I didn't take the free kick penalty that everyone else in the blogosphere got when the Koran Flushing church sign went up. John Cole did.

Speaking of John Cole... I disagree strongly with him on the justification and need for the war in Iraq. I am on the other side of issues of entitlement from him. But, I really, really admire the strength and vigor with which he addresses matters of conviction to him, even when it means crossing party lines and calling out his own leadership. People who read my blog understand that I tend not to weigh in when my party, or people who are trying to preserve rights important to me, do something really wrong. For instance, I never said a word about the dumbass school in Pennsylvania that told a mom she couldn't read the Bible to her son's kindergarten class when parents were invited to read from their "favorite book" for the class. If I had, I would have been quick to point out that she probably would have also been censored from reading anti-religious polemic just as well. Nevertheless, the school was unforgiveably wrong, and I let it pass without comment. That's not the MO for John Cole. If "his side" does something stupid, you'll hear it from him first. I really must applaud that attitude on his part. Of course, "his side" is in power right now. It makes sense that usually, you get the real dirt on any party or group from their critics rather than their cheerleaders, and while the nation is controlled by conservatives of various stripes, it's more important that their side be scrutinized more closely. There's a big difference in relevance between the boneheadedness of a President, Secretary of State, a Senator, or their Focus-on-the-Family puppetmasters and the boneheadedness of a comedian on HBO or Arianna Huffington. One group has power, the other has rhetoric. But, I sincerely hope that when (if) the left comes back to power in the U.S., I will be as conscientious at calling out their power grabs and unthoughtfulness as John Cole is with the right. And, speaking of which, he's been on a role this week. Some samples:

On the Filibuster:

This was about power, pure and simple. Not, as some would have you believe, the Constitution.

I found Republican attempts to market this as the 'Constitutional' option to be not very persuasive at all, particularly considering this is the same Senate that passed McCain-Feingold as well as legions of other bills of dubious merit. If Republicans wanted to persuade me about their concern for the Constitution, they should have tried to do so years ago, when judges were being blocked by the blue slip rule and other mechanizations. What about an up or down vote for them?
[...]
What Hugh and others fail is that the Republicans won because they wrap themselves up in the moderation of the centrists, presenting themselves as all cozy and warm and as 'compassionate conservatives.'

In other words- Bush is President in large part because moderates voted for him. It was Arnold Schwarzanalphabet and Rufy Guiliani and John McCain who were the most effective campaigners for Bush in 2004. I didn't see Dobson speaking at the GOP Convention. Republicans control the Senate and House because of moderate support. Try to organize a Republican leadership without the moderates. It fails.

He also links the article about the APA urging legal recognition for same-sex marriage. From his link, some common sense:

The statement supports same-sex marriage "in the interest of maintaining and promoting mental health."

It follows a similar measure by the American Psychological Association last year, little more than three decades after that group removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.

The psychiatric association's statement was approved by voice vote on the first day of its weeklong annual meeting in Atlanta. It cites the "positive influence of a stable, adult partnership on the health of all family members."

The resolution recognizes "that gay men and lesbians are full human beings who should be afforded the same human and civil rights,"

On the original Koran Flushing story:

Add ot that all the other circumstantial evidence and facts, to include the confirmed and documented reports of actual torture and the documented other acts of abuse of religious principle (see menstrual blood and other psyops interrogation procedures that have been documented), all of which would lead a reasonable person to believe that desecrating the Koran by putting in the toilet JUST ISN'T THAT [...] EXTRAORDINARY A CLAIM.

Remind me next time there is a round of web awards coming out....

Moving on, with your eye boogers... Via Body and Soul, a glimpse into Mr. Rogers' spirituality... and no, he wasn't a sniper in WWII.

Left2Right has a nice piece on the historical context of secular humanism, concluding:

First, Christians rejected the Calvinist idea that the only route to the truth was through God and put in its place the Lockean idea that humans could, through the use of their capacity to reason, arrive at the truth on their own. This was heresy, but it was as nothing compared to the second idea that Christian ministers started espousing: Through the exercise of their moral senses, humans could also arrive at morality on their own. Oh, yes, of course, God gave us reason and a moral sense, but there was no gainsaying what had happened to Christianity in the eighteenth century. It had been secularized. Infected, some would say, by the principles of the English and Scottish Enlightenments.

If that's the "religion" that shaped the Revolution, the enemies of secular humanism are still not off the hook. Now for the punchline...

The wave of evangelicalism that swept the United States beginning in the 1790s was not really a "second" Great Awaking at all. It was not a continuation of the earlier failure. It was something else. What, precisely? Well, nothing "precisely," but a lot of things. And one of the things that evangelicalism was in the "New Nation," I suggest, was a reactionary assault on the secular humanism of the Revolution.

It still is.

Not in My Bible:

General Douglas MacArthur said...

It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear.

Amen.

Tennessee Guerilla Women has some quasi-local wisdom from Rep. Chris Clem, a close neighbor of mine from Lookout Mountain. He believes that there is no "entitlement" to health care, and says so in no uncertain terms in an e-mail to Lori Smith. He says, "the state giveth, and the state taketh away":

TennCare is not an entitlement. This is a free handout. Not a single person is entitled or owed free healthcare. Accordingly, there is nothing wrong with reducing such entitlements. If the state decides to give out anything the state should be allowed to limit such free treatment in any way.

In more local news, I've discovered another Chattanooga blogger worth mention: Barry Graham, author of the award winning Book of Man. I'll update my blogroll shortly.

And some real news... there's a brand new Scrutiny Hooligan. Congratulations!