Little Kennie Ham is Having a Tantrum (Again!)

Apparently little kennie is upset because someone connected his words with Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.  Here's one of the many articles that offended him: "Hurricanes punish us for gay rights? Who decided that?"  There are a number of Christians who have been blaming the recent hurricanes on many of the things they have decided are sinful, particularly homosexuality.  According the little kennie, he was unfairly lumped in with that group.  Here's the offending quote:

"Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell Jr., Pat Robertson, Mike Huckabee and now Ken Hamm of Answers in Genesis and the Ark Park state without reservation that disasters like Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma are God’s punishment for homosexuality."

To be fair, kennie didn't specifically say that Harvey and Irma were caused by homosexual behavior.  Not in those precise words.  However, what has he said about hurricanes just a couple of weeks ago (My underlining for emphasis):

"Devastating Hurricanes-reminder we live in a fallen groaning world as a result of our sin against a Holy God-it's our fault not God's fault" (Sep 6, 2017 tweet)

So what is kennie's opinion of Homosexuality?  

• Well back a few years ago two men were denied entry into a AIG event because they were assumed to be gay.  They weren't as the multitude of articles can attest, but that didn't stop kennie and his folks at one of his ministries from denying them entrance to an event for which they bought tickets.  
• There are a huge numbers of posts and articles about Homosexuality on his many websites and blogs.  Boiled down, he tries that old trope about love the sinner and hate the sin.  In other words people can be as gay as they want, as long as they don't perform anything that can be construed as a homosexual act, that's the sin according to little kennie.
• Here are a couple of quotes from little kennie, again I underlined the most interesting parts:
• "Homosexual behavior is sin. All sin is evil. People need to understand what sin is, and not justify it and dress it up as something good and acceptable." (United Methodist Church Showing More Support for Gay Marriage)
• "Corinthians 6:9–10 lists homosexual behavior as a sin that will bring judgment by God on the unrighteous." (Kentucky Baptist Church Allows Its First “Gay Marriage”)

So if kennie views homosexual behavior as a sin, and hurricanes are the result of sin, doesn't that lump kennie in with those pseudo-Christians who claim Harvey and Irma was caused by such sins?  So while he may not have used those specific words, he is certainly a member of that group.

This certainly isn't the first time religious zealots have used natural disasters to drum up support and, more than likely, donations.  I recall Pat Robertson tried something similar about Haiti in 2010 when a devastating earthquake struck the country.  I'm not sure if you will remember, but Robertson even predicted a disaster for Dover PA in 2005:

"Conservative Christian television evangelist Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" and warned them yesterday not to be surprised if disaster struck." (Robertson Says Town Rejects God)

So it's a pretty common theme. I recall a post from 2010 about an Iranian cleric claiming "Women's promiscuity and revealing clothing causes earthquakes".  I guess Iran being located in an Earthquake prone region has nothing to do with it.  Anyone else remember Jen McCreight's "Boobquake"?

I'm a little surprised kennie is trying to separate himself from the group, it's not like he's suddenly changed his mind on sin?  While it would be fun to claim his Rainbow lights on his ark park ministry is a sudden show of support for LGBT rights, it's not, he's trying to re-claim the rainbow for his version of evangelical pseudo-Christianity.

Bottom line is simple, anyone actually believe little kennie doesn't belong in the same group as the rest of the pseudo-Christians who want to blame natural disasters, like hurricanes and earthquakes, on sin and homosexuality?  I didn't think so!

Alt-Right is Secular? Anyone Buy That?

One of my favorite targets is the Discovery Institute (DI) and the lengths they will go through to rationalize just about anything.  Today's topic is "The Religion of the Alt-Right", and it appears to be an attempt at disassociating themselves not only from their religious roots, but any connection with Alt-Right groups.

The Alt-Right is collection of people, self organized into a number of different groups who lean to the far-far right of the political spectrum.  Their main weapon, at least according to the DI is Racism.  Their recent activities in Charlottesville Va is a good example of their behavior.  I think that view is quite narrow.  The Alt-Right is against a number of things, like Abortion, Gay Marriage, Antisemitism, Immigration, Civil and Women's Rights, and pretty much a rejection of any American Ideals.  Their tactics are full of violence and hatred for anyone who supports an alternative view.  Yet, the DI just wants to focus on just Racism.

