Giuliani Lies About Clinton - Part I

At the recent Republican debate, Rudy Giuliani told a couple of lies about Hillary Clinton:

1. "Giuliani claimed Sen. Hillary Clinton once called the free-market economy "the most destructive force in modern America." She didn't say that. She quoted another author who said free markets were "disruptive." She also said free markets bring prosperity."
2. "The mayor falsely claimed Clinton proposes to give $1,000 to "everybody." Her proposed subsidies to workers' retirement accounts would be for couples making up to $60,000 a year and would be $500 for those making up to $100,000. "
3. "Giuliani falsely claimed that more than 2 percent of the nation's gross domestic product is spent on "frivolous" lawsuits. The figure is from a study about the cost of all lawsuits."
   

That last one wasn't about Clinton, but I thought I'd keep it in there anyway.

I find it fascinating that none of the major news networks are really talking about the misstatements and misinformation from these debates. They should be hammering this guy, but instead they devote entire segments to whether or not Fred Thompson looked nervous.

(via FactCheck.org)

Oregon Petition - Round 2

About 10 years ago, a group called the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine circulated a non-peer reviewed article, dressed up to look like an article from the well-respected National Academy of Sciences (they actually had to issue a press release clarifying that they had nothing to do with the bogus article), with the usual global-warming-is-a-hoax stuff. They sent it out to pretty much every scientist whose address they could find, along with the Oregon Petition, and allowed anyone to fill it out online with little-to-no oversight. Some even added the names of Spice Girls, the cast of M*A*S*H and (my favorite) "Redwine, PhD." To this day, James "global warming is a hoax" Inhofe (R-OK) cites this petition to make his case that there are thousands of scientists who think just like him.

Well, they're doing it again. RealClimate has the story here.

Rudy Giuliani on the Issues

On his changing position on gun control:

"There are some major intervening events - Sept. 11 - which cast somewhat of a different light on the Second Amendment."

On taking phone calls while in the middle of a speech:

"Since Sept. 11, most of the time when we get on a plane we talk to each other and just reaffirm the fact that we love each other"

On building a border fence:

"I support security at the borders. I think security is enormously important in the post-Sept. 11 period. I think we have to know who's coming into this country."

On his American flag pin:

"Each time I wear it, it reminds me of Sept. 11."

On religion:

"I need God's help for everything, and I probably feel that the most when I'm in crisis and under pressure, like Sept. 11, when I was dealing with prostate cancer, or when I'm trying to explain death to people."

On what day it is:

"For me, every day is an anniversary of Sept. 11"

(via New York Daily News)

UPDATE: TPM has a little montage here:

Pat Robertson Launches Research Program

In 1978, televangelist Pat Robertson founded an unaccredited University and named it after his television station: Christian Broadcasting Network University. In recent years, the name was changed to Regent University. Despite having achieved accreditation, the school continues to have a poor academic reputation, with Robertson's fourth-tier law school tied for the dubious honor of "lowest ranked law school in the country."

Now, in the wake of their failed attempt to keep Terri Schiavo's body perpetually pumping food and air, the people at Regent University are announcing a new undertaking:

University leaders have launched a new effort to research everything from disabilities to cloning and stem cells.

Who better to research such things than a school that doesn't even have a single science department?

Iran So Far

Medved on McCain on the Constitution

Conservative film critic (who spoiled the plot for Clint Eastwood's Million Dollar Baby) and frequent Rush Limbaugh fill-in Michael Medved recently weighed in on John McCain's "Christian nation" comments.

Starting off strong, Medved promises to give "eight undeniable and sometimes uncomfortable" reasons why he believes America is a Christian nation, then proceeds to list only five. I'll go through each of them in turn.

(1) THE FOUNDERS NEVER "WANTED TO ESTABLISH A SECULAR NATION."

Right off the bat, Medved starts using phony quotations. He attributes this to James Madison, Father of the Constitution:

James Madison (acclaimed as “The Father of the Constitution”) declared that “religion is the basis and Foundation of Government”

This quote is straight from the pages of David Barton's list of phony quotations (he calls them "unconfirmed"). James Madison never said any such thing. Either Medved is a liar, or he gets his information from David Barton and Internet rumor-mills. No matter which, we should proceed to take everything he says with a grain of salt. Here is what James Madison really thought about the proper relationship between Church and State.

