM PST wrote:

Krauthammer is wrong on this. Intelligent design does not equal creationism. There are a number of facts that don't seem to jive with evolution. For example, could an eye evolve? If so, from what? And why do even the simplest organisms have the same sophisticated genetic machinery that humans do?

That's called Irreducible Complexity, and it is a powerful scientific (that means empirical, verifiable) argument disproving Darwinism's explanation for Origins.

Additionally, the design and complexity of a human cell argues powerfully against the Chance + Time + Matter + Energy formula of the Evolutionists and for the idea that Omniscience created Life.

A human cell is a Von Neumann-type metabolic machine. It monitors, repairs, and replicates itself according to its genetic program, a program so complex that (according to one Darwinist) its code if printed on paper would be enough to fill hundreds of volumes of 500-page books (small font, no pictures).

No rational human being (don't Darwinists consider themselves supremely rational, especially when compared to the hopelessly backwards religious-types?) would ever assert that the computer on which you are reading this post spontaneously arose due only to the random interactions of the matter of which it is composed, time, and energy. Yet that is what the Darwinists would coerce all others to accept regarding Life.

As someone who is largely sympathetic with evolution and a fan of Darwin, I must note that today many evolutionists have become the non-thinking ideologues they have long accused their critics of being. There are legitimate questions about whether design has played a role in the development of life. Evolutionists tend to dismiss these questions. But when dealing with something about which we have only the most primitive knowledge, it's unwise to rule out theories just because you don't like the political or religious implications.

Which is the reason Darwinism is so staunchly defended by the true believers, and those who disagree are (usually) so vehemently attacked.

-------------------------------------

#15 mich-again 11/20/2005 08:30AM PST wrote:

I don't have the blind faith it takes to be atheist and go along with the absolutely crazy notion that DNA just appeared one day in the primordial soup. That notion is just as ridiculous as the story from Genesis of Noah gathering all the animal species on Earth to save them from the great flood on his ark.

When, in the history of Man, has anyone observed a program arising apart from a Programmer (or one of His programs)? Never. All scientific evidence, all human experience, shows that Life only arises from Life and Life's programs.

(By the way, the Noah account does not say "species"; that is a scientific term not-yet-coined at the time the events it describes took place.)

-------------------------------------

#16 Killgore Trout 11/20/2005 08:30AM PST wrote:

I find it embarrassing that creationism is making a comeback in this country. It does not bode well for our future to create a generation of scientifically illiterate children. You can belive in creationism if you want to, just keep it out of science classes.

I would prefer real Science be taught, which would mean real Critical Thinking and analysis, not Darwinism.

-------------------------------------

#19 MJ 11/20/2005 08:32AM PST wrote:

You're kidding, right? By that logic, a predominately Muslim school board can "have their first amendment right include" a course called "Jihad has a moral obligation" in their curricula "if they want to". Sorry, but Majorities do not have the right to impose their religious beliefs on minorities in this country.

But real scientific truth should be taught, not someone's unsubstantiated atheistic fantasy.

-------------------------------------

#23 Spiny Norman 11/20/2005 08:35AM PST wrote:

No, they don't. They merely point out the obvious, that religion is by definition unscientific. They do not say believers are stupid.

By definition, religion is not science. That does not mean it is void of scientific truth or contrary to Science. I would argue that when Science does its job and refrains from venturing into the realm of that which it is unable to examine, there is great harmony between Genesis and Science.

(Darwinists do often say religious people are stupid, either explicitly or by the implication of accepting what naturalists define as "unscientific", as this author just did).

-------------------------------------

#27 BPP 11/20/2005 08:38AM PST wrote:

No one ever said that believing in evolution (which is NOT, by the way, "a series of happy accidents") is easier than believing in ID. On the contrary, believing in the supernatural is always easier, as it does not require the rigor that science requires to be believable. That is why ID or creationism has been what most people believe for most of human history.

What is unbelievable is that anyone would try to equate rigor with Darwinism and exclude from it religion (at least Christianity).

It does not take "rigor" to make up stories originally without any real scientific foundation, as Darwin did in the nineteenth century, and then to--in spite of the accumulating scientific evidence against it--adhere to the bankrupt ideology at all costs.

"Obtuseness" perhaps, but I wouldn't call it "rigor."

(And this author's chrono-centrism is pretty outlandish also. A people's living in an earlier time doesn't mean their reason or intellect are inferior to more recent people, just their technology).

And this is the point. If we teach ID as part of the science curriculum and in so doing, water down the definition of science, then what we are really doing is destroying the ability of children to think like scientists.

To believe Darwinism in light of what is known to be true, one must water down the definition of Science. Believing what is contrary to reason unavoidably destroys the ability of children to think as a scientist should.

And thinking like a scientist is hard. Scientists formulate theories based on evidence and then test those theories with experiments that yield more evidence. A theory must be supported by evidence to remain viable and must be rejected if such evidence does not exist. It is that evidence-based thought process, more than anything else, that is responsible for the progress and wealth that we in the West enjoy. To destroy that thought process, or to belittle it, is to jeopardize the very foundation of the glory of our civilization.

And tragically, all of these truths are violated for an atheistic, naturalistic philosophy.

-------------------------------------

#40 Condor 11/20/2005 08:48AM PST observed:

New ideas that challenge the existing concepts never have an easy road.

The germ theory was ridiculed when first proposed; everyone in medical science knew that disease was caused by an imbalance in the humors; and that bleeding was the best treatment around. Pasteur was ridiculed for teaching about "little beasties" that inhabited our bodies.

Bleeding had been around as a treatment since Hippocrates, and who was Pasteur to think he was right, when all science was opposed to him?

New ideas are always ridiculed at first; then vehemently opposed; but afterwards, they are always regarded as obvious.

And some false theories die hard.

Darwinism is the last century's Phlogiston.

-------------------------------------

#45 Mentat 11/20/2005 08:51AM PST posted:

Here's the deal. There is no conflict between science and religion as long as the god you believe in doesn't do anything.

...And for those who don't immediately "get" the above quotation, let me spell it out for you - if your god actually intervenes in the workings of the world - i.e. changes the laws of physics, creates earthquakes, starts volcanoes or hurricanes, etc. - then science and religion are definitely in conflict as your god is constantly in there changing the workings of the universe. However, if your god doesn't do anything like the above, science and religion cannot possibly be in conflict.

Which is why there can be no compromise between the God of the Bible and Darwinism's abiogenesis/macroevolution. The former says He did it, the latter says He did not.

Evolutionists wish their story to be true so that there is no God Who watches Man and cares about what we do.

Additionally, Science is not atheistic naturalism; it is a process by which human beings discover and come to understand that which can be observed. It is a discovering of what is, not what might have been.

-------------------------------------

#46 ibrodsky 11/20/2005 08:51AM PST correctly observed:

After more than 100 years of investigation and experimentation, no one has ever shown how one species can evolve into another. Doesn't that make some of you at least admit that evolution is seriously incomplete? Given that, is it wise to rule out alternative theories?

And the fossil record shows the sudden appearance of new forms, not a multitude of numerous transitional forms, as Darwin rightly acknowledged his theory needed.

Our understanding of genetics shows that two simple cells can combine and build a complex organism. Clearly, these simple cells contain a blueprint (design). Why is it considered unscientific to at least wonder if the genetic machinery itself came from a blueprint?

Because to have the fantasy proven false would destroy their worldview. It would be to show the man behind the curtain is only a man.

-------------------------------------

#50 Havoc 11/20/2005 08:54AM PST wrote:

This is terribly amusing.

Why is EVERYONE so threatened by a basic fact?

Complex systems, i.e. it takes five separate systems, each complex in itself, --- operating in Co-ordination for Vision to occur.