Now why would the DI want to disassociate themselves from such groups and why use a one-trick argument, Racism?  I see two reasons here.  The first is one of the common themes from the DI, the efforts to disassociate themselves from their conservative religious underpinnings.  You see that in this post because what they are doing is to try and claim that the Alt-Right is not particularly religious, but secular.  Most of this post is a rationalization about the Alt-Right's use of religion and how they really aren't religious  -- regardless of all the religious symbolism and right-wing religious organizations that belong to the Alt-Right.

Why is that important?  Remember the DI is really a religious ministry wearing an ill-fitting lab coat and constantly trying to convince people that they are a scientific organization.  If they were not a religious ministry, then why is this part of the post be necessary?  If you aren't sure here is the first line of the DI's description in Wikipedia (my underlining for emphasis):

"The Discovery Institute (DI) is a politically conservative non-profit think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design (ID)" (Wikipedia: Discovery Institute)

From the same Wikipedia page, a few words from the Dover Court Decision:

"The court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions," and the Institute's manifesto, the Wedge Document, describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."^[  It was the court's opinion that intelligent design was merely a redressing of creationism and that, as such, it was not a scientific proposition."

Now, you are the DI, and you are associated with being conservative as well a being a religious organization.  So how to you try and break any association with the Alt-Right?  You disassociate yourself if you can, and if you can blame Charles Darwin at the same time you have a win-win.

That's what the rest of this post is all about.  And since the DI has tried to establish the Alt-Right as a secular organization, then it's just one more step to claim that they are followers of evolution and lay all the trouble they have been causing at the footsteps of Charles Darwin.  They even manage to drag in Hitler for a brief cameo.

So who does the DI turn to for this attempt? Why Richard Weikart, one of their stable of pseudo-historians and also a Senior Fellow at the DI. 

Richard Weikart is best known for his book From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany.  The Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement, funded the book's research.  The academic community has been widely critical of the book.  Regarding the thesis of Weikart's book, University of Chicago historian Robert Richards wrote that Hitler was not a Darwinian and called criticized Weikart for trying to undermine evolution.  Richards said that there was no evidence that Hitler read Darwin, and that some influencers of Nazism such as Houston Stewart Chamberlain were opposed to evolution. " Wikipedia: Richard Weikart)

Of course the DI doesn't mention that Weikart's book received an almost universal negative criticisms from academics -- historians and theologians alike -- conservative and liberal as well.  The main criticisms focused on his very selective focus on one narrow point of view and failure to regard a host of factors influencing Hitler and the Nazi's.  Bottom line is Weikart's pushing the DI's agenda, and therefore critics don't matter much, after all, the DI and Weikart are doing God's work, aren't they?

So what we have here is not some treatise to be taken seriously.  It looks like nothing more than a rationalization to try and officially disassociate the DI from their religious and conservative underpinnings and at the same time promote an already widely dismissed idea blaming Darwin and Evolution for the abhorrent behavior of some of the DI's philosophical brothers, those in the past and those in the present.

I do have to wonder about the timing of this?  The DI does nothing without a motive.  So why this sudden interest in disassociation with the Alt-Right?  Are they setting the stage for some new argument, or is this just an excuse to trot out Weikart again and his already much discredited ideas?  Guess we'll see what the future brings.

What 911 means to little kennie ham

While many of us were remembering September 11, 2001, little kennie ham was not just trying to make some religious mileage out of it with one tweet, he was trying to re-define the word 'marriage' with three.  Now, why would he want to do that?  Simply put . . . he's homophobic.  Here is the series of twitter posts from the little guy on 9-11:

Now I do not follow kennie on Twitter, I actually caught this reported from the Friendly Atheist: "Ken Ham Thinks He Can Defeat Same-Sex Marriage With a Hyphen", a blog I read often.  Once I read that, I popped over to Twitter to take a look myself, and sure enough, kennie wants to spell 'Marriage' as 'Mar-raige' and use the definition of the word 'mar' because it means 'Damage/Impair'.

