I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Sunday, July 30, 2006

Ed Brayton: Judge Jones is above criticism

So far as hypocrite Ed Brayton is concerned, Judge Jones, the infamous judge who decided the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, can do no wrong.

In a recent article on his blog "Dispatches From the Culture Wars," Ed Brayton said,

Jon Rowe and I have spent much of the last two years pointing out the numerous false quotations and false claims about the religious views of the founding fathers that are tossed about by both sides in debate over church/state separation. While false quotes are not as common on the separationist side, they're not unheard of, and we still have to deal with the perpetual "they were all deists" claims, which is as false as claiming that they were all Christians.

Yet Ed has never condemned Judge Jones for Jones' following false claims in a commencement speech:

. . . . this much is very clear. The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry. At bottom then, this core set of beliefs led the Founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things, to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state.

Far from condemning Judge Jones for stereotyping the religious beliefs of the Founders, Ed Brayton actually expressed approval of Jones' above words -- see here and here.

Judge Jones probably thought that this alleged universal "true religion" of the Founders was Deism, but Deist beliefs include the teleological argument of design. It is sheer speculation to suppose that the Founders who were Deists would have accepted Darwinism -- with its numerous warts -- as a replacement for the teleological argument of design. Even Ed's pal Jon Rowe conceded, "Because our Founders lived before Darwin, ultimately, whatever contemporary position they would have held is speculation and their legacy thus can be taken only so far in this battle."

Furthermore, IMO, "originalism," the idea that our interpretations of the constitution should be governed by the beliefs -- or the perceived beliefs -- of the founding fathers, is asinine. Why should we turn back the clock over two hundred years and live under the principles of another era? We could not even have kept the same basic Constitution for so long if we did not constantly re-interpret it to suit changes in society and technology. Many of the big issues today -- e.g., environmental problems, rights of free expression and privacy on the Internet, and (yes) the controversy over evolution -- were not even on the radar screens of the founding fathers. Originalism has only fostered disrespect for the founding fathers, who are now condemned as racist, sexist and elitist by people who argue against originalism.

This blog has the following related articles:

Judge Jones wrong about Founding Fathers' "true religion"

Judge Jones flunks history and philosophy as well as law and science

Labels:

9 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

<< Darwinism -- with its numerous warts ... >>

"Darwinism" has warts?

Speaking of warts, are they Intelligently Designed, or Irreducibly Complex (co-evolved etc.)?

Sunday, July 30, 2006 4:01:00 PM  
Blogger jujuquisp said...

Insanity reigns supreme on this blog!

Sunday, July 30, 2006 7:34:00 PM  
Anonymous Harold said...

Larry:
I enjoy reading your blog. You seem to always have something of substance to say. However, I find myself avoiding the comments section, because it is filled with people who take advantage of your "wide open" policy to ridicule and mock.
I was wondering if your blogging software allows you to have separate sections. For example, you could create a section entitled "With Repect.." and then manually move comments that show some reason and respect to that section.
It would require some moderation, but your initial intent would remain intact (in that no-one was prohibited from the blog and that comments would appear immediately), but people who were interested in seeing genuine responses would not have to wade through all the other crap.

Monday, July 31, 2006 6:23:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

I am beginning to think that Larry(?)has a robot just posting drivel at random times. There has been nothing new in two or three weeks.

I would offer a suggestion to save time. Comments could just be numbered. For example:

1. Judge Jones is the antichrist.

2. Ed Brayton banned me from his blog because he didn't like my interpretation of Rule__ . Could be filled in such as 2-12, etc.

3. That is not my real brother.

4. Who the hell is Bill Carter?

5. The cowardly Ed Brayton refuses to debate with me.

6. I have no obligation to debate anyone.

7. ____ is actually Ed Brayton.

8. People are in awe of my flawless arguments.

I am sure that many could add to this list. Then Larry(?) could save typing time.

Monday, July 31, 2006 7:20:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

Dave, Bill, ViU, Rob, Kevin, where are all of you? Has Larry(?) begun his long awaited censorship?

Monday, July 31, 2006 7:24:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> For example, you could create a section entitled "With Repect.." and then manually move comments that show some reason and respect to that section.<

But Larry(?) would have to eliminate himself from such a section.

Monday, July 31, 2006 7:26:00 AM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

My wife was home for the last couple of weeks. She's out of the country on her PhD research, so I can devote a little more time again starting tonight. I'll be getting ready for and then on vacation next week, though, so you guys only get my attention for a week or so. Figure on me being out of communication from the 8th to the 18th, though I might squeeze in some short posts like I did the last week or two.

Monday, July 31, 2006 11:40:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Harold said ( 7/31/2006 06:23:11 AM ) --

>>>>Larry:
I enjoy reading your blog. You seem to always have something of substance to say. <<<<<

Thanks for the compliment and your support.

>>>>>However, I find myself avoiding the comments section, because it is filled with people who take advantage of your "wide open" policy to ridicule and mock.<<<<<<

In retrospect, it was a mistake to announce a no-censorship policy -- the announcement was just an invitation to sabotage.

A little riducule and mocking is OK, but some people just don't know when to quit.

>>>>>I was wondering if your blogging software allows you to have separate sections. For example, you could create a section entitled "With Repect.." and then manually move comments that show some reason and respect to that section. <<<<<<

All I can do on this blog is just delete comments. To create a new section, I would have to copy the comments and then re-post them.

>>>>>>It would require some moderation, but your initial intent would remain intact (in that no-one was prohibited from the blog and that comments would appear immediately), but people who were interested in seeing genuine responses would not have to wade through all the other crap.<<<<<<<

Segregating comments -- what Panda's Thumb's infamous "Bathroom Wall" does -- destroys the continuity of threads and can obscure important comments.

I recommend just ignoring the comments from commenters who have shown themselves to be incapable of making intelligent comments.

Monday, July 31, 2006 11:54:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> I recommend just ignoring the comments from commenters who have shown themselves to be incapable of making intelligent comments. <

Yes. It is best just to read the comments rather than the articles since the blogger has shown himself to be incapable of making intelligent comments. There are a few exceptions. Even a blind pig occasionally finds an acorn.

Friday, August 04, 2006 6:13:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home