No one system has any usefullness in itself, alone, -- cannot be explained has having evolved out of nothing for a separate purpose, then to get Five Separate Systems to evolve together ?

Neither has there ever been a "Mechanism", discovered that change one structure into another.

The finch beaks, false, variation in color a minor camo change in months and birds, the "Artists rendition" of embryo "evolution" proven False, Java Man, a hoax, all proven false, where you ask -- UC Berkeley Dept. Micro Biology.

Even the Guru of unifying theory of Biochem doesn't believe in evolution any longer.

Where's the Science, Where's the provable evolutionary mechanism.

From the goo to the zoo to you ... sounds like blind faith to me....

a religion no less....gasp !

If genetic mutation is such a great thing -- bring on the Nukes.

-------------------------------------

#55 blutonazi98 11/20/2005 08:57AM PST commented:

I believe in ID (in micro and macro level) that being said it should not be taught as science. Anything that has the conclusion already drawn before any scientific testing begins does not follow the scientific method. Therefore it should not be taught as science. Just like evolution at some levels should not be taught as fact when its assumptions are wrong or not testable

And that's the trouble with Darwinism: it takes one minor empirical bit of evidence (that minor, random genetic mutations occur within an organism over time) and from that extrapolates an entire atheistic, naturalistic worldview.

It creates a fiction about extant matter (without explaining how it came to exist), time, energy, and randomness (the antithesis of design) interacting to form the most complex machines known to Man--himself.

No rational, clear-thinking person would claim that a supercomputer naturally and spontaneously arose from only its constituent matter apart from an intellect, yet that is what Darwinists want humanity to believe.

Not only is this nonsense, it is more than counterintuitive--it contradicts all the relevant evidence. Without the ability to observe, test, and repeat such observations and testing, there is no Science. In the case of Darwinian abiogenesis/macroevolution, you've got not Science, but science fiction.

-------------------------------------

#60 Gambisin 11/20/2005 09:01AM PST

The longer I spent as a scientist, the more deeply I found myself believing in God, the more glorious He seemed.

Science is about NOTHING more than empirical fact, about avoiding anything based on faith.

Science is SUPPOSED to be limited to ONLY what we mere mortals can prove. Science is the mechanics of experimentation. God is far bigger than that and belongs in the places where math and test tubes aren't needed.

So far, so good. Science cannot address that which is beyond its sphere of observation.

I agree with Krauthammer and the Vatican.

Oh well.

Public schools are for learning the empirical. Faith and THE Designer, were things I always wanted my children to learn from me and the Church.
God belongs in religion and philosophy class, not science.

The problem is that abiogenesis and macroevolution--the elements of Darwinism that contradict the God of the Bible--are not empirical. They are suppositions uncritically accepted by Darwinists in face of contradictory evidence.

And God is a God of history, not philosophy.

Iran (not North Korea) threat to U.S. like Nazi Germany

Yes, Kim Jong-Il is a threat. Communist China is a threat. But Islam with the will and means to wage Jihad is actually at war with us now. (Regardless, why try to change the subject, unless you're defending Islam?)

It is Islam that commands the fighting against, subduing, and killing of non-Muslims. It is Iran that has taken up the cause of Allah. It is Iran that longs for the worldwide dominance of Sharia (the absolute rule of Islamic law). It is Iran that has clearly stated its desire for "Death to America!" and is developing its nuclear capability. It is Iran that has sponsored terrorism beyond its borders.

From WND.com:

The threat posed to the national security of the United States by Iran was likened only to the one posed by Nazi Germany in the 1930s, by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who suggested Tehran could be planning for a pre-emptive nuclear electromagnetic pulse attack on America that would turn a third or more of the country "back to a 19th century level of development."

Gingrich made the stunning statements, which echo warning of other congressional leaders and national security experts, in testimony before a subcommittee of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee last week.

He said the "extraordinary challenge that the current regime in Iran poses to the safety of the United States" requires "extraordinary measures to meet it."

"Not since the failure of the League of Nations in the 1930s to confront the aggression of the dictatorships in Japan, Italy and Germany have we seen the willful avoidance of reality which is now underway with regard to Iran," said Gingrich. "There are lessons to be learned from the 1930s and those lessons apply directly to the current government of Iran."

Gingrich pointed with alarm at a report first published in G2 Bulletin that Iran had tested the firing of ballistic missiles from a merchant ship in which warheads were detonated in midair over the Caspian Sea rather than at a land or sea target. National security experts and scientists commissioned by Congress to study the threat of electromagnetic pulse attacks on the U.S. concluded that Iran was preparing for just such a scenario. So does Gingrich.

"In short, a country with a track record of carrying out its murderous ideology may soon have the capability to deliver on its publicly declared and unambiguously stated intentions to inflict mortal harm on the United States on a massive scale," warned Gingrich last Tuesday at the hearing of the Federal Financial Management, Government Information and International Security Subcommittee chaired by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. "A nuclear tipped intermediate-range Iranian missile launched from a merchant ship off the coast of the United States could do just that. That, or Iran could simply supply its terrorist handmaidens with a small scale nuclear device to use against U.S. targets here at home or abroad."

The threat is compounded by recent disclosures by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran is in "non-compliance" with its treaty obligations against developing nuclear weapons.

Gingrich concluded that:

* Iran is the most dangerous regime in the world and the "single most urgent threat to American national security."

* The threat can only be understood in the context of "The Long War Against the Irreconcilable Wing of Islam, which is a worldwide war in which the United States and its allies are unavoidably engaged, and in which the U.S. has active campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan."

* The U.S. cannot be held hostage or rendered impotent by delays of international bureaucracies in dealing with the threat posed by Iran.

* One key to preventing or degrading the Iranian nuclear threat is persuading Russia to stop helping Tehran.

* The U.S. has no option but to seek regime change in Iran.

Gingrich said there are reasons to believe Iran "is testing the capability to launch a surprise attack on the United States from a merchant ship of our coasts."

"An attack by a single Iranian nuclear missile could have a catastrophic impact on the United States by causing an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) over a portion of the country," he said. "Such an attack could quickly turn a third or more of the United States back to a 19th century level of development. Electrical transformers and switching stations would fall. Without electricity, hospitals would fails, water and sewage services would fail, gas stations would be unable to provide petroleum, trucks would not be able to distribute food supplies, and essential services would rapidly disintegrate."

Gingrich said "this is not idle speculation, but taken from the consensus findings of nine distinguished scientists who authored the Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack, which was delivered to the Congress on June 22, 2004, the same day the 9-11 commission report was published."

Gingrich pointed out that such a sneak attack – especially if launched from a merchant ship at sea – could have the added benefit of deniability by Iran.

"Contemplating an EMP threat makes more troubling reports that certain Iranian missile tests resulted in missiles that have detonated in flight at or near apogee, which the Iranian press has reported as successful events," explained Gingrich. "Normally, it would be expected that the ability to target specific locations would be the standard for success for ballistic tests. However, if the ability to launch an EMP attack was being tested, detonation at apogee would be the measure of testing success. As noted by the EMP commission, a country with limited nuclear capabilities and few choices as to delivery platforms has only a few options to deliver a deadly blow. An EMP attack would be on such strategy."

Today, Iranian lawmakers approved a bill requiring the government to block inspections of atomic facilities if the International Atomic Energy Agency refers Iran to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.

When the bill becomes law, it will strengthen the government's hand in resisting international pressure to permanently abandon uranium enrichment, a process that can produce fuel for either nuclear reactors or nuclear bombs.

Iran resumed uranium-reprocessing activities a step before enrichment at its Isfahan Uranium Conversion Facility in August.