I know little kennie only wants to apply it to gay marriage, but I am sure there are others who might like to apply it to all marriages.  The Friendly Atheist had a great suggestion:

" . . .we can all start describing Ark Encounter as mar-velous and he won’t know whether or not it’s a compliment."

I was wondering at all the other words starting with 'Mar' and how people who dislike them can try and convince us to change the way we spell it to publicize their dislike:

• Mar-athoners - for couch potatoes.
• Mar-gerine - For dairy purists who insist on butter.
• Mar-ksman (or Mar-kswoman) - for those who don't like guns.
• Mar-aschino - for those who hate maraschino cherries.
• Mar-supial - antikangaroo bigots.
• Mar-ch - for those years the month comes in like a lion.

There are many other words starting with the letters 'Mar' that someone, somewhere, has a grievance with.  But just because a minority has a disagreement with a word, that doesn't mean we have to change the spelling.  Actually the whole idea is rather silly and reveals kennie's lack of understanding of English.  Hyphenated words are two actual words whose relationship is hyphenated for a new phrase that may mean something different than the two words individually, for example 'deep-fried',  'one-eyed', and 'same-sex'.  So if 'mar' means 'Damage/Impair', just what does 'riage' mean anyway?

In reality, there is no such thing as 'gay marriage', it's just 'marriage', little kennie and his philosophical compatriots like calling it that because it makes them feel all warm inside. . . sorta like when he pees on himself while wearing black trousers. Supposedly it's a nice warm feeling, but no one can see it.

And since little kennie seems to consider himself a martyr for Jesus in the make-believe 'war on Christians', we can call him a mar-tyr see if he gets it.

What Harry said in 1948 rings true today more than ever!

Gryphen, over on the Immoral Minority blog had this terrific post "Remember, Harry Truman had the Republicans' number almost 70 years ago." reminding us of the words of Harry S. Truman in 1948. They bear repeating in these times:

"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke.

They stand four-square for the American home — but not for housing.

They are strong for labor — but they are stronger for restricting labor’s rights.

They favor minimum wage — the smaller the minimum wage the better.

They endorse educational opportunity for all — but they won’t spend money for teachers or for schools.

They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine — for people who can afford them.

They consider electrical power a great blessing — but only when the private power companies get their rake-off.

They think American standard of living is a fine thing — so long as it doesn’t spread to all the people.

And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.

Now, my friends, that is the Wall Street Republican way of life. But there is another way — there is another way — the Democratic way, the way of the Democratic Party."(Source)

If Harry was giving the speech today he might have added a few things, perhaps:

• Republicans are all for Women's Rights, as long as it isn't the right to control their own bodies or the right of equal pay for equal work.
• Republicans support Civil Rights, as long at those rights aren't actually implemented in a way that might be construed as fair.
• Republicans approve of Gay Marriage, after all, marriage between a man and a woman should be happy!
• Republicans believe the climate is changing, but not that human activity could be a significant contributing factor -- because that would limit the amount of funding received from those patriotic energy companies.
• Republicans support Freedom of Religion, as long as they are free to support whichever religion means the most votes for them.

And some people wonder why I have separated myself from the Republican Party!  ("I Believe it is Time to Part Ways with the Republican Party", "I've Been Getting Some Flack Over My Issues With the Republican Party").  I am not saying the Democratic Party is perfect, but when you compare the platforms of both parties, one stands much closer what we should strive to be as Americans, and it's not the Republican Party!  Currently I am registered as an Independent, and plan to stay that way until one party stands for not just a majority of the things I support, but stands for things that make sense in the 21st century, not the 19th.

Religious Beliefs vs. Personal and Professional Responsibilities

This has been a recurring theme in this blog, and in many other places.  In a recent post (Let's Rename the Discovery Institute to the 'Re-writing History Institute'), I tried to make this clear, at least my own position, but I decided to really lay out my thinking on the subject.  In that post I said:

"In my opinion, religious beliefs do not trump personal and professional responsibilities."

