Fatheaded Ed's anti-fundy bigotry
Ed "I don't need a policy against arbitrary censorship of blog visitors' comments because everyone agrees with me" Brayton said on his blog,
Where are the "several TV evangelists"? The NCBCPS has two boards, a board of directors and a board of advisors, and Ed does not say which board he is talking about. According to the bios of the nine members of the Board of Directors, only one is a TV or radio evangelist (though at least one other has appeared on evangelistic broadcasts). Out of 46 members of the Advisory Board, only two are identified as being in broadcasting evangelism. The Advisory Board has 13 legislators. The occupations of many on the Advisory Board are not identified, but Ed, if you claim that there are several TV (or radio) evangelists there, it is your job to identify them. As usual, Ed is just talking through his hat. Ed just pulls his "facts" out of thin air and censors anyone who challenges them or would challenge them. Ed has zippo credibility.
Ed's view that fundies should be barred from participation in public life is contrary to the "endorsement test" as enunciated by Justice O'Connor in Lynch v. Donnelly:
.
Furthermore, the "purpose prong" of the Lemon test applies to the purpose of government officials, not private individuals. And the Lemon test has been on the way out for years, anyway.
.
I merely said that the NCBCPS [National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools] board includes several TV evangelists -- and it does. The point being that if you're going to put together an objective, scholarly curriculum, as the Supreme Court requires, then your board should be made up of real scholars rather than apologists and preachers (not to mention bad actors).
Where are the "several TV evangelists"? The NCBCPS has two boards, a board of directors and a board of advisors, and Ed does not say which board he is talking about. According to the bios of the nine members of the Board of Directors, only one is a TV or radio evangelist (though at least one other has appeared on evangelistic broadcasts). Out of 46 members of the Advisory Board, only two are identified as being in broadcasting evangelism. The Advisory Board has 13 legislators. The occupations of many on the Advisory Board are not identified, but Ed, if you claim that there are several TV (or radio) evangelists there, it is your job to identify them. As usual, Ed is just talking through his hat. Ed just pulls his "facts" out of thin air and censors anyone who challenges them or would challenge them. Ed has zippo credibility.
Ed's view that fundies should be barred from participation in public life is contrary to the "endorsement test" as enunciated by Justice O'Connor in Lynch v. Donnelly:
.
The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community. Government can run afoul of that prohibition in two principal ways. One is excessive [465 U.S. 668, 688] entanglement with religious institutions. . . . . . . . The second and more direct infringement is government endorsement or disapproval of religion. Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community. Disapproval sends the opposite message.
Furthermore, the "purpose prong" of the Lemon test applies to the purpose of government officials, not private individuals. And the Lemon test has been on the way out for years, anyway.
.
Labels: Ed Brayton (2 of 2)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 8/16/2007 03:23:00 AM
6 Comments:
Unfortunately for Larry, Ed did identify several of the televangelists, as well as which board he was talking about. He did it in the original speech that was broadcast on C-SPAN and which was the topic of the post. Of course I notice that Larry himself is guilty of what he calls pulling facts out of thin air - he didn't identify the people he claimed as being televangelists. Larry is talking through his hat again, but that's not surprising - he's had to eat his hat so many times that it must be lodged in his larynx; he has no choice but to talk through his hat.
And of course, the very fact that Ed devoted an entire post to someone who challenged him falsifies Larry's claim that Ed "censors anyone who challenges them or who would challenge them." Ed's blog is full of comments by people who challenge him or his facts. On the rare occasion where he is proven innaccurate, he issues a retraction - in fact, one such retraction happened recently, when he found out that he had the facts wrong on a case.
Self-appointed cyberbullying blogosphere goon Kevin Vicklund is making another of his futile attempts to defend BVD-clad arbitrarily censoring blogger Fatheaded Ed Brayton.
>>>>>> Ed did identify several of the televangelists, as well as which board he was talking about. He did it in the original speech that was broadcast on C-SPAN and which was the topic of the post. <<<<<<<
That's nice. Ed could have had the courtesy to repeat himself for the benefit of those who didn't watch his stupid video -- or at least have said that he identified them on his video and provided a link to his video. And why should one have to sit through a lot of his crap just to get this piece of information? Furthermore, as a dial-up user I rarely watch videos -- they take a long time to load and often don't load at all.
>>>>>> Of course I notice that Larry himself is guilty of what he calls pulling facts out of thin air - he didn't identify the people he claimed as being televangelists. <<<<<<
I didn't need to, because I conceded that they are there.
The one on the Board of Directors is Ben Kinchlow -- he is identified by his biography. The two on the Board of Advisors are Dr. D. James Kennedy, President of Coral Ridge Ministries, and Dr. Ted Baehr, Chairman, The Christian Film & Television Commission.
>>>>>> And of course, the very fact that Ed devoted an entire post to someone who challenged him falsifies Larry's claim that Ed "censors anyone who challenges them or who would challenge them." <<<<<<<
Ed just cherry-picks the comments that he responds to -- that does not excuse his arbitrary censorship of comments and commenters.