Last week, WND and G2 Bulletin reported most of the U.S. civilian population, military bases and nuclear-weapons assembly plants are within range of missile attacks by terrorists or rogue nations using merchant ships as launching platforms – an increasing concern by counter-terrorism and national security experts.

G2 Bulletin and WND first reported the shocking findings of the U.S. EMP commission that rogue nations, such as Iran and North Korea, have the capability of launching an undetected, catastrophic EMP attack on the U.S. – and are actively developing plans.

"These electromagnetic pulses propagate from the burst point of the nuclear weapon to the line of sight on the Earth's horizon, potentially covering a vast geographic region in doing so simultaneously, moreover, at the speed of light," said Dr. Lowell Wood, acting chairman of the commission appointed by Congress to study the threat. "For example, a nuclear weapon detonated at an altitude of 400 kilometers over the central United States would cover, with its primary electromagnetic pulse, the entire continent of the United States and parts of Canada and Mexico."

The commission, in its work over a period of several years, found that EMP is one of a small number of threats that has the potential to hold American society seriously at risk and that might also result in the defeat of U.S. military forces.

"The electromagnetic field pulses produced by weapons designed and deployed with the intent to produce EMP have a high likelihood of damaging electrical power systems, electronics and information systems upon which any reasonably advanced society, most specifically including our own, depend vitally," Wood said. "Their effects on systems and infrastructures dependent on electricity and electronics could be sufficiently ruinous as to qualify as catastrophic to the American nation."

The commission concluded in its report to Congress earlier this year: "EMP is one of a small number of threats that may hold at risk the continued existence of today's U.S. civil society.''

Liberal elite desire power at all costs

Military fears critics will hurt morale:

Pentagon officials say they are increasingly worried that Washington's political fight over the Iraq war will dampen what has been high morale among troops fighting a tenacious and deadly enemy.

Commanders are telling Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that ground troops do not understand the generally negative press that their missions receive, despite what they consider significant achievements in rebuilding Iraq and instilling democracy.

The commanders also worry about the public's declining support for the mission and what may be a growing movement inside the Democratic Party to advocate troop withdrawal from Iraq.

'They say morale is very high,' said a senior Pentagon official of reports filed by commanders with Washington. 'But they relate comments from troops asking, 'What the heck is going on back here' and why America isn't seeing the progress they are making or appreciating the mission the way those on the ground there do. My take is that they are wondering if America is still behind them.'

The problem is that the pro-Democratic, anti-America, anti-Christian political and media elite are so desperate for power that they will do anything to regain it, even if it results in harm to America's best and--in the long-run--the nation's demise.

With patriots like these, who needs insurgents?

What CAIR doesn't want you to know (and how they try to prevent you from knowing it)

The Council on American-Islamic Relations has issued a press release trying to intimidate and defame Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch and someone who has always been decent and fair in evaluating Islam.

Following are my comments on CAIR's deceit.

It should be obvious from their press release that CAIR loves irony:

"The Washington-based council said the growing level of Islamophobic rhetoric in American society prompts some individuals to turn their hate-filled views into violent actions."

(Like in France? Israel? Madrid? Denmark? Sudan? Indonesia? London? Bali...?)

Does CAIR mean that the faithful will (again) use demonstrably-true factual statements about Islam and its (false) prophet as a justification for (more) violence against infidels?

"Just yesterday, CAIR urged a Los Angeles synagogue that hosted a speech by Robert Spencer, the operator of a virulently anti- Muslim website..."

So, telling the truth to non-Muslims about Islam's "sacred" texts, theology, jurisprudence, and history is "anti-Muslim"?

Someone ought to tell Allah!

"...to offer its congregation a more balanced perspective on Islam."

So, CAIR rejects the Qur'an's commands to "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them," and, "Fight against the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya"?

Now that would be a revelation ! (In reality, they consider "balanced" a euphemism for "false")

"Comments and articles on Spencer's site, which is used as reference by a number of Islamophobic commentators, compare Muslims to animals and Nazis ..."

Interestingly, it was Hitler's mufti, not his pope, who aided and encouraged the slaughter of millions of Jews.

"and portray Islam as an inherently violent faith that must be confronted."

Since CAIR can't (truthfully) deny the first half of that statement, it must be the "confronting" to which they object!

"New comments on that site today include "death to islam (sic)," "islam must be destroyed..destroy islam (sic)," "ISLAM = DEADLY PARASITE," and "Islam IS the NAZISM of our generation."

Let's see...

-an ideology that requires purifying its people by destroying the impure? Check!

-the use of force to subdue or destroy those who fail to embrace the ideology? Check!

-special vehemence and violence (even genocide) reserved for the people of Israel? Double Check!

It would appear Islam has been the Nazism of the last one and one-half millennia.

Certainly, no decent person would advocate murdering innocents, unless of course the "decent" person were Mohammed (or one of his followers) and the "innocents" non-Muslims (who can never be truly innocent, since they oppose Allah).

Only two groups of people can deny the essential hatred and violence of Islam: those ignorant of Qur'anic Islam's doctrine and practice over the last fourteen centuries, and those who would keep them ignorant for Islam's advantage.

The Justice of God

A holy and just God will punish sin.

This is bad news for us sinners, since we break the commandments of God by our thoughts, words, and deeds every day of our lives. We justly deserve God's wrath.

Thankfully, God has a justice for us we wouldn't expect. It is the justice, or righteousness, that comes by faith alone in Christ alone, Who is our Righteousness.

Following is an account of how one Roman Catholic monk, Martin Luther, discovered this wonderful justice...

[Translator's Note: ...The terms "just, justice, justify" in the following reading are synonymous with the terms "righteous, righteousness, make righteous." Both sets of English words are common translations of the Latin "justus" and related words. A similar situation exists with the word "faith"; it is synonymous with "belief." Both words can be used to translate Latin "fides." Thus, "We are justified by faith" translates the same original Latin sentence as does "We are made righteous by belief."]

Meanwhile in that same year, 1519, I had begun interpreting the Psalms once again. I felt confident that I was now more experienced, since I had dealt in university courses with St. Paul's Letters to the Romans, to the Galatians, and the Letter to the Hebrews. I had conceived a burning desire to understand what Paul meant in his Letter to the Romans, but thus far there had stood in my way, not the cold blood around my heart, but that one word which is in chapter one: "The justice of God is revealed in it." I hated that word, "justice of God," which, by the use and custom of all my teachers, I had been taught to understand philosophically as referring to formal or active justice, as they call it, i.e., that justice by which God is just and by which he punishes sinners and the unjust.

But I, blameless monk that I was, felt that before God I was a sinner with an extremely troubled conscience. I couldn't be sure that God was appeased by my satisfaction. I did not love, no, rather I hated the just God who punishes sinners. In silence, if I did not blaspheme, then certainly I grumbled vehemently and got angry at God. I said, "Isn't it enough that we miserable sinners, lost for all eternity because of original sin, are oppressed by every kind of calamity through the Ten Commandments? Why does God heap sorrow upon sorrow through the Gospel and through the Gospel threaten us with his justice and his wrath?" This was how I was raging with wild and disturbed conscience. I constantly badgered St. Paul about that spot in Romans 1 and anxiously wanted to know what he meant.

I meditated night and day on those words until at last, by the mercy of God, I paid attention to their context: "The justice of God is revealed in it, as it is written: 'The just person lives by faith.'" I began to understand that in this verse the justice of God is that by which the just person lives by a gift of God, that is by faith. I began to understand that this verse means that the justice of God is revealed through the Gospel, but it is a passive justice, i.e. that by which the merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written: "The just person lives by faith." All at once I felt that I had been born again and entered into paradise itself through open gates. Immediately I saw the whole of Scripture in a different light. I ran through the Scriptures from memory and found that other terms had analogous meanings, e.g., the work of God, that is, what God works in us; the power of God, by which he makes us powerful; the wisdom of God, by which he makes us wise; the strength of God, the salvation of God, the glory of God.