The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself (Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).

Still on his first point, Medved goes on to misattribute an Abigail Adams quote to John Adams.

His successor as president, John Adams (also known as “The Atlas of Independence”) wrote to his wife Abigail in 1775: “Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. A patriot must be a religious man.”

Abigail Adams, as I'm sure you're aware, had no part in drafting the United States Constitution. But I'm sure you get the point by now. Michael Medved is a schmuck who can't bother with basic fact-checking. Nonetheless, as much as it pains me, I'll go on to his other points.

(2) THE FOUNDERS DIDN’T EVEN WANT A SECULAR GOVERNMENT, AS WE UNDERSTAND THAT PHRASE TODAY

Medved begins by quoting early Chief Justice John Marshall as saying that "The American population is entirely Christian" (a transparently false declaration on Marshall's part), and that he would be surprised if the United States government did not "exhibit relations with it [the Church]." Leaving aside the fact that Marshall merely suggested that the United States government might have to interact with a powerful organization within its borders, Medved leaves out the part where James Madison ("Father of the Constitution") writes a letter correcting this point of view. According to Madison:

The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst by an entire abstinence of: the Govt from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, & protecting each sect agst trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter to Jasper Adams, 1832)

Medved goes on to call Marshall's statements a "judicial opinion" despite the fact that it was merely private correspondence.

But the madness doesn't end here. Medved proceeds to lie about Thomas Jefferson:

In 1803, in fact, Jefferson recommended to Congress the approval of a treaty that provided government funds to support a Catholic priest in ministering to the Kaskaskia Indians. Three times he signed extensions of another measure described as “An Act regulating the grants of land appropriated for Military services and for the Society of the United Brethren for propagating the Gospel among the Heathen.”

Oh, boy. This is another popular one, with so much misinformation packed into two little sentences. First of all, the Kaskaskia Indians were foreign nationals, and accordingly treated as a foreign nation. The treaty Jefferson signed with them was a quid-pro-quo agreement, in which the Indians gave up their claims in Illinois. In exchange, they asked that they not be pushed off their remaining lands and that they be given a priest. The Kaskaskia Indians had converted to Catholicism a century earlier and positively requested a priest as part of the treaty. This is not a case of Thomas Jefferson proselytizing.

The second sentence here, about "propagating the gospel among the heathen" is so awfully misleading. First of all, "The Society of the United Brethren for Propagating the Gospel Among the Heathen" was merely the name of a group involved in this treaty, so you should not interpret "propagating the Gospel among the Heathen" as being the purpose of this act (as Medved would probably like you to believe).

During the Revolutionary War, Congress declared that all Indians who did not aid the British would have their lands confirmed and secured after the war. In the years after the war, SUBPGAH was concerned that certain tribes would not get what was promised to them. They successfully petitioned Congress for the above-mentioned Act.

...Actually, I'm going to just pause here. Medved is almost too sloppy to warrant a response. He's already made way too many mistakes in his "eight" part response. My summary: Michael Medved is a hack.

Inhofe Lies to Criminal About Global Warming

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), famous for calling global warming "the second-largest hoax ever played on the American people, after the separation of church and state," and saying that the United States Environmental Protection Agency is a "Gestapo bureaucracy," recently appeared on G. Gordon Liddy's talk-radio program. This is the same Liddy who went to prison for masterminding Richard Nixon's Watergate break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters.

Near the end of the interview, Inhofe finally brought out his usual global warming crazy-talk. It was basically the same exact speech he gave Michelle Malkin a few weeks back, complete with the same narrative and the same examples. He talked about his dislike of taxes and Al Gore. He said that "Everything that's bad that happens in this country comes from the United Nations" (slightly more extreme than what he told Malkin: "like most bad things that come to America, it all came from the United Nations"). It was exactly what you'd expect.

Then Inhofe started to resurrect some of his favorite memes:

"The IPCC. They came out and they only had one scientist who's - uh - who had this hockey stick theory that's been completely debunked"

I guess that nobody told Inhofe that the National Academy of Sciences affirmed the hockey stick graph (see Nature, Academy Affirms Hockey Stick Graph), and that its results have been replicated by several independent sources and methodologies.