Let's expand upon that for a while.  When I use the phrase 'personal and professional responsibilities', what I mean is that as one goes through life, one assumes various responsibilities, for example:

• By accepting a job, you accept the requirement to perform specified duties.  
• By signing up for a college course, you accept the requirement to perform assignments and participate in the activities of the class.  
• When you get married you accept a number of responsibilities, too many to list in this short paragraph.  
• When you enter into a personal relationship with someone, there is a certain amount of give-and-take as the two of you define many of those responsibilities.  
• Becoming a parent, by deliberate choice or not, you have an even longer list of responsibilities, all revolving around the care and development of a new life.

You assume these responsibilities through specific actions of your own, YOU decided to attend school, YOU decided to accept a job offer, YOU decided to enter into a relationship, YOU decided to have children . . . while I know some folks who didn't make that particular conscious decision, they still took the actions that resulted in childbirth.  Whatever the reasons, you made these decisions, and many more, and each and ever one of them came with a set of personal and/or professional responsibilities.  Sometimes those responsibilities conflict and overlap, and part of your life is always spent dealing with them.

Now why do I separate Religious Beliefs from personal and professional responsibilities?  While many would lump them into 'personal', and I am sure you can make an argument for that -- I want to focus on them in a different light because religious beliefs can, and do impact many other decisions because for many people it's part of their decision-making criteria.

For example selecting a college, many people elect to attend a non-secular school because the school aligns with their religious beliefs.  Personal relationship criteria is often based on religion, as in not dating or marrying someone who didn't share the same religious faith.  While it is only one of the possible sets of criteria, it is one of them commonly used.  I worked with someone years ago who was single . . . and enjoying it to the fullest, including the late 1970's Sexual Revolution.  However for all the women he was involved with, he would not consider marrying a single one of them unless they were Jewish!  That was an absolute hard-line for him.  He dated, had sex, had three children that I knew of . . . yet refused to consider marrying any of the mothers of his children because they didn't share his belief set.  I'm not trying to pass judgment on his behavior, simply offering it as an example of how religious beliefs are often used as a decision criteria.

My issue revolves around what do you do when your religious beliefs conflict with already accepted personal or professional responsibilities.  My position is simply, your personal religious beliefs should in no way come before your personal and professional responsibilities!

So let's look at a few examples, like college.  If you do not want to learn subjects that conflict with your religious beliefs, then go to a school that is also based on those beliefs.  If you go to a public school, you do not have the right to force the school to comply with your beliefs.  That's what I am talking about with this conflict between personal responsibilities and religious beliefs.  Imagine a Catholic student in a Muslim school demanding the school support their belief set!  I know, I know, the immediate question is why would a Catholic go to a Muslim school in the first place . . . but you can ask the same question about why an Evangelical Christian would attend a public school and then demand the school let them opt out of classes that disagree with their religion?  Yet that seems to happen all the time.

Personal relationships are like that as well.  People of different religious beliefs, and even the same religious beliefs can come into conflict over those beliefs.  Yet people manage to overcome those difficulties regularly.  Those that cannot, end those relationships in one manner or another.  They say breaking-up is hard to do, but hopefully you learn the lessons and carry them into your next relationship.

Having children is a huge set of responsibilities, and the news has frequently cited examples of where parents caused actual harm, and even death, to their children in the cause of complying with their religious beliefs.  Children haven't yet had the option of accepting any set of religious beliefs, so forcing their compliance on the parents belief set seems more than a bit unfair, and in many cases deadly for the children.  I've stated many times that children shouldn't be even exposed to religion until they are over 18.  After all, they can't vote, drink alcohol, or join the military, so they should get to examine the options and elect once they know what those options are.

When it comes to professional responsibilities, when you accept a position, you also have to accept the responsibilities that come along with it . . . all of them!  If there are responsibilities that you cannot accept due to your religious beliefs . . then do not take the position!  If the responsibilities change while you are in the position and the new ones conflict with your religious beliefs . . . then you have a choice to either suck-it-up and do the job or resign your position and go find something else to do.