I exalted this sweetest word of mine, "the justice of God," with as much love as before I had hated it with hate. This phrase of Paul was for me the very gate of paradise. Afterward I read Augustine's "On the Spirit and the Letter," in which I found what I had not dared hope for. I discovered that he too interpreted "the justice of God" in a similar way, namely, as that with which God clothes us when he justifies us. Although Augustine had said it imperfectly and did not explain in detail how God imputes justice to us, still it pleased me that he taught the justice of God by which we are justified.

From Project Wittenberg

Originally posted July 30th.

And what they don't know can kill us

From Hugh Fitzgerald. What they don't know at the State Department:

The Ur-source of the problem with American policy in Iraq is not that the government has been too bold, but too timid, afraid even synecdochically to allude to Islam, insistent on parroting until no one of any sense can stand it, that silly phrase about a 'war on terrorism' with no hint, no hint of a hint, that 'terrorism' is merely one instrument of Jihad, that 'Jihad' means a struggle, and that all over the world this duty of Jihad to spread Islam, as old as Islam itself, is being pursued in various ways of which terrorism is only one, and not even necessarily the most effective.

The American government, or many people in it, failed to understand two things when they went to Iraq. They failed to understand the history of Iraq itself, with its long-standing ethnic and sectarian divisions that in the case of the Sunni-Shi'a split go back to the fourth of the rightly-guided caliphs, a split that in the history of modern Iraq only widened, rather than narrowed, since the days of Sir Percy Cox and Gertrude Bell. They failed to understand that the Kurds were hot for independence, and that a Kurdish state might usefully be exploited in order to raise the consciousness of non-Arab Muslims everywhere, beginning with the Berbers of North Africa (subjected not to the mass murder that the Kurds endured under Saddam Hussein, but rather to Arab cultural and linguistic imperialism). Paralyzing fear of Turkey, perhaps, or a belief that Turkey could still be described (as Richard Perle did in an interview in 2004) as 'secular' as if Kemalism were permanent, Islam transitory -- instead of, as we all now know, the reverse.

And there was just one other little thing, one other intelligence failure, that characterizes the American effort in Iraq, and the madness of the effort to create out of these three vilayets a moderate, rational, democratic nation-state that will prove a Light Unto the Muslim Nations. And that other little thing was Islam. There was not in 2001 an understanding of Islam; there was not such an understanding in the spring of 2003, when three American divisions in a few weeks conquered Iraq; there appears to be no such understanding now, at the top, of the nature of Islam, or why, for example, the campaign of Da'wa, and demographic conquest of Western Europe, is far more important a matter to address, and think of ways to reverse, than whether or not the Sunni lion can lie down with the Shi'a -- well, not exactly lamb, but lioness.

Two readings

Justification and Rome, by Preuf
Captivation of the Will, by Gerhard O. Forde, Baker

Never forget

From Michelle Malkin:

"On this fourth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America, let's remember...."

Who needs Netflix when you've got the Religion of Peace?

From WND.com:

"Only a few years ago, Adam Gadahn was a southern California teenager with interests in the environment and heavy metal music.

His family says he converted to Islam at an Orange County mosque. There, officials say, Gadahn came under the influence of militants who took him to Pakistan.

He has since emerged as an al Qaeda propaganda tool. His latest message warns Americans an attack is imminent unless the United States stops its operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

'We love peace, but when the enemy violates that peace or prevents us from achieving it, then we love nothing better than the heat of battle, the echo of explosion, and the slitting of the throats of the infidels,' the tape says.

As for the rest of the tape, the young man attempts to dispel any rumors or reports of bin Laden being deceased. He closes his tape by invoking the names of the Sept. 11 hijackers.

'Everyone of us is Mohammed Atta,' he says."

How can converting to the Religion of Peace result in someone delighting at the prospect of slitting unbelievers' throats? There's no causal relationship, you say? Perhaps you haven't read Qur'an 47:4.

The fiends in the MSM

From Little Green Footballs:

The mainstream media immediately imposed a ban on graphic images from the September 11 attacks, but now they demand to be allowed to film dead hurricane victims: US drops banning media from body hunt.

HOUSTON, Texas (CNN) — Rather than fight a lawsuit by CNN, the federal government abandoned its effort Saturday to prevent the media from reporting on the recovery of the dead in New Orleans.

Joint Task Force Katrina “has no plans to bar, impede or prevent news media from their news gathering and reporting activities in connection with the deceased Hurricane Katrina victim recovery efforts,” said Col. Christian E. deGraff, representing the task force.

U.S. District Court Judge Keith Ellison issued a temporary restraining order Friday against a “zero access” policy announced earlier in the day by Army Lt. Gen. Russel Honore, who is overseeing the federal relief effort in the city, and Terry Ebbert, the city’s homeland security director. In explaining the ban, Ebbert said, “we don’t think that’s proper” to let members of the media view the bodies.

The judge was to consider granting a permanent injunction Saturday when the government announced its decision not to fight CNN’s lawsuit.

In an e-mail to CNN staff, CNN News Group President Jim Walton said the network filed the the lawsuit to “prohibit any agency from restricting its ability to fully and fairly cover” the hurricane victim recovery process.

After the Galveston hurricane of September 1900, rescue workers had a different way of handling this kind of thing.

Looters found despoiling the dead were summarily executed by the militia - stood against the nearest wall or pile of debris and shot without the hindrance of a trial. The same brutal justice was delivered to amateur photographers. “Word received from Galveston today indicates that Kodak fiends are being shot down like thieves. Two, it is stated, were killed yesterday while taking pictures of nude female bodies.”

The reason for the contradiction is obvious: If Americans were to see the blessings of the Religion of Peace, someone might (rightly) conclude something should be done about it, and we wouldn't want America defending itself, now would we?

The MSM wants to show these dead so that they might do more damage to President Bush when they ought to be going after those primarily responsible for the unnecessary suffering post-Katrina.

+ Word of the Day +

From Life Of The World (a great homepage for your browser):

Luke 6:20-26

Then He lifted up His eyes toward His disciples, and said: "Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you shall be filled. Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh. Blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you, and revile you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of Man's sake. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy! For indeed your reward is great in heaven, for in like manner their fathers did to the prophets.
'But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are full, for you shall hunger. Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep. Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for so did their fathers to the false prophets."

Luke 18:22-32

Then He said to His disciples, 'Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat; nor about the body, what you will put on. Life is more than food, and the body is more than clothing. Consider the ravens, for they neither sow nor reap, which have neither storehouse nor barn; and God feeds them. Of how much more value are you than the birds? And which of you by worrying can add one cubit to his stature? If you then are not able to do the least, why are you anxious for the rest? Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; and yet I say to you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. If then God so clothes the grass, which today is in the field and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more will He clothe you, O you of little faith? And do not seek what you should eat or what you should drink, nor have an anxious mind. For all these things the nations of the world seek after, and your Father knows that you need these things. But seek the kingdom of God, and all these things shall be added to you. Do not fear, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom."

Great! When's the swastika-shaped memorial going up?

More evidence of how deeply blind we are to the nature of our enemy: Flight 93 marker design picked:

Four years after United Airlines Flight 93 crashed into a reclaimed strip mine near Shanksville, Somerset County, on Sept. 11, 2001, the design that will serve as the national memorial was unveiled here yesterday in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Hall of Flags.

"Crescent of Embrace" will feature a Tower of Voices, containing 40 wind chimes -- one for each passenger and crew member who died -- and two stands of red maple trees that will line a walkway caressing the natural bowl shape of the land. Forty separate groves of red and sugar maples will be planted behind the crescent, and a black slate wall will mark the edge of the crash site, where the remains of those who died now rest.