Moving on, Inhofe tried to portray the scientific tide as turning more and more towards his horribly misinformed views. In the process, Inhofe trotted out a "study" that couldn't even get published in a global warming contrarian magazine.

"The most recent thing that happened... is that peer-reviewed scientists are - 538 of them - that have reviewed all the peer stuff since '04, have now said only 7% of those say that man is making up a real, uh, uh, uh, dramatic change through, uh, CO2 and methane and anthropogenic gases. But, now, that's a huge change."

Inhofe is pushing this meme pretty hard. In reality, the vast, overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed publications say the exact opposite. It's really not even funny. In 2004, Naomi Oreskes surveyed the peer-reviewed literature on climate change and found that 0% took Inhofe's position. She updated this study in 2007 and found more of the same.

Nonetheless, some guy thought that he could update the study himself. Before his findings were even published, the contrarian-friendly DailyTech reported on its alleged findings:

Of 528 total papers on climate change [since 2003], only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The study was immediately picked up by James Inhofe, DaveScot, Brent Bozell, Matt Drudge, FOX News, Free Republic, Michael Savage, and Rush Limbaugh as a sign that there was no scientific agreement on the issue of global warming. All of the careless hacks who can't bother themselves with fact-checking a story. Not only did they report on the supposed findings of this not-yet-published "study," they even misrepresented what it purported to show. One retard wrote that "A recent survey of climate change articles in science journals finds fewer than half of the authors endorse anthropogenic global warming theories. The so-called consensus has now collapsed to a minority position." Never mind the fact that this "study" showed nothing of the sort.

Anyway, Tim Lambert (who shot down Benny Peiser when he tried to do the same thing) looked into the "study's" claims regarding peer-reviewed articles that "reject the consensus outright." It turns out, these much touted articles did nothing of the sort. Energy & Environment eventually decided that not even they would publish the "study."

By the way, Energy & Environment is a poorly regarded social science journal. It is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals, and it has been roundly criticized for publishing substandard papers in the past. Additionally, it's run by global warming contrarians for the sole purpose of giving other contrarians something resembling a scientific platform. Basically, it's the equivalent to an unaccredited or online college.

Not to be deterred, Inhofe still references this "study" and claims that there is some sort of "huge change." Nice try, guy.

Ron Paul on the Constitution

In a 2003 article that could well have been written by FOX News anchor John Gibson, Ron Paul (R-TX) explains his opinions on Church and State.

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

There are so many problems packed into this four-sentence paragraph. I'll try to go through it sentence-by-sentence.

(1) "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers."

This first sentence is completely untrue. First of all, the only times that the Constitution mentions religion is when it explicitly keeps the United States government out of that sphere. Article VI, section 3 says that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That's it. Those are the only mentions of religion in the entire document.

Second, the writings of the Founding Fathers said plenty about the separation between Church and State. Here are a few samples from James Madison, father of the Constitution:

The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself (Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).

(2) "On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs."

Which religious belief informed the Founding Fathers to create a Democracy? That concept is nowhere to be found in the Bible.

Which religious belief informed the Founding Fathers to allow freedom of speech and of the press? That concept is nowhere to be found in the Bible, which actually advocates the death penalty for heresy ("anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death").

Which religious belief informed the Founding Fathers to create a system of checks and balances? Separation of powers? Bicameralism? Those concepts are totally alien to the Bible, and are secular in origin.

(3) "Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion."

The Declaration of Independence mentions God exactly twice (if you count using the deist phrase "Creator"). The Constitution mentions God exactly zero times. This is so far from "replete" that one has to question Paul's familiarity with the Constitution.

Also, I object to Ron Paul characterizing the separation of Church and State as being tantamount to "hostility to religion." The Framers thought that both would be more pure if kept separate. The biggest proponents of the "wall of separation" were deeply religious people like Roger Williams, John Leland, and the Danbury Baptists.

Nonetheless, if Paul thinks that "hostility" to organized religion was a foreign concept to the Founding Fathers, then he probably hasn't read much by Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine.

