In which Pastor Nalliah 'splains hisself.

God: Attorney At Law

Pastor Nalliah's first post-election contribution to the Catch a Fire blog is titled:

Election 2007 - Did I get it wrong?

Yes, you did, Danny. Yes, you did.

Ordinarily you would expect someone who has been as comprehensively embarrassed by the facts as Nalliah to pack up his revival tent and slither away quietly into the night with what remains of the smoking ruins of his credibility. But Nalliah still has gallons of snake-oil to sell, and legions of gullible halfwits who are simply gagging for the stuff. And so he returns to "help you in better understanding the results of the Election 2007."

He opens with persecution mania and an appeal to pity. In spite of "the fiery storm of accusation, criticism and persecution," [INSERT BIBLE VERSE HERE], God has given Danny broad enough shoulders "to cop quite a bit of flak." Nonetheless, "the weekend of the election was one of the worst weekends in my life." Why? Because God's anointed vessel John Howard had just suffered a massive defeat in the polls, and to top things off, Nalliah's father-in-law in Sri Lanka had taken seriously ill. "Bible believing Christians struggle not against flesh and blood, but wrestle against principalities and powers of spiritual darkness," and Satan--the fucker--had just delivered the Nalliahs a double-whammy.

Immediately I said, “Lord, what’s happening?? How can I even rise up and preach Your Word?” But praise Almighty God, as we prayed together for my father-in-law, the Spirit of the Lord strengthened me to rise up and preach the Word of God. That night he miraculously recovered and is now doing very well. Glory to God!

After ministering to the people of God on Saturday night, I struggled to fall asleep in my motel room in Albany, Western Australia, as I was all alone, in tears and feeling very sad for most of the night. I kept asking the Lord, “DID I GET IT WRONG???”

Enter God to account for making Nalliah look like the Fuckwit Australian of the Year.

I said, “Lord, why is it when the Body of Christ comes together to pray for rain, You answer our prayers so quickly?” The words from the Lord came to me, “For My people are united when they pray for rain.” At this moment I felt so prompted to read the prophetic word from the Lord regarding the election that I released on 11th August 2007.

As I begin reading the prophetic word from the Lord, I was greatly stirred in my spirit to read the following words that I had stated, “I will boldly declare that PM John Howard will be re-elected in the Nov election – ‘IF THE BODY OF CHRIST UNITES IN PRAYER AND ACTION.’
Again I heard the voice of the Lord, “For My people were not united in prayer and action for this election. If they were, they would have experienced spiritual revival under My freedom reigning in this nation, but now My people have chosen another way. They have not voted for My will, but for self gain and personal change.”

The fine print, people! Always, always read the fine print! That's why Nalliah's prophecy didn't come to pass. Because not enough voters got with God's program and voted for Howard. Apparently, that's how this "democracy" thing works! Well, knock me down with a Chick Tract.

The level of disunity in the Body of Christ was very clear to me closing in on election day. I received emails and messages from many professing Christians who were voting for Labor and the Greens. I just could not understand how they could do that, as their vote could be a vote to change existing laws to give greater rights to same sex-couples, legalise Abortion on demand (up to birth), introduce Federal Vilification Laws (eliminating freedom of speech), stop Prayer in Parliament, force Christian schools to employ homosexual teachers under Anti-Discrimination Laws, and the list goes on and on.

It's not Nalliah's fault he got it so wrong. It's the fault of those Muslim-loving mealy-mouthed wishy-washy bleeding-heart liberal Christians who weren't willing to defend Biblical values (among which are included the denial of women's reproductive rights, discrimination against sexual minorities in employment and in law, and sectarianism in Parliament) by backing John Howard, God's choice for PM. And it's your fault, too:

Just for your information, the Labor Government refused to preference the Family First Party, and did all its preferences with the Greens. Now both Labor and the Greens are in bed together. DID YOU VOTE THEM IN????

They're in bed together, people!! And probably doing TEH GAY with each other.

But seriously: how can a church be so blatantly partisan--to the point where it is practically labelling as apostate those of its followers who didn't vote for John Howard on Saturday--and still maintain a membership? This is essentially what the good pastor is (or was) saying to his sheeple: You're not a true Christian unless you vote for Howard. Surely there are some among his flock who have taken that hint and told Nalliah (albeit perhaps in politer terms) to kindly go fuck himself? Maybe that explains the deleted comments on the Catch the Fire website.

All of this raises an interesting question. With Howard and Costello both out of the picture, which of the Liberals (because it could only be a Liberal) is God now backing to lead Australia to Christopia? Brendan Nelson? He did, after all, endorse the teaching of intelligent design. Tony Abbott? Silas?

Stay tuned until the next idiot rolls around the floor babbling in tongues to find out.

