Townhall is a fundie opinion site that carries a lot of conservative commentators. Or maybe it’s a conservative site that carries a lot of fundie commentators. Whichever it is, they favor a giant church/state amalgam.

So it was there that I found this commentary by John Stossel. I haven’t really thought of Stossel as a fundie, but if he’s going to hang out on a church-equals-state website, he’s fair game for this blog.

The article is titled “Big, Big Government”, so I had assumed that it would be an attack on the Democrats. That’s the usual knee-jerk connection they make (I don’t think Republicans are able to say the word “Democrat” without prefacing it with the words “tax and spend” (or possibly “America-hating”)). Actually, the article is about how the federal government has grown too big.

Two weeks ago, U.S. drug agents launched raids on 11 medical-marijuana centers in Los Angeles County. The U.S. attorney’s office says they violated the laws against cultivation and distribution of marijuana.

Whatever happened to America’s federal system, which recognized the states as “laboratories of democracy”?

For the first time, Stossel doesn’t come across as a raving lunatic!

According to the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, 11 states […] have eliminated the penalties for physician-approved possession of marijuana by seriously ill patients.

But the U.S. government says its drug laws trump the states’ laws, and in 2005, the Supreme Court agreed.

This is not the way it was supposed to work. The constitutional plan presented in the Federalist Papers delegated only a few powers to the federal government, with the rest reserved to the states. The system was hailed for its genius. Instead of having decisions made in the center — where errors would harm the entire country — most policies would be determined in a decentralized environment. A mistake in California would affect only Californians. New Yorkers, Ohioans, and others could try something else. Everyone would learn and benefit from the various experiments.

Where Stossel and I might disagree would be on the matter of which powers the federal government should have. I would advocate that in addition to the obvious things like providing for the common defense, the federal government’s role would also include defending the rights of the citizens against a misguided state. A good example of this would be the forced desegregation of the South in the 20th century. We certainly do not need a federal government that thinks its role is passing nationwide mandatory seat-belt laws.

It made a lot of sense. It still does. Too bad the idea is being tossed on the trash heap by big-government Republicans and their DEA goons.

“Big-government Republicans”?! Has the Earth tilted on its axis? Have we fallen into Bizarro-World? Have the glaciers melted? (Oh wait; that last one is true!)

Drug prohibition — like alcohol prohibition — is a silly idea, as the late free-market economist Milton Friedman often pointed out.

Ah! That’s the secret behind this seemingly common-sense article. The conservative saint Milton Friedman has decreed it!

Something doesn’t go away just because the government decrees it illegal. It simply goes underground. Then a black market creates worse problems.

But, of course, that would never happen with abortion.

Alcohol prohibition in the 1920s gave America Al Capone and organized crime. Drug prohibition has given us South American and Asian cartels that finance terrorism. Even the government admits that the heroin trade bankrolls terrorists.

So we Americans need to determine which is the bigger menace: drugs or terrorism.

Despite my reservations about medical marijuana, the states’ experimentation is still better than a brutal federal one-size-fits-all crackdown. There is no role here for the federal government. If the people of a state want to experiment by loosening drug prohibition, that should be their right. Washington should mind its own business. The feds and rest of us should watch. We might learn something.

Note the key phrase, “Despite my reservations about medical marijuana”. So Stossel is a somewhat reasonable guy after all. If more conservatives were willing to bend a little to see if other approaches work, there would be a lot less polarization in this country. Maybe we’d even make some progress toward solving many of our social ills.

Here’s an alert on a couple of upcoming TV events. These are a little off topic, but some of you will be interested.

I’ve heard a rumor that friend of BoF, Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer, will be on Is It Real? on the National Geographic channel. The program is about life on Mars. I don’t know if the show is any good. I do know that they have the crackpot Richard Hoagland on the program, promoting his thoroughly-debunked delusions of a face on Mars. Then supposedly Phil Plait comes on briefly at the end of the program to debunk it yet again. The show airs on Jan. 27th at 2:00 PM Pacific time and again on Jan. 30th at 11:00 AM Pacific (check your local listings to confirm your local time).