As the black cloak that had hidden the winner was removed, a collective gasp came from those gathered, who then rose to their feet to applaud.

In the front row, three family members --a woman who lost her mother, a woman who lost her husband and a woman who lost her brother -- leaned into each other, in a show of love and support.

"It's powerful but understated," said Kiki Homer, whose brother, LeRoy W. Homer Jr., was co-pilot on the plane that crashed after passengers rebelled against terrorist hijackers. "It's beautifully simple.

"My breath is taken away."

Esther Heymann, whose daughter, Elizabeth Wainio, died in the crash, agreed.

"The understatement speaks to the profoundness of what occurred here," she said.

According to jurors who chose the winner, it offers "tranquility, beauty and silence. It will be a place for everyone who visits to feel the spirits of the 40 heroes in the whisper of the trees and honor their unselfish sacrifice of their lives to preserve the lives of countless many."

The winning designers, Paul and Milena Murdoch of Los Angeles, called being selected "an incredible honor."

"There's a huge emotional investment," said Paul Murdoch, 48, his voice choking.

After months of excitement surrounding the design competition, which drew more than 1,000 entries, the project will now move into intense fund-raising and logistical work. No cost estimate or timetable has been set for construction of the memorial, but it will take years.

For the Murdochs, their design evolved all at once, they said, and nothing in it is more important than anything else.

The idea of the Crescent of Embrace, Murdoch said, is to be a gesture of healing and bonding. The crescent marks the edge of the land, which will remain largely untouched.

"It's simple and yet it's complex," said Dorothy Garcia, whose husband, Andy, died in the crash. "The void that's there speaks so loudly to the heroism of these 40 souls."

One of the important attributes of the winning design, Murdoch said, is that it allows the memorial to continually grow and change. The maple trees that create the crescent will be planted at just 15 or 20 feet tall. They won't reach maturity for 40 or 50 years.

"It will be open and evolving as long as it's there," he said. "Our memorial is not about offering explanation for what happened, but to allow people to come to terms with it."

A crescent-shaped memorial for the victims of 9/11; this would be like building a memorial for victims of the Holocaust in the form of a swastika.

"We the people," but for how much longer?

Vote fraud: Worse than you think:

"America is standing on a cliff and if we the people do not get rid of politicians at all levels, the same path of destruction will continue. If Americans think things are bad in this country right now, just wait until the effects of CAFTA (the Central American Free Trade Agreement) begin to kick in, further destroying our sovereignty. Bush wants the FTAA done by Dec. 31, 2005 – and he'll get it. Following the CAFTA vote by Congress, a friend (Republican) who serves in one of the 50 state legislatures said, 'Devvy, Congress is taking us to Hell.'

If you think the 'middle class' is being reduced to poverty level, the worst is yet to come. 'Free trade' has destroyed the most important job sectors that made America the wealthiest, debt-free nation in the history of the world. NAFTA and GATT have reduced entire communities into ghost towns. CAFTA and the FTAA will not only finish off our agriculture, manufacturing and industrial bases, we will be reduced to Third World poverty and a nation that can no longer sustain itself. Consider these words of wisdom ignored by the high-priced hookers who serve in Congress:

The global theory of free trade is siphoning off America's wealth and bringing her economy to the level of others. The theory is displacing American workers who otherwise would be employed.

– Sen. George Malone, 1958

We must get constitutionalists elected in our state houses, Congress and the White House. However, this will not happen until we get rid of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and all electronic ballot machines. We must go back to hand-counted ballots – counted in front of the public – not in secrecy. In my 'Blind Loyalty' booklet (a copy is on my CD), I gave 45 pages of provable vote fraud – even at the local level – including what happened in my March 1996 primary.

...According to a column by Julie Carr Smyth (Cleveland Plain Dealer Bureau, Aug. 30, 2003) Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc., a big-time money supporter of Bush, sent out a fund-raising letter, Aug. 14, 2003, stating he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." Diebold is one of the three major voting-machine companies in this country.

As we all know, Ohio was a mess on "Election" Day, and Diebold did, indeed, deliver a win for Bush. The Democrats screamed vote fraud, the GOP denied it. However, the GOP fought years in court to claim vote fraud over the alleged election of Democrat Christine Gregoire for governor in Washington State – the court finally put the matter to rest on June 5, 2005. While the finger-pointing goes on, vote fraud continues to get more and more sophisticated.

I urge all Americans: Attend every city council and county board of supervisors meeting. Demand paper ballots, hand counted in front of the general public and get rid of these easily rigged machines. If your elected officials refuse, tell them they will be the target of a recall, and if you don't have recall, make it clear to them they're gone in '06.

The 2006 elections are our last hope to get individuals elected who can and will get the job done in saving this republic. Time grows short for liberty.

Four more years? I hope not.

From Joseph Farah:

Never forget.

Remember 9-11.

No matter what we achieve in Iraq or Afghanistan or any other front in this war on jihadist terrorism, unless we get bin Laden, we will never have closure over the events of Sept. 11, 2001. The longer it takes, the more we risk.

Bin Laden is a symbol out there – a dangerous living symbol. As long as he is alive on this planet, he represents the personification of anti-Americanism and anti-Westernism. He is a rallying point for millions of radical Islamists who want nothing more out of life on this earth than to stick it to us – to kill and maim as many Americans as possible.

Now, there is no question that President Bush's predecessor in the White House missed many golden opportunities to spare us the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, by taking out bin Laden. Time after time, the 9-11 commission report shows, the decision never even made it to Bill Clinton's desk. The decisions not to attack and kill bin Laden were made by National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, a man who later copped a plea to stealing national security secrets from the National Archives.

Nevertheless, Bush will hardly have Clinton to blame if he doesn't get bin Laden after eight years of trying.

It's time to refocus our efforts on eliminating this human plague from the planet.

It's time to redouble our efforts to find him and smoke him.

It's time to pull out all the stops – and if that means attacking him in Pakistan or Iran or any other nation, we do it. If we have to use bunker-buster bombs or tactical nuclear weapons, we do it. If we have to redeploy armed forces from elsewhere on the globe, we do it.

It's time to use all our great technology and all our great manpower and American ingenuity to do something that will make America's day.

I'm surprised no one else is saying this.

It's been too long.

This is becoming something of a national embarrassment. Bush is very fortunate his political opposition wasn't able to capitalize on this failure to get bin Laden in 2004. If he cares about his country, his party, justice and winning this titanic global conflict with pure, unadulterated evil, he's got to finish the little matter of bin Laden.

Americans don't want him dying of natural causes in some cave.

They don't want to see any more videos and they don't want to hear any more audio tapes.

The longer bin Laden eludes capture or death, the more his legacy as the man who declared war on America grows.

This is not just war, it's personal.

Argumentum contra argumentum ad hominem

From BLACKFIVE, on the value of ad hominem attacks:

...Chickenhawk refers to those who are pro-war but have never served in the military. I don't like the term. It's designed to silence debate.

By using the 'Chickenhawk' label, you assume that the only moral authority to have an opinion about war comes from those that have served.

Well, then, is someone that served in the military but not combat, a half-Chickenhawk?

How about someone that spent one month fighting in GW1 versus someone who slugged it out during OIF for a year?

How do you weigh the opinion of a Marine with three seven month tours versus a 3rd Infantry Division Soldier with two twelve month tours?

And, then, eventually, we'll come to the conclusion that the only one to make a decision about combat is the highest decorated veteran alive (Colonel Bud Day, I believe). Let's let him make all of our decisions for us...

I don't know many military men or women out there who would want military service to be the singular defining characteristic of citizenship. We appreciate those that have served, and maybe they're a little higher up the food chain in our eyes, but to say that you have to serve to have an opinion is, basically, [expletive deleted].