On the subject of the dearly departed (from politics), the final Search for a Scapegoat:

Read more!

Return of the Scapegoat

The long-awaited latest episode of "Search for a Scapegoat" is here:



Episodes 1-3 over the fold . . .









Stay tuned for more here.

Read more!

Some more election resources

The Daily Kos Guide to the Federal Election (via Election '07 Norg)

The aforementioned Election '07 Norg (via Larvatus Prodeo)



The 730 Report with Kevin Rudd


Chaser: Labor ad


Clarke and Dawe: Kevin Rudd


Read more!

We need one of these things for the Australian federal election

The Carnegie-Knight Initiative on the Future of Journalism Education, a collaboration between five leading US universities, has created an interactive tool for gauging the role played by religion in the 2008 Presidential Election campaign.

The following is an interactive matrix examining the intersection of faith and politics on the stump as presidential hopefuls line up for their chance to win the White House in 2008. Issues range from abortion and public education to religious history and gay rights. Every candidate so far declared for office has been thoroughly researched for any mention of faith and its impact on their decision to reach a particular stance. Use the following matrix to explore how faith has been invoked as a part of their respective campaigns.

(You'll have to go to the site to open the tool.)

It would be extremely handy, don't you agree, if a similar tool was made available for Australian election campaigns.

Actually, those of you who are familiar with the website Political Compass will be interested to learn that a chart has been made for the 2007 Federal Election:


The extent to which the political centre of gravity is sinking deeper and deeper into the right-wing authoritarian quadrant is truly disturbing. Looking at the party's website (which basically resembles one long angry Letter to the Editor from Joe Incontinence Pad), I can understand how difficult it must have been for the Political Compass guys to place One Nation. They are undoubtedly authoritarian--well, let's just come right out and say it: they're protofascist--but in terms of economic policy they can be both left-wing and right-wing. (For instance, they're stridently anti-corporate: they even link to the Outfoxed website!) By the way, secularist potential One Nation voters be warned: your party advocates the teaching of Scripture and "Christian values" (whatever they are supposed to be) in public schools. And oil is--and this must be said in ALL CAPS, just like it is on the One Nation website--A RENEWABLE AND ABIOTIC FUEL."

In other news, I've submitted Five Public Opinions to Blogotariat, a political blog aggregator. Bruce, Mikey, Jeremy, the Editor . . . all the cool kids are doing it. Read more!

More unconvincing arguments for God: Pareidolia

Here's an interesting photo taken recently in Poland . . .



AND UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE OTHERWISE, THE DEFAULT EXPLANATION IS THAT POPE JOHN PAUL II HAS INCARNATED HIMSELF IN A BONFIRE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

While credulous theists the world over are once again basking in their own insipidness, a new voice of reason has emerged on the Australian political landscape. I mentioned it in passing on Sunday, but the Secular Party of Australia will be fielding candidates for the Senate in this year's federal election. Jen of Unsane and Safe fame will be running, which is good news, because I vote below the line. I wish her the best of luck: Ganbatte!, as they say in Japan.

As for the party's policies, there is very little that I disagree with, except this one: "We stand against . . . The wearing of religious attire in schools." As long as no one is compelled to wear religious attire, and as long as the wearing of such attire does not hinder the wearer's ability to participate in classroom activities, I don't see how it infringes anybody else's rights. (And the Party does claim, elsewhere on the site, to "believe that people should be free to indulge their beliefs, provided they do not infringe the rights of others.") Indeed, banning the wearing of religious garb, I believe, is just as anti-democratic as enforcing religious observance. (You might say that it amounts to the state overstepping the boundary between church and state.) I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of a representative of the Secular Party on this issue. Read more!

Anti-Howard propaganda on YouTube

The "Search for a Scapegoat" series is brilliant:

Episode 1


Episodes 2 and 3 over the fold . . .


Episode 2


Episode 3


Stay tuned for further episodes.

Also:

John Howard Asleep on Climate Change (ALP ad)


The Complete Walks of John Howard (The Chaser)


John Howard on Climate Change and Global Warming (Clarke and Dawe)


Read more!

The Myth of church-state separation in Australia

National Day of Secularism
May the 26th

“The Myth of church-state separation.” Google that phrase, and you invariably come up with historical revisionist articles claiming that America’s Founding Fathers were strict Biblical literalists who intended the US to be a Christian Nation ™. That’s because, however devoutly the American Christian Taliban wish it to be otherwise, the First Amendment has repeatedly been interpreted to have established a “wall of separation” between church and state. Probably the most significant legal ruling to be based on such an interpretation was Kitzmiller v. Dover.

In Australia, many of us take it for granted that a similar wall of separation exists in our democracy. Well, perhaps we shouldn’t.