James Randi is supposed to make another appearance on Anderson Cooper 360. It was originally scheduled for last night (Jan. 24), but got delayed. I’m not sure when. He was last on that program just last Friday, where he thoroughly trounced alleged-psychic Sylvia Browne. Phil Plait has the video of that appearance.

Art Stricklin of Baptist Press wrote a pearl of wisdom entitled “Super Bowl coaches Dungy, Smith known for Christian testimony” (I wonder if Stricklin has enough wisdom to make a pearl necklace.).

Head coaches Tony Dungy of Indianapolis and close friend and fellow Christian Lovie Smith of Chicago gave credit to God following their respective teams’ victories in the conference championships Jan. 21.

So God wanted both teams to win. Why? With all of the people around the world dying of disease, famine, and war, God is going to take time out of his busy schedule (of causing all of those things) to pick the winner of a football game? Those coaches must be extremely egotistical to think that God cares about their little game.

“The Lord set this up in a way that no one would believe it,” Dungy said following the Colts’ win over New England. “The Lord tested us a lot this year, but He [sic] set this up to get all the glory.”

So is he saying (excuse me, is He saying) that God wanted his team to win so that God could take the credit for the hard work of all the team members? God sure is a selfish prick (excuse me, God sure is a selfish Prick).

Now, of course, God has painted himself into a corner. How can both of his chosen teams win the Superbowl? Looks like he didn’t think that far ahead! Or maybe he’s just toying with one of the teams; trying to get their hopes up, only to smash their dreams on the rocks. What a sadist! Or maybe it’s just massively self-centered to think that God cares about a silly football game. (God only wants to watch the commercials.)

I’m back from the Amazing Meeting 5. It was a lot of fun. You owe it to yourself to go next year.

This year’s topic was “Skepticism and the Media”, which is a bit off topic for this blog. For those who are interested, I recommend that you go visit Phil Plait’s Bad Astronomy blog. He has some good reports about the wild fun we all had.

This is just a quick note to say that I am off to the Amazing Meeting in Las Vegas. I’ll be back Monday night. I hope to have a new post no later than Tuesday.

If I met you at TAM5 and this is your first visit, welcome to the Bay of Fundie. Look around. Read a few articles. I hope you enjoy the place.

The fundie persecution complex continues unabated. I guess we shouldn’t expect otherwise. After all, these people think there’s a crazy old man with god-like powers in the sky. A little persecution delusion is nothing compared to that.

Life Site News offers up this silly little tidbit:

NBC’s Conan O’Brien Show Gag Has Christian Suspecting Jesus of Homosexuality

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 11, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - An episode of NBC’s “Late Night With Conan O’Brien,” which was taped on January 10, 2007 and aired early this morning, featured a character called “the homophobic country western singer.”

Don’t you love the formatting of this editorial? Their whole website passes itself off as a news site, but it’s really just another fundie rant. I guess they want their followers to think that they’re getting objective news. This charade works for Fox News, why not here?

I think Conan is funny, but only when he is not doing these stupid characters (e.g., the Masturbating Bear). It has nothing to do with offensiveness. They just aren’t funny. It’s lazy comedy. You can whip up half-a-dozen “funny” characters in a five-minute meeting. Come on, Conan, put your writers to work!

Anyway, Conan’s laziness has gotten him in trouble with the fundies! Here’s more of the “news article”:

“Our last new character’s heart is in the right place, even if he’s a complete idiot,” said show host O’Brien in his introduction. “Please welcome the homophobic country western singer.”

A middle-aged man wearing country western clothing comes out from behind a curtain. He begins to play a guitar and sing:

Oh I love you Jesus
But only as a friend.
You touched my heart but I hope
That’s where the touchin’ ends.

You’re always lookin’ over me
When I need a higher power.
But you better look at somethin’ else
When I’m in the shower.

This is the sort of laziness I’m talking about. What are two major characteristics of people who listen to country-western music? They’re disproportionately Christian, and many of them are homophobic. Put the two together, and BANG! You have a character!

Conan isn’t persecuting Christians! He’s just slacking off! This is one of the characteristics of a persecution complex—taking benign events and assuming that they’re negative and directed at you.