For instance, Presidents with combat experience have gotten us into more problems that ones without (how's THAT for a premise). Kennedy (WWII Vet), Truman (WWI Vet)..."

He probably thinks this song is about him

Verse I
The first rule of holes: stop digging!

Vox Day wanted someone to show him where he was wrong in criticizing Ben Shapiro's arguments. In my critique of Day's original article, I very generally noted that Day was at points misrepresenting what Shapiro obviously meant; here I will point out specific errors and misstatements:

Mr. Shapiro's first argument against the appellation is that it is nothing more than a leftist attempt to silence debate. This is partially true....

No, Day's mischaracterization of Shapiro's comments is partially true. Shapiro wrote, "The bulk of the left in this country refuses to argue about foreign policy rationally, without resorting to ad hominem attack" (Day does not refute this--he agrees with it). Shapiro is here writing about most on the Left; he is not addressing the Right, the Middle, or Vox Day (wherever he might be; judging from the generally condescending tone of his rhetoric, he would probably place himself Above).

Regardless of from where the personal attack comes, argumentum ad hominem is in itself almost always used either to distract, obfuscate, prejudice, manipulate, or shame; it is never relevant to the merits of a particular argument (unless that argument is about a specific person).

His second and third arguments are that the insult is dishonest and "explicitly rejects the Constitution." But there is nothing dishonest about calling into question the credibility of one who does not practice what he preaches.

It is dishonest if one is to honestly represent or rationally evaluate the merits of a specific argument.

(As noted previously) Besides that, Day is not referring to the definition of "dishonest" Shapiro apparently was using, who wrote:

" It is dishonest because the principle of republicanism is based on freedom of choice about behavior (as long as that behavior is legal) as well as freedom of speech about political issues....Representative democracy necessarily means that millions of us vote on issues with which we have had little practical experience. The "chickenhawk" argument – which states that if you haven't served in the military, you can't have an opinion on foreign policy – explicitly rejects basic principles of representative democracy."

Perhaps Shapiro should have used in place of "dishonest," something like, "inconsistent with an important aspect of representative democracy."
Day continues:

If a CNBC analyst urges viewers to buy a stock he is secretly shorting, he will rightly be dismissed as a hypocrite unworthy of further regard.

The appropriate value in raising questions about a speaker's credibility lies only in that any doubt regarding their integrity should cause the hearer to discern even more carefully the merits of the argument; a speaker's questionable credibility does not necessarily reflect the merits of what they say.

The unconstitutional argument is spectacularly silly, since no one in Congress has proposed a federal law barring such hypocrites from office. One can only assume that Mr. Shapiro's first Constitutional Law class lies ahead of him.

Here again, Day is either reading carelessly or intentionally misrepresenting Shapiro's language (so that he might take another cheap shot at Shapiro?).

In referring to the Constitution, Shapiro was referring to the Left's position that unless one has served, one cannot have an opinion on the use of military force. This contradicts the Constitution's provision for civilian control of the military. Shapiro did not say the use of "chickenhawk" was unconstitutional in the legal sense, as Day implies. Here are Shapiro's actual words:

The "chickenhawk" argument also explicitly rejects the Constitution itself. The Constitution provides that civilians control the military. The president of the United States is commander in chief, whether or not he has served in the military. Congress controls the purse strings and declares war, no matter whether any of its members have served in the military or not. For foreign policy doves to high-handedly declare that military service is a prerequisite to a hawkish foreign policy mindset is not only dangerous, but directly conflicts with the Constitution itself.

Day continues:

His fourth argument, which asserts that use of the term is somehow "un-American," reveals a similar failure to understand the First Amendment and American history. Mr. Shapiro might wish the Constitution prevented people from calling him names, but it actually protects their right to do so and American political history is littered with an abundance of inventive insults.

Obviously, Day is taking the term "American" in a sense different from that intended by Shapiro. This is in itself either intellectually dishonest or [just] lazy. Shapiro's actual words make this clear:

Last week, I explained why the "chickenhawk" argument undermines fundamental values of representative democracy, as well as the constitutional idea of civilian control over the military.

Essentially, Shapiro was defining "un-American" in terms of two of his earlier points.

Day goes on:

His fifth and final argument – that use of the term "chickenhawk" is an attempt to avoid substantive debate – is easily disproved.

Shapiro was talking about the Left's use of the term; he was not discussing Day's use of it.

In Day's implicit endorsement of the comments from a reader of his 'blog which include the observation, "Even a broken clock is right twice a day," he demonstrates the (usually) fallacious nature of argumentum ad hominem--a person's argument should be judged on the merits of the argument, not on who is making it.

The genuine flaw in the use of the "chickenhawk" label is that in most cases it is being applied years, even decades, after the fact, and inherently attempts to equate two different historical situations.

The real flaw in Day's article (whether or not Shapiro is actually a chickenhawk), is that he took up the pen at all to give him (as he puts it) a well-deserved "spanking."

I am only one of many non-pacifist, non-leftist Americans who believe that Mr. Shapiro would do well to heed his own words of Aug. 26, 2004. "Now's the time: Either put up, or shut the hell up."

Perhaps Mr. Shapiro can sign up to serve with Mr. Day wherever he is currently stationed (unless VD's currently enjoying a "bath" somewhere on the California coast).

Verse II
Speaking of protesting too much...

Ben Shapiro wrote two columns arguing why the anti-war Left's use of the term "chickenhawk" is improper. The first article on "chickenhawk" argued that using the term is intellectually dishonest in discussing the merits of the Iraq War, and the Left use it because they don't have anything substantial to add to the public discourse.

It is and they don't.

In his second article, Shapiro continued his argument against the Left's use of name-calling.

Vox Day wrote an (apparently unprovoked) article calling him a "chickenhawk" and trying to point out why Shapiro's arguments against the term are invalid.

After reading both of Shapiro's articles, one must wonder, "Where did the author criticize (or even mention) Vox Day?" Mr. Shapiro specifically cites the emptiness of the anti-war Left who resort to ad hominem attacks out of desperation, mean-spiritedness, and their hatred for President Bush. Unless there are some behind-the-scenes insults or reproaches to which I am not privy, Day's response to Shapiro is unjustified.

[Guest MikeT courteously points out that Day is responding to Shapiro's call for more pre-emptive action in other nations--for an American Empire; he should criticize that instead.]

And rather than admit he went too far (or just stop), Day tried to justify his inappropriately public and uncharitable rebuke of one of his colleagues in a response to some of my comments.

The use of "chickenhawk" he defends is only valid against particular persons, nothing else. Its use does not demonstrate that person's arguments to be false, which was Shapiro's point in the two columns cited in Day's tirade. That sort of a false argument[ation] is unbecoming someone of Day's [. . .] stature.

No matter how valid his criticisms of any expansion of our "War Against Extremism" might be (or any other action Shapiro might advocate), Day's personal attack against him only weakens the moral force of his own arguments and damages his own reputation.

If the point of the debate is whether or not the military should engage in a certain operation, then make that argument. If the point is that those who do not serve should refrain from calling for more warfare, then make that argument. If the point is that Shapiro is a hypocrite and should do something about it or be quiet, state that (privately).

But Day seems more interested in pushing around someone for whom he has little or no respect than addressing whether or not ad hominem attacks are morally-defensible (in almost all cases, they are not). Day's attack of an apparently decent young man comes off as nothing more than vulgar and petty.

His criticism of Shapiro's character would be more appropriate in a private exchange or even on his own 'blog; WorldNetDaily Commentary does not seem the right forum for the puerile schoolyard bullying evident in Day's article. (And no, an imprecise use of language does not make one deserving of public disembowelment. Grammar lessons, perhaps).