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813)

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
-Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

(4) "The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life."

No, Ron. The drafters considered a version of the First Amendment that would say just that ("The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief, nor shall any national religion be established"), but they rejected it in favor of the broader language we have today ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"). That perfectly reflects Madison's views that the United States government has no business mixing itself with religion.

Also, nobody is trying to "drive religion out of public life." This characterization shows up over and over again whenever someone like Ron Paul discusses the Constitution. People are still free to express their religious beliefs, and put up nativity scenes in front of their Churches, in perfect public view. That's why we have the "free exercise" clause. However, the United States government has no business positively inserting itself into the public sphere to endorse or promote religion.

McCain Doesn't Know If Mormons Are Christians

Presidential hopeful John McCain (R-AZ) recently attempted to do some damage control after making remarks that America is a "Christian nation," and that he is less inclined to vote for non-Christians. But once again, McCain has just embarrassed himself. One reporter asked McCain if he considers Mormons to be Christians. McCain replied:

"I don't know. I respect their faith. I've never frankly looked at the Mormon religion."

Are you serious? That seems like a bizarre oversight for someone who says things like this:

"I think the number one issue people should make [in the] selection of the President of the United States is, 'Will this person carry on in the Judeo Christian principled tradition that has made this nation the greatest experiment in the history of mankind?' "

All in all, I think it seems more likely that McCain is just dancing around the issue to placate the evangelical base. That would also help to explain why McCain says he doesn't know whether or not contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV. I mean, he can't be that stupid, can he?

Useless Congressional Resolutions

The United States Congress has recently wasted time and resources busying itself with resolutions to condemn statements by MoveOn.org and Rush Limbaugh. Yesterday, it passed a Bill titled "Recognizing the commencement of Ramadan." As the Bill's title suggests, it merely... recognizes that a Muslim holiday is starting. Why is Congress wasting time passing resolutions like these? If you want to find out when Ramadan starts, just look at a calendar. We don't need Congress to remind us.

UPDATE: This is the title of a bill that passed in December: "Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that those who celebrate Christmas believe that the symbols and traditions of Christmas should be protected." Yes, it's a bill simply saying that Christians like Christmas. You've gotta be kidding me.

Romney and the Courts

Mitt Romney recently revealed his Advisory Committee on the Constitution and the Courts, a panel that will assist him in selecting his judicial nominees (if he wins the nomination). Among those on the panel is Pat Robertson's own Jay Sekulow. This is the guy who dragged Michael Schiavo through the Florida courts, losing every step of the way, and then convinced Congress to intervene (by passing an unconstitutional law) in an unusual case of judicial subversion. This is the guy who advocates stripping American citizens of the right to even be heard in court to address Establishment Clause violations. This is the same guy who earns $600,000 a year, making him the 13th highest paid "charitable organization" executive in the country. He even dips into the funds of his non-profit organizations to charter private jets... from a business owned by his own family. Now, Romney has tapped this guy to make important decisions about who the next Supreme Court nominees will be.

Another Committee member, Mary Ann Glendon, advocates a Constitutional amendment denying homosexual couples the ability to ever get married like heterosexual couples. According to Glendon, such "special treatment to one group of citizens" would "[impair] the rights of children," and has to be cut off permanently.

Let's hope this guy doesn't get elected.

AT&T and Content Control

In any discussion of network neutrality, it's pretty much inevitable that the conversation will shift towards whether or not telecommunications companies would actually use their powers to censor content and impede the free exchange of ideas.

Earlier this year, AT&T used their position to censor remarks by the band Pearl Jam from its Lollapalooza webcast, when lead singer Eddie Vedder made remarks critical of the President.

Just last month, Verizon attempted to block "controversial and unsavory" NARAL text messages ("End Bush’s global gag rule against birth control for world’s poorest women! Call Congress. (202) 224-3121. Thnx! Naral Text4Choice") from its service. They eventually backed off, claiming to have changed their policy. However, Verizon has refused to disclose what its new policy involves.