The article continues:

“The idea that anyone would think about the Son of God in this way is simply appalling,” Douglas R. Scott, Jr., president of Life Decisions International (LDI) said. “The inferences that permeate the song are utterly disgusting.”

To be fair, I can see why some fundies would be offended. I’m just boggled that anybody can really get that worked up over a stupid bit on a show that airs in the middle of the night. “Appalling” is a strong word. Don’t fundies ever do anything in moderation? Being in full reactionary mode all the time can’t be good for the heart. Maybe that’s why Pat Robertson is always pitching his “anti-aging” products.

“We wonder if O’Brien’s description of the character as a ‘complete idiot’ is based on the man’s ‘homophobic’ beliefs or if it is because of the inference that Jesus could be sexually interested in seeing the man naked,” Scott said.

Notice they put “homophobic” in quotes? That’s because they don’t think that the character is! They don’t think homophobia is a real condition, yet they’re always throwing around the word “Christophobic”!

“I don’t know if the man is a complete idiot, but I do suspect that the writer of the segment is a complete bigot.”

But apparently a homophobe is not a bigot.

Scott has written a letter to Kevin Reilly, president of NBC Entertainment, objecting to the airing of this material. “I notice the song was not about a Rabbi. I notice the song was not about Buddha. I notice the song was not about Muhammad. If it had been about any of these, the network would surely have disallowed the airing of such garbage,” Scott said in the letter. “But since the song was about Jesus Christ, nothing was done.”

That’s because the joke wouldn’t have worked otherwise.

Scott’s letter was copied to Mr. Robert C. Wright, chairman & CEO of NBC Universal, which owns NBC Entertainment, as well as Jeffrey R. Immelt, chairman & CEO of General Electric, which owns NBC Universal.

What’s your point? We’re supposed to be impressed that you know who owns NBC? We’re supposed to cheer for you as you take this battle all the way to the top of the company?

We should probably be thankful. This keeps him focussed on trivial things, so he’s not making trouble elsewhere. It’s his own private little sandbox to play in. Oh wait! That’s not a sandbox! It’s a litterbox! So that’s why fundies are always stirring up shit!

I’d like to thank reader Andrew for pointing me to the Chick Tract Dissections over at the Enter the Jabberwock blog. Jabberwock takes various Chick Tracts and makes fun of them, panel by panel. This stuff is hilarious! Here’s one quick excerpt. The graphic is an actual scene from a Chick Tract. The quotation underneath is Jabberwock’s annotation.

“HEY, ADAM. OOP, LEMME JUST TOUCH YOUR ASS, THERE FOR A SECOND. AH, YEAH, THAT’S NICE. I MADE A NICE ASS.”

Go check out the rest of the Dissections! It’s funny stuff.

Have you ever seen Harvey, starring James Stewart? In the film, Stewart plays Elwood P. Dowd, who has an invisible friend, a tall, anthropomorphic rabbit. Nobody else can see the rabbit, so they are convinced that Dowd is a looney.

I was, of course, struck by the amazing similarity between Harvey and God. So why is it that Dowd is delusional but theists are not? Apparently the majority get to write the definitions.

I once asked a psychologist if someone who had an invisible friend was delusional. She said yes. I then asked if that made theists delusional. She weaseled a little, but admitted that in some ways you might be able to make that argument.

Scroll down to my article of December 31st, FSTDT: December 2006, and look at the heading “Bizarre Creationist Assertion of the Month”. Hover your mouse over the “delusional fantasies” link. You should see the following tool tip appear:

Wikipedia article. Read the original definition. Note how the modern definition includes cultural context. Cop-out! The first definition is more accurate.

(That link points to this Wikipedia article about delusion.)

I’ve been planning to expand the above comment into a larger article, but it looks like God is for Suckers! beat me to the punch. It’s an excellent article, and I recommend that you run over there and read it.

I was planning to excerpt some choice paragraphs, but it’s a short article, and every single paragraph is concise, well-written, and contributes significantly to the whole. It’s actually a good model for good writing everywhere, blog or not.

I’ll quote just this one small piece:

Thus, religious beliefs can properly be described as a delusion, irrespective of the fact that they may be culturally sustained.

Now go on over to God is for Suckers! and enjoy a good read.