If Day's intention was to criticize constructively, he should have done that privately (and if he did do it privately, he should have kept it private).

As for refuting Shapiro, that VD cites himself as an example of where some of Shapiro's arguments fall short only supports his opponent: Day is an exception that proves the rule. He is not part of the vacuous anti-Bush [anti-American] Left, whose use of the tactic Shapiro was criticizing. Neither is he part of the (as Day claims) 95% of people too stupid to get out of their own way (and therefore susceptible to such fallacious argumentation).

Argumentum ad hominem does nothing to further a particular position (unless, of course, the argument is about a specific person); it only cheapens the worth of comments that otherwise might be deserving of consideration, and it lowers the esteem of the speaker in the eyes of fair-minded observers.

So (ironically), in trying to weaken Shapiro's credibility, Day lessens his own.

Verse III
A line-by-line response

Following is my response to Day's critique of my original post...

I wrote:

If Day's argument is that Shapiro seems defensive, and that this defensiveness reveals a lack of courage, then that is the argument he should make. But the intimation of physical or moral defect on the part of his target is childish and inconsistent with Christ's example.

To which Day responded:

Amil gets right out of the blocks with a blown reading comprehension test. First, that's not my argument. Second, the suggestion of the possibility of a physical or moral defect is far from childish, it is absolutely necessary in order to admit the real possibility that the entire argument does not apply.....

My comment above was obviously a response to Day's introduction only (and I was trying to give Day the benefit of the doubt, of which he is quickly proving himself undeserving).

As indicated by the reference to Shakespeare, he implies Shapiro's repeated criticism of the pejorative is an indication he feels it hits too close to home. VD later calls Shapiro "chickenhawk," "chicken_ _ _ _," and "hypocrite." All of that is unnecessary.

Day here admits that he is attacking Shapiro personally to cast doubt on his argument! Essentially, Day's argument here is: "Shapiro's a chickenhawk, so he's wrong." That's a non sequitur and powerful evidence that Day is victim to his own flawed logic--attacking a person's character (even if the accusations are true) has no actual bearing on the merits of the argument made.

Again, to suggest that hinting at possible physical or character flaws as reasons for Shapiro's lack of service is necessary in refuting his argument is defective reasoning.

Day continued:

I testify to what Shapiro said that was false. His assertion is largely incorrect and is only true in the single context of conservative media commentary, which, ironically enough, features a high percentage of people who many on the Left and Right would consider to be chickenhawks. I took a poll of some of the most extreme right-wing people on the planet - in the last election, Bush came in third behind the Libertarian and Constitution party candidates - and 85 percent believe that the chickenhawk appellation applies to Mr. Shapiro.

And I note that if there is anyone less interested in genuine debate than the conservative commentariat, I have yet to meet them. Malkin was afraid to show even when she was called out in public and asked live on the air to defend her book. I doubt Shapiro has the ... to defend himself or his positions either. Hugh Hewitt won't even permit libertarians on his radio show. Conservative commentators talk a good game as long as they think they're dealing with brain-dead leftists, but they're cowards for the most part. At least the lefties will show up and froth at the mouth for a while. Anyhow, the fact that leftists can't debate properly doesn't mean they won't; you have to remember that to them calling names IS how you debate.

Calling names is how one debates if they're five years old and not very bright, which is part of why Day's public attack is inappropriate and embarrassing.

Day writes that Shapiro's assertion is largely incorrect and only true in a very limited context. As evidence of this he cites the opinions of "the most extreme right-wing people on the planet." Is this a sizeable group of people? If so, why did not the Constitutional or Libertarian candidates win the presidency?

Even if it is a large group of people, Shapiro was writing about the Left's use of "chickenhawk." I nowhere noted his use of the terms "Liberatarians," "Conservatives," or "Moderates" (or even "Vox Day") in his two articles.

(And I doubt Shapiro would criticize its use by one who has served).

Perhaps Day should have read more carefully.

He goes on:

So, Shapiro is demonstrably wrong. My very willingness to debate blows his (and Amil's) talking points-derived notion away. I'm right here... Shapiro and Lowry and all the other war cheerleaders know where I am. Shall we talk about the invasion of Pakistan? Or do you prefer Egypt? To quote our president, Bring It On. And what debate, precisely, is being stifled? From what I've seen, the left seems more than willing to debate the war. President Bush is the one who won't answer any questions.

Here Day demonstrates his carelessness in both reading and reasoning.

I do not have a "talking points-derived notion." I was merely making the point that Day's public personal attack was inappropriate. Some of Shapiro's language may need refinement; in addressing the Left's use of the term (and in taking his words in the ways in which they were obviously intended), he said nothing deserving of the venom issued by Day.

I wrote:

But it is dishonest to personally attack someone rather than expose the fault(s) in their argument. And neither is military service a prerequisite to having a valid opinion on the use of military force.... He was not writing of legislation regarding hypocrites....

To which Day responded:

I did both, so why the word "rather"? There's nothing dishonest about attacking someone, indeed, I'd think the openness would be rather refreshing in light of all the fake Crossfire-style friendliness. An opinion is one thing, a call to action is another. Shapiro wasn't simply expressing his opinion about the war, he was telling Americans what their duty was and what sacrifices they have to make. And Amil is right, Shapiro wasn't talking about legislation, which is precisely why that argument was so phenomenally stupid. Why does the Supreme Court so often wrestling with questions of constitutionality? Why? Because it is the judicial branch! (In other words, it usually involves laws.)

Day did not expose the fault in Shapiro's argument (unless one calls legitimate the refutation of comments taken in a sense other than what the author obviously intended), since Shapiro was addressing the use of "chickenhawk" by the majority of those on the Left, not rare cases like Day.

It is deceptive to attack someone instead of attacking their argument.

I wrote:

An ad hominem attack is intellectually dishonest and therefore immoral. What is immoral is un-American. And Shapiro's reference to the President's daughters was in the context of the Left's misuse of them. He was not misusing them himself.

To which Day replied:

Amil skips over the small matter of the First Amendment rights. And there is nothing intellectually dishonest about an ad hominem attack, it is merely irrelevant if it is not accompanied by a more substantive attack, as this was. Shapiro's intellectual sloppiness appears to be rubbing off here, as the attempt to equate moral with American is a monumental failure of both logic and personal observation. Shapiro brought the daughters up as a red herring defense for himself, so my point is not only funny, but appropriate.

Vox Day is proud of sacrificing his integrity for a laugh? Beautiful.

Day likes to refer to the First Amendment, but that appeal does not make his point any more honorable, appropriate, or true, since the Constitutional guarantee also applies to most forms of immoral[, false, and stupid] speech.

Again, a personal attack is always irrelevant unless the person under attack is the subject of the debate. Shapiro's arguments against the Left's use of "chickenhawk" were the substance of his articles, which Day should have addressed instead.

Finally, Day's intimation that I am completely ignorant of American history is absolutely silly. In this context, I obviously choose to define "America" in terms of its highest ideals and the historically good and noble character of its people.

I've seen only the most craven and wretched of the anti-America/anti-Christ crowd try to paint those actually proud of this nation as blind to its faults and failings; that Vox Day would do the same thing [reeks of desperation and a lack of character].

I wrote:

Name-calling is almost always an attempt to silence opposition or avoid debate (or to discredit the opposition in the minds of those who are easily manipulated). That Day has criticized the War is the exception, not the rule, as most who use such terms have no real intellectually-honest argument to make against the War, they just hate President Bush and/or the military (even if it results in our nation "enjoying" the reign of the Religion of Peace).