AT&T has an interesting policy of its own. According to the AT&T terms of service, the company can simply terminate the service of anyone who criticizes them. The policy states that AT&T reserves the right to end service (without notice) and delete all of your files (including emails) “for conduct that AT&T believes . . . tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries.” Verizon's policy similarly provides that "You may NOT use the Service . . . to damage the name or reputation of Verizon, its parent, affiliates and subsidiaries, or any third parties."

When it comes to network neutrality and content control, I have trouble trusting that these telecommunications companies will actually restrain themselves and allow customers to speak freely.

Abstinence-Only Extension

Congress spends a lot of money on abstinence-only education. About $87.5 million each year. Recently, Congress commissioned a study to find out if it was worth it to spend so much money on such programs. It turns out, abstinence-only education doesn't really do anything:

"The impact results from the four selected programs show no impacts on rates of sexual abstinence."

The American Medical Association, Office of National AIDS Policy, Institute of Medicine, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute of Health, and American Academy of Pediatrics all agree: comprehensive sexual education would be much better. As it stands, we're basically flushing millions of dollars down the toilet, doing nothing other than subsidizing certain groups to proselytize and spread misinformation about condom failure rates.

Nonetheless, in a display of poor fiscal and public health policy, Congress has once again renewed this ineffective program in a $50 million Title V renewal.

The Bill's co-sponsors? Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) and Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY). Thanks a lot, guys.


I suppose their position is somewhat defensible, insofar as the funding was tied to several other effective public health programs under Title V. But still, the Democratic leadership has to take a good measure of blame for allowing such a ridiculous program through in the first place. I'm still bitter that they increased its funding this past June. Now they complain that they're only grudgingly extending its coverage, despite the fact that they're the ones responsible for it being there in the first place? Come on, guys.

Rush Limbaugh on the Constitution

College dropout Rush Limbaugh recently explained to a caller his opinions on Church and State. Rush begins with an anecdote about some unnamed "total hack, liberal" teacher who calls the Founding Fathers atheists and helps her students cheat on exams. Rush doesn't explain the point of this anecdote, nor does he cite anything to confirm that it is in fact a real story, but it's assumed that this is supposed to be a typical story of the scary atheists in Academia.

Rush eventually gets into the meat of his argument.

Thomas Jefferson wrote the first draft of the Declaration of Independence -- and, of course, it speaks of God repeatedly.

Um, the Declaration of Independence names God exactly twice. And even then it uses generic Deist terms like "Creator." And besides, this was a separation document, cutting off the American colonies from England. America was not its own country with its own government until the Articles of Confederation. When that didn't work out, the Founding Fathers drafted the United States Constitution, which established the country we have today. That document mentions God exactly zero times, and only mentions religion insofar as it keeps the American government out of that sphere (e.g. - no religious tests for public office, no law respecting an establishment of religion).

Now, the Declaration of Independence is our founding document.

No, it isn't. The Constitution is.

When this all started in 1947, the Supreme Court seized on a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote. "The wall of separation between church and state" was taken out of context in a letter that Jefferson wrote to the Danbury, Connecticut, Baptist community in which he explained why he didn't call for national days of fasting and Thanksgiving, as George Washington and John Adams had as president. But two days later he went to church!

Wow, where to start on this one? First off, the Supreme Court relied on Jefferson's letter much earlier. In the 1879 case of Reynolds v. United States, the Supreme Court unanimously held that "Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured."

Next, Jefferson did not simply write this letter to explain why he did not call for national days of prayer. In fact, Jefferson's letter makes absolutely no mention of any such thing. Nor did the letter from the Danbury Baptists, to whom he was responding.

Also, what is Rush's point in saying that Jefferson went to Church? Is it so hard to comprehend that somebody would be a believer and also intend a separation between Church and State? Actually, the most fervent supporters of the wall of separation were deeply religious people (such as Roger Williams, John Leland, and the Danbury Baptists).

He attended church services in the House of Representatives. He continued as a regular attendant throughout his presidency.

This tired meme shows up over and over again whenever someone like Rush Limbaugh discusses the Founding Fathers. The House of Representatives was not used for "church services" (another claim straight from the pages of David Barton), but rather was used for social gatherings complete with gambling and speakers who belonged to various denominations.

Rush goes on:

You can go to the Constitution, go to First Amendment, and freedom of religion is the first thing that's mentioned. And it just says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." That seals us against the fear of a state church. That's it.