In a 2005 issue of Australian Humanist, Max Wallace points out that there are only two places in the Australian Constitution in which religion is mentioned—in the Preamble and in section 116:

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

As Wallace’s article demonstrates, High Court judges and constitutional law experts alike have been unanimous in insisting that a notion of church-state separation cannot be inferred from the wording of section 116, much less from anywhere else in the Constitution. This interpretation was crucial in the 1981 Defence of Government Schools case, in which the Federal Government’s funding of church schools was challenged.

Justice Sir Ninian Stephen said s.116:

... cannot readily be viewed as a repository of some broad statement of principle concerning the separation of church and state, from which may be distilled the detailed consequences of such separation.

That is pretty unequivocal. The day after the case, none of the newspapers reporting the case published what the judges had said. Also, in many histories of Australia, these words, and the subject of church and state, do not appear. Textbooks on politics in Australia do not discuss it. We have an Australian Republican Movement that is arguing for a republic with no mention of church and state on their website. This is despite the fact that separation of church and state is the foundation stone of two of the leading republics in the world: the American and the French.

It is, in other words, the elephant in the room of Australian democracy. It places us, Wallace suggests,

somewhere between democracy and theocracy. I suggest that is an unacceptable state of affairs for a modern liberal democracy. We can hardly criticise regimes that refuse the distinction when we have not formalised it ourselves.

Indeed. On this National Day of Secularism, it is truly sobering to consider that the separation of church and state in Australia is even more tenuous than it is in the maniacally-religious US. You can just imagine what might transpire if the Religious Right (whether it’s the Opus Dei Liberals or the Pentecostal megachurch Liberals leading the parade) ever attains the same level of influence here that it has attained over there.

Other resources on this topic:
"Separation of church and state?" (Michael Hogan, University of Sydney)
"Church and state in Australia" (also by Max Wallace)
"Church and state" (Anglican bishop Tom Frame, who has also written a book on the subject)

UPDATE: May 26th also marks the tenth annual National Sorry Day, and it has been remiss of us not to have mentioned it earlier.

So the Australian Prayer Network just happened to select this date for their National Day of Thanksgiving? How interesting. I wonder who they think the members of the Stolen Generations should be thanking. See Simmo's post. Read more!

Another wonderful week of Howard sookery

The Howard Government is dominated by:

(a) Sooks
(b) Control freaks
(c) Theocrats
(d) All of the above

The correct answer, of course, is (d), judging by the Government's reaction to negative portrayals of its industrial relations policies on television this week, and by the news that its "citizenship test" will require aspiring citizens to affirm the notion that Australian values are based on the Judeo-Christian tradition.

As I noted briefly in an earlier post, the conservative side of politics has been screaming hysterically about "bias" at the ABC all week, in response to the station's screening of Bastard Boys, a dramatisation of the 1998 Australian waterfront dispute. Later, Howard chimed in, pronouncing the miniseries "One of the most lopsided pieces of political propaganda I've seen on the national broadcaster in years." What he wouldn't have seen coming was the scene in this week's episode of McLeod's Daughters, in which a character is fired and then immediately offered reinstatement on a workplace agreement with lower pay. This prompted several government ministers to condemn the show, claiming that the scenario would be illegal under the Industrial-Relations-Legislation-Formerly-Known-As-Workchoices laws, although the scene is apparently based on an actual event involving an employee at a BP service station in Adelaide. In any case, the Government is evidently coming to the realisation that Howard's battlers just aren't embracing the thought of signing away their hard-earned rights and entitlements in the workplace with the enthusiasm one might normally expect. (I know, we're all scratching our heads on that one, Johnny.)

But it is the knee-jerk nature of the Government's response to both programmes that is disturbing, and fits a pattern of control-freakery that has been a hallmark of Howard's tenure from its beginning, as books like the excellent Silencing Dissent clearly demonstrate.

What is even more disturbing is the new "citizenship test" and its flagrant flouting of the principle of the separation of church and state (very much an Aussie tradition, arguably) in the following question:

15. Australia's values are based on the ...

a. Teachings of the Koran

b. The Judaeo-Christian tradition

c. Catholicism

d. Secularism

As EvilWombatQueen points out in her fisking of the citizenship test, there is a disconnect between this question and the previous one asking examinees to identify Australian values:

Now, remember that the previous question actually stated the main Australian values. Remember them boys and girls? Men and women are equal. 'A fair go'. Mateship. Now, which option listed above can genuinely say it believes all of those things? If you said d, Secularism, you are right! However, sadly, you are also wrong. According to the government the answer is b, the Judeo-Christian tradition.

She's right: according to Kevin Andrews, immigrants must acknowledge that Australia's values--which include the equality of the sexes, fairness and mateship--are based on the Judeo-Christian tradition. Well let's explore this notion by looking at the track record of the Judeo-Christian tradition regarding just one of these values--that men and women are equal.