On which Day commented:

...Amillenial is only correct about the parenthesized bit, though he leaves out that this group covers 95 percent of the populace so it's rather important if you have any interest in influencing them. Name-calling is primarily shorthand to harm the target for those casual observers, and the more accurate the name the more effective it will be. Given how panicked the chickenhawks are over getting successfully nailed with the name, it's quite obvious that the label is both accurate and effective.

If so many people are so easily deceived, and if Vox Day intends to represent Christ honorably, he should point out falsehood without engaging in it himself. He wouldn't want to be a hypocrite, would he?

The ends do not always justify the means. Using the dishonorable tactics of those who oppose what is in America's best interest is unbecoming someone of honor.

I wrote:

The country needs more intelligent, morally-sound young people who can string together a coherent thought. Perhaps he better serves his nation on his current career path. If Vox Day wants to play with words, he shouldn't do it at the expense of someone who seems to be a decent kid. And liberal use of a thesaurus is no substitute for intellect.

Of which Day observed:

I don't think "coherent" is the synonym for "obvious" that Amil seems to think it is.

I used the term I intended. A cheap shot, now unsurprising from Vox Day.

Day concluded:

If Ben wants to play with the big boys, then he'd better learn to think more carefully and choose his words with more precision. My column today was nothing but a well-earned spanking, perhaps Mr. Shapiro will learn something from it and begin rethinking his asinine calls for empire and sacrifice of liberties.

And Amil, not only do I not use a thesaurus, I don't even use a spell-checker.

"It's not my fault being the biggest and the strongest. I don't even exercise." -Fezzik

"Truly, you have a dizzying intellect." -Westley
"Wait 'til I get going!" -Vizzini

"I can't compete with you physically, and you're no match for my brains. -Vizzini
"You're that smart?" -Westley
"Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?" -Vizzini
"Yes." -Westley
"Morons." -Vizzini

-The Princess Bride (1987)

That Day feels the need to state this perhaps sheds some light on what motivates him to shamelessly attack someone in need only of some maturity and a serious talk, not public evisceration.

(By the way, has anyone else noticed Day's fascination with "bathhouse ___," "big boys," and "spanking"? Perhaps Vox's obsession with Ben Shapiro comes not from his ideas, but his -- eyes.)

Vox Day is an intelligent person with a bully pulpit; he ought to use it to encourage and instruct, not to bully.

Originally posted 8/29/05 at 11:58 PM

Argumentum ad hominem, rather than reasoned debate

Vox Day, a columnist at WorldNetDaily, rather than addressing another columnist's arguments against the use of the term "chickenhawk," attacks him personally in The chickenhawk clucks. He begins:

It is entirely possible that my WND colleague has a perfectly good reason for not serving his country in its moment of need.

Day should have stopped there. What follows is completely unnecessary and suggests that Vox has his own issues needing resolution.

Besides that, military service is not the only front on which the War of Self-Defense Against Islam needs to be waged. The moral rectitude of our Cause also must be vigorously defended, especially when so many of those who will also be under Islam's blade are dishonorably and dishonestly attacking our fighting at all.

For all I know, he may have a weak heart, a wooden leg, a predilection for San Francisco bathhouse sex or some other condition that prevents him from joining the military. But devoting two columns to criticizing a single word strikes me as a lady protesting a bit too much.

If Day's argument is that Shapiro seems defensive, and that this defensiveness reveals a lack of courage, then that is the argument he should make. But the intimation of physical or moral defect on the part of his target is childish and inconsistent with Christ's example (Whom Day claims to follow). (When certain self-styled intellectual and moral experts engaged in ad Hominem attacks against Him two millennia past, Jesus encouraged them to testify to what He said that was false. That's still good advice, even to Day.)

Mr. Shapiro's first argument against the appellation is that it is nothing more than a leftist attempt to silence debate. This is partially true, but the argument is deceptive because it is incomplete. It is not leftists but the military that has long despised civilians who clamor for war from the safety of their homes. In 1879, Gen. William Sherman said: "It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation."

I doubt that Shapiro would argue that members of the military cannot use the term (and anyone who serves on the battlefield deserves the highest honors his or her fellow citizens can bestow); his assertion that the use of "chickenhawk" is "a leftist attempt to silence debate" is in most contexts today true, which is the context in which Shapiro was making it. It is intellectually dishonest of Day to imply otherwise.

His second and third arguments are that the insult is dishonest and "explicitly rejects the Constitution." But there is nothing dishonest about calling into question the credibility of one who does not practice what he preaches. If a CNBC analyst urges viewers to buy a stock he is secretly shorting, he will rightly be dismissed as a hypocrite unworthy of further regard. The unconstitutional argument is spectacularly silly, since no one in Congress has proposed a federal law barring such hypocrites from office. One can only assume that Mr. Shapiro's first Constitutional Law class lies ahead of him.

But it is dishonest to personally attack someone rather than expose the fault(s) in their argument. And neither is military service a prerequisite to having a valid opinion on the use of military force. As for the "Constitutional argument," it appears Mr. Shapiro was arguing that to imply without military service one is disqualified from having a valid opinion on war is inconsistent with the Constitution's own principle of civilian control of the military. He was not writing of legislation regarding hypocrites that violates the Constitution, as Day jests. Now that's silly.

His fourth argument, which asserts that use of the term is somehow "un-American," reveals a similar failure to understand the First Amendment and American history. Mr. Shapiro might wish the Constitution prevented people from calling him names, but it actually protects their right to do so and American political history is littered with an abundance of inventive insults. As for the reference to the Bush daughters, hiding behind the skirts of young women is no way to prove you're not a coward.

An ad hominem attack is intellectually dishonest and therefore immoral. What is immoral is un-American. And Shapiro's reference to the President's daughters was in the context of the Left's misuse of them. He was not misusing them himself.

His fifth and final argument – that use of the term "chickenhawk" is an attempt to avoid substantive debate – is easily disproved. I have repeatedly criticized numerous aspects of this global struggle, have openly opposed both the Iraqi and Afghani occupations, and am quite willing to debate Mr. Shapiro or anyone else on the issue in the forum of their preference. Yet I – like 62 percent of the soldiers and veterans who frequent Vox Popoli and Blackfive – am in accord with the notion that "chickenhawk" is an appropriate label for a warmongering young columnist who urges others to make sacrifices he has no intention of making himself.

Name-calling is almost always an attempt to silence opposition or avoid debate (or to discredit the opposition in the minds of those who are easily manipulated). That Day has criticized the War is the exception, not the rule, as most who use such terms have no real intellectually-honest argument to make against the War, they just hate President Bush and/or the military (even if it results in our nation "enjoying" the reign of the Religion of Peace).

The genuine flaw in the use of the "chickenhawk" label is that in most cases it is being applied years, even decades, after the fact, and inherently attempts to equate two different historical situations. However, due to Mr. Shapiro's precocious position in the national media, this common flaw does not apply. While his peers are dodging sniper bullets and IEDs in Afghanistan and Iraq, Mr. Shapiro is bravely urging them to invade five more countries in the establishment of global empire from the safety of his Harvard dorm room.

American Empire is immoral; self-defense against Jihad is not. That aside, Day's argument sounds petty.

The America [sic] Bar Association already boasts more than 896,000 lawyers, America has no desperate need for another one. The U.S. Army, on the other hand, is currently 8,000 men short of its 2005 recruiting goals. I am only one of many non-pacifist, non-leftist Americans who believe that Mr. Shapiro would do well to heed his own words of Aug. 26, 2004. "Now's the time: Either put up, or shut the hell up."

The country needs more intelligent, morally-sound young people who can string together a coherent thought. Perhaps he better serves his nation on his current career path.

If Vox Day wants to play with words, he shouldn't do it at the expense of someone who seems to be a decent kid.

And liberal use of a thesaurus is no substitute for intellect.