Nope. The language is more broad than simply prohibiting a "state church." In fact, the Founding Fathers considered a version of the Amendment that would say simply what Rush just said ("The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief, nor shall any national religion be established"). But they declined that option in favor of the broader language we now have: "No law respecting an establishment of religion."

This phrase, separation of church and state, comes from Thomas Jefferson's letter.

Let's not forget James Madison, Father of the Constitution:

The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself (Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).

Rush continues:

Now, this letter ended up being seized on in 1947 by the Supreme Court, in a case called Emerson vs. Board of Education.

Actually, it's Everson v. Board of Education, not Emerson. Also, as mentioned above, the Court relied on this document much earlier.

But of course, no Rush Limbaugh speech would be complete without some venom directed at liberals and the French:

this is something that's been taken totally out of context, purposefully by liberals, teachers, and so forth, who have a great fear of religion... Liberalism can be defined in many ways, and one of the ways you can define it is, it has no meaning beyond itself... They have never learned that there are things in life that are more important than they are. They're hostile to religion... empty lives... We're all searching for meaning, but liberals aren't... They are genuinely afraid of people who have discovered or are on the path trying to discover genuine meaning in life... one million French citizens never brush their teeth. Half of all French do not brush their teeth in the evening.... huge threats to liberals because it shakes their total world view and it takes them out of being the center of the orbit. That's the reason for their hatred of the Christian right. In fact, their hatred of the Christian right is such that they will tolerate violent religions... Nothing more than a pure liberal hack who probably has a miserable life, spends a lot of it in fear.

Ben Stein's Expelled - Part IV

Ben Stein has a new pro-creationist movie coming out in which he posits that Intelligent Design theory is marginalized, not because it is scientifically vacuous, but rather because of some sort of atheist conspiracy.

Aside from misleading his interviewees and imagining cases of persecution, Ben Stein has now taken things a step further and invoked Godwin's Law. According to Stein:

He said he also believed the theory of evolution leads to racism and ultimately genocide, an idea common among creationist thinkers. If it were up to him, he said, the film would be called “From Darwin to Hitler.”

The theory of evolution leads to genocide and Naziism, huh? Leaving aside the fact that genocide existed long before Darwin, let's take a look at what Hitler himself has said on the topic.

For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties.
-Hitler

Even a superficial glance is sufficient to show that all the innumerable forms in which the life-urge of Nature manifests itself are subject to a fundamental law--one may call it an iron law of Nature--which compels the various species to keep within the definite limits of their own life-forms when propagating and multiplying their kind. Each animal mates only with one of its own species. The titmouse cohabits only with the titmouse, the finch with the finch, the stork with the stork, the field-mouse with the field-mouse, the house-mouse with the house-mouse, the wolf with the she-wolf, etc.
-Hitler

From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump, as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today.
-Hitler

Basically, Hitler did not believe in evolution. His genocidal techniques were based on the ancient practice of animal husbandry, where you simply breed the strongest stock within a discrete kind. He explicitly rejected the idea that one "kind" (a creationist term) could evolve into another, especially with regard to humankind.

Does this mean that belief in animal husbandry or creationism leads to genocide and Naziism? Of course not. Such an argument would be just as asinine as Stein's ridiculous claims.

But even if Hitler did believe in evolution, then Darwin would be no more responsible for the Holocaust than Einstein was for Hiroshima. They both merely proposed value-neutral scientific theories. The fact that species have achieved their current diversity through the process of natural selection does not at all imply that we should kill off those we deem "weak." The fact that splitting an atom results in a massive release of energy in no way implies that we should release that energy over a Japanese city.

Stein's intellectually dishonest comparison is just a transparent attempt to make the theory of evolution look like a dangerous ideology that you should protect your children against. It's pure and simple propaganda meant to motivate people to oppose this "deadly idea."

Of course, comparing those who disagree with you to Nazis is nothing new to Ben Stein. When homosexual Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) was arrested for soliciting sex in a public restroom stall, Stein had this to say about the arresting officer: "Gestapo, Gestapo, Gestapo." Yes, that's a direct quote.

Part I, Part II, Part III