Now I mentioned this recently to someone when that Kentucky Clerk decided to put her religion ahead of her responsibilities and they immediately brought up an example of what if your responsibilities involved killing.  My response was that now you are talking beyond religion and into legalities.  Being a policeman or a member of the military may well involve the taking of a life, those acts, when done in accordance with the law, are not illegal.  Any other form of killing is illegal and needs to be be dealt with.  Legal issues aside, what I am talking about  specific examples where people allowed their belief set interfere with their responsibilities, like:

• Kim Davis from Kentucky
• Nathan Abrahams and Woods-Hole Oceanographic Institute
• Catherine Crocker and George Mason University
• Richard Sternberg and Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington
• David Coppege and Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL)

Each and every one of them put their religious beliefs ahead of their professional responsibilities, and they aren't the only ones.  In these cases, they made their stand and were held accountable to one degree or another.  The Discovery Institute (DI) and others like to hold these names up as example of some sort of religious persecution, but the reality is their religious views weren't the ones being violated, they were trying to use their religious views to violated the rights of others and then using their religion as a shield to allow them to discriminate against others.

That's why I consider religion to be one of the most dangerous forces on Earth.  It is incredibly divisive.  While some religions pay lip service to religious freedom, their acceptance of most other religions is one of tolerance rather than acceptance.  Most think the idea of religious freedom is one that protects them while they use their religion as a license to discriminate against those who do not share their beliefs.  I wholeheartedly disagree!  

Bottom line, is that religious beliefs are personal beliefs.  No one has the right to force those beliefs on anyone else, adult or child.  If personal or professional responsibilities conflict with  religious beliefs, then either take care of those responsibilities in spite of the beliefs or get out of the situation.  Resign from a professional position, get out of a personal relationship, even if it means giving a child up for adoption . . . which in my mind is certainly better than refusing them needed medical treatment because of religious beliefs . . . the child doesn't end up dead and the parent doesn't end up in jail.

While people like to say things like God, Country, Family . . . the exact order needs to be a bit more fluid.  But of the three, I would place religious responsibilities far in the back, well behind personal and professional responsibilities.  I know there are many who will disagree!  Personally I cannot imagine any deity worth following having a problem with someone accepting and handing their responsibilities.  There are so many different belief sets, that to try and follow them all would be insane.  Yet every time a theists asks for a religious exemption, that's exactly what they are trying to do, build a system that not only supports their belief set, but allows them the ability to force their belief set onto others.

I look at things a little more . . . well  . . . black and white.  When you accept personal and professional responsibilities, you make a commitment.  You made the choice, now you should live up to them.  If your religious beliefs will not allow you to carry out those responsibilities . . . then do not accept them.  Don't take the job, don't enter the relationship, and above all else, do not have a child.  But once you accept those responsibilities, then accept them fully and carry them out!  If you cannot, or will not, carry them out, then what you are is a liar and using your religious beliefs as an excuse for lying is contemptible.  Clear enough for you?

Little Kennie Ham Tolerant or Intolerant?

Little kennie has a fun post, but I think he confuses the idea of 'intolerance'.  Before getting into that, let me remind you that in my opinion kennie's idea of religious freedom is that he is free to believe as he wishes and he is also free to force you to believe as he wishes as well.  As I have said before, I disagree with kennie on that idea -- so it should come as no surprise that I disagree with him on this one as well.

Here is his 'Tolerance' post.  You can read it for yourself, but the bottom line is that, according to kennie, he's not intolerant when he argues against something like gay marriage, it's gay marriage proponents who are intolerant of his pseudo-bible-based opinions.  So . . . kennie wanting to take rights away from other people isn't intolerance, but anyone who wants to remove kennie's right to force other people to follow his narrow sort-of-religious viewpoint are guilty of not being tolerant?  See my point?  I think kennie's trying to play the victim card again.  "Oh woe is me because people don't want to follow what I say the Bible says!"

Seriously, look at this quote:

"Ultimately there are only two religions—that of God's Word and of man’s word."