>>>>>> Ed's blog is full of comments by people who challenge him or his facts <<<<<,
Ed is an arbitrarily censoring piece of crap. You have forgotten the reason why he kicked me off his blog permanently -- he disagreed with my literal interpretation of a federal court rule. See this.
Ed's pal Dan -- another piece of crap -- actually apologized for posting an on-topic, serious, and polite comment, inviting Ed to delete it if it was not tending to move the thread in the direction in which Ed wanted it to go. That's the kind of commenter that Ed attracts.
>>>>>>> On the rare occasion where he is proven innaccurate, he issues a retraction - in fact, one such retraction happened recently, when he found out that he had the facts wrong on a case. <<<<<<
Wrong. Ed did not admit that he was wrong for both praising a Wall Street Journal article and condemning StoptheACLU's Glib Fortuna for making the same criticism of the ACLU. Ed called Glib's criticism "batshit wingnuttery." See this.
Thank you for pointing out even more televangelists, Larry! You're helping Ed prove his point - maybe I should add them to Ed's blog. Too bad your being forced to eat your hat as you do it. I'm told hats taste better with salt, but you rather more of an expert on hat-eating than me.
And no, I have not forgotten that you literally argued that offering part of the relief possible to avoid being responsible for the remainder of the relief possible is the same thing as offering the maximum relief possible and that that is the same thing as there not being any relief possible. You brag about that particular piece of gobsmacking idiocy almost every day. In honor of your breathtaking inanity, I propose the following relation, to be called Larry's Law:
0 = 1-x = 1, where 0 < x < 1
The fact remains that Ed permits over 99% of the posts that challenge him or his ideas to remain on his blog. Only a tiny handful of mendacious jackasses like you get kicked off.
>>>Wrong. Ed did not admit that he was wrong for both praising a Wall Street Journal article and condemning StoptheACLU's Glib Fortuna for making the same criticism of the ACLU. Ed called Glib's criticism "batshit wingnuttery."<<<
And again, Larry pulls facts out of thin air. As Ed pointed out, the two criticisms were not the same. Glib falsely claimed that the ACLU did nothing - Ed forcefully corrected him. The WSJ article claimed that they didn't do enough - which Ed agreed with. "Doing nothing" and "not doing enough" are not the same criticism - not that absolutists like you and Glib have the requisite intelligence to understand the difference. And ironically, Ed did issue a retraction at the end of the post for a mistake that he did make in a somewhat related incident that Glib brought up.
For those that watched the speech, Larry's Law is a perfect example of "virulent ignorance".
A note on the Glib Fortuna situation: Glib actually originally wrote 2 posts on the topic, one in December and a follow-up post in February. The second was written well over a month after Ed wrote his original criticism, and it appears that the post took into account some of Ed's criticisms. In fact, adding this to the second post made it vaguely similar to the WSJ article that came out in May - though it left out any mention of the myriad cases the ACLU participated in. After Ed wrote in support of the WSJ article, Glib tried to make it sound as if Ed had written his criticism of Glib on both of Glib's earlier posts. In fact, Ed made no comment on the second post. In effect, Glib was bitching that Ed didn't acknowledge Glib's half-hearted, rather belated corrections!
W. Kevin Vicklund driveled,
>>>>>> Thank you for pointing out even more televangelists, Larry! <<<<<<
You mean that Fatheaded Ed actually missed these, which were so obvious?
>>>>>> I'm told hats taste better with salt, but you rather more of an expert on hat-eating than me. <<<<<<
I am certainly more expert at taking things with a grain of salt.
>>>>> And no, I have not forgotten that you literally argued that offering part of the relief possible to avoid being responsible for the remainder of the relief possible is the same thing as offering the maximum relief possible and that that is the same thing as there not being any relief possible. <<<<<<
I never argued any such thing, dunghill.
>>>>>> As Ed pointed out, the two criticisms were not the same. <<<<<<<
Wrong, dunghill. As Glib Fortuna pointed out, his criticism of the ACLU was actually milder than the WSJ article's.
>>>>>> A note on the Glib Fortuna situation: Glib actually originally wrote 2 posts on the topic, one in December and a follow-up post in February. The second was written well over a month after Ed wrote his original criticism, and it appears that the post took into account some of Ed's criticisms. In fact, adding this to the second post made it vaguely similar to the WSJ article that came out in May - though it left out any mention of the myriad cases the ACLU participated in. After Ed wrote in support of the WSJ article, Glib tried to make it sound as if Ed had written his criticism of Glib on both of Glib's earlier posts. In fact, Ed made no comment on the second post. In effect, Glib was bitching that Ed didn't acknowledge Glib's half-hearted, rather belated corrections! <<<<<<
I don't know what in the hell you are talking about, and it is all irrelevant anyway.
Post a Comment
<< Home