Let us never forget that there are actually hundreds, if not thousands, of religions in the world and they do not agree on what constitutes 'God's Word', so what makes kennie's ramblings the ultimate authority . . . yea, I know, he has a book . . . but then don't most religions have a book?  Also don't some religions use the same book as kennie and yet come up with widely divergent proclamations about 'God's Word'?  I do love how he capitalized the 'G' and 'W', but left 'man's word' all lowercase. To kennie, everything is a binary set, either you agree with kennie or you are the enemy.

So, as you can see I disagree with little kennie.  Let me spell it out more clearly so even he might understand.  I am perfectly tolerant of your views, kennie, and by that I mean I have no issue with you holding those views.  However, that doesn't give you the right to force everyone else to follow your views as well.  If you oppose gay marriage, then don't marry someone of the same gender!  But you aren't happy leaving your belief set as a personal responsibility, you want to have the right to demand everyone follow your belief set.  I have said it before and I will continue saying it, you do not have the right to tell other people who they can and cannot marry!  That's not intolerance of your views, kennie, that what real tolerance is!  I tolerate your narrow religious viewpoint because the Constitution allows actual religious freedom, not just your definition of it.  But I refuse to allow you rights greater than everyone else just because you practice one particular strain of religion.

I see that going far beyond gay marriage.  If you don't support pro-choice then instead of telling people what they are 'supposed' to do, put it in personal practice and never take any actions that would require a woman to make such a choice.  You don't agree with using condoms to prevent disease and pregnancy, then don't use them, but do not dictate their use for other people . . ..  The list is endless!  I don't really care what your belief set is, but whatever it is, you do not have the right to impose it on others.  Waving a book in people's faces and telling them you are the only authority because only you know what the book says just . . . well makes you more laughable than anything else.  Little kennie ham, entertainer!

Yes, that's how I see it.  You [kennie] do not have the right to force your viewpoint onto other people!  That's not intolerance, as you like the claim.  You aren't the victim when I do my best to prevent you from forcing others to toe your particular line, the real victims are the other people that you are trying to attack.  They are your victims, they are the victims of your rhetoric of hate and intolerance . . . yes, intolerance.

It's not 'intolerance' to not allow a religious exemption from vaccinations since the un-vaccinated pose a health threat to us all.  It is not 'intolerance' to require a Kentucky county clerk to do her job.  It is not 'intolerance' to do everything in our power to not allow any form of religious discrimination to flourish in our society.  You, little kennie ham, support many things I disagree with -- but you have the right to support them.  But, once again, you do not have the right to force me to support them!

Yes, you might think I am the one being intolerant as you wave your highly self-edited version of the Bible around, but the reality is you are the one spreading hate and intolerance.  Freedom of Religion also means freedom from your particular brand of religion.  Intolerance would be not allowing you to belief as you wish.  It is not intolerance to prevent you from forcing it upon other people!

Ed Brayton's Facebook post

Ed Brayton had a great Facebook post:

"Everyone who supports Kim Davis and this notion that government clerks should be allowed to refuse to provide government services based on their "sincerely held religious beliefs" should have to answer a couple of rather obvious questions:
1. Would you take the same position if the clerk claimed a right to deny a marriage license to an interracial couple? This is not merely a hypothetical, this exact claim was made following the Supreme Court's ruling in Loving v Virginia.
2. Would you take the same position if the clerk was Muslim and claimed a right to deny driver's licenses to women? Or a Quaker and claimed a right not to issue any gun permits because of their pacifism?

All of those examples are absolutely identical legally. They can't try to argue that those examples are different because God doesn't *really* oppose those things but he really does oppose same-sex marriage because the government cannot make such a distinction. And they damn well know it because if the government did try to make that distinction and declare that a belief other than Christianity is the only true belief and therefore the only basis for such an exemption, they would lose their minds over it.
As always, they are engaged in special pleading and will refuse to apply their arguments consistently and coherently. Because when they say they want religious freedom, what they really want is Christian privilege. They want Christians, and Christians only, and only their particular type of Christians in fact, to be allowed to violate the law at will."

Gay marriage is NOT an attack on Christianity, but the restoration of civil rights that should have never been removed in the first place!