• In the Old Testament, women's inferiority to men is axiomatic, and manifests itself in a variety of ways: Eve's submission to Adam, the polygamy of David and Solomon (among many others), the original "handmaid's tale" (Abraham, Sarah and Hagar), Lot's offering of his daughters to the crowd besieging his house in Sodom, concubinage, the treatment of women as property in the Ten Commandments, mandatory pre-marital virginity for women (on pain of death by stoning), the requirement of women rape victims to marry their rapists, etc.
• Jesus' attitude to women was very different, of course. But his views didn't seem to have caught on. (Perhaps Nietzsche was right: "In truth, there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross.") By the time we get to Paul, women are again being told to submit to their husbands and their inferiority to men is reaffirmed.
• The church fathers were unanimous in their disparagement of women. Augustine remarked, "I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children." Martin Luther suggested, "Let them die in childbirth, that's why they are there."
• Another great moment in the history of Christianity's treatment of women was the lynching of Hypatia in 415 CE. She was guilty of the terrible sin of being a pagan and a woman teacher of mathematics and philosophy. The good Christians of Alexandria dragged her into the church, tore her flesh from her bones with oyster shells, and burned her. This episode was but a precursor to the long and grand Judeo-Christian tradition of witch-burning.

Yes, yes, I know. It's not like that anymore--Bill Heffernan's "barren" comments aside . That's not the point. If equality between the sexes is indeed an Australian value, it is not a product of the Judeo-Christian tradition--it is a significant departure from it. Every advance women have made towards being treated as equals has been resisted by defenders of the Judeo-Christian tradition--the same kind of people who today resist moves to grant gays and lesbians equality with heterosexuals under the law. It is logically contradictory, therefore, to hold that sexual equality is an Australian value and at the same time hold that Australian values are based on the Judeo-Christian tradition. Any citizenship test which requires aspiring citizens to believe these two impossible things before breakfast is not only privileging one religious tradition unconstitutionally: it is also perpetuating unreason.

UPDATE: See Ninglun and Legal Eagle for more commentary on the citizenship test. Read more!

One for Bruce

Operation Yellow Elephant presents . . .

The Battle Hymn of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders
(Sung to the tune of the Marine Corps Hymn)

'tween the walls of mommy's basement
On the floors our spunk has stained
We fight our fights through proxy
With a mouse, keyboard, and brain
First to call for wars of freedom
Policies that kill the poor
We'll do the least that we can do
And fight with our keyboard.

Our George was safe - he made the Guard
And Rush had a sore ass;
Deferments saved Dick's butt five times
But not the working class;
In the dorms of far-off college quads
A light year from the war
You will find us cursin' Democrats
One Hundred-One Keyboards.

There's beer for us and guns for them
And each one has a role;
We're many so glib, we'll flame a Lib,
As warfare takes its toll;
If the Army and the Navy
Are understaffed in war;
Go find another place to turn
We're the One Oh One Keyboards.

Via Pharyngula. If you want to see one of these morons in full flight, check out the comments link on this post at the (now defunct) Bruce's Rave and Rant. Read more!

You criticised Bush. That makes you a terrorist.

A conservative legal scholar from Princeton has been added to the Transportation Security Administration's terrorist watch list after delivering a televised speech attacking Bush's executive overreach.

Walter F. Murphy, the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Emeritus, at Princeton University, attempted to check his luggage at the curbside in Albuquerque before boarding a plane to Newark, New Jersey. Murphy was told he could not use the service.

"I was denied a boarding pass because I was on the Terrorist Watch list," he said.

When inquiring with a clerk why he was on the list, Murphy was asked if he had participated in any peace marches.

"We ban a lot of people from flying because of that," a clerk said.

Murphy then explained that he had not marched, but had "in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution."

The clerk responded, "That'll do it."

Murphy was allowed to board the plane, but was warned that his luggage would be "ransacked." On his return trip, his luggage was lost.

Murphy blogs about his experience here. Normally this kind of thing only happens to peace activists. Perhaps someone could explain to me how punishing dissent in this fashion aids the "War on Terror," because I couldn't be more confused.

(Via Morons.org) Read more!

Brethren to take on the Whore of Babylon in Bennelong

The Exclusive Brethren are a fundamentalist Christian religious sect that eschews politics, so much so that, while its members are forbidden to vote, they did campaign on behalf of the Howard Government in the 2004 Federal Election, and on behalf of NZ conservative parties in 2005. The reason? "Satan infiltrates government and legislation seeking to weaken man’s sense of what is due to God. No enlightened Christian would stand by and do nothing while ignorant persons call good evil, and evil good."

In 2004, Satan preselected one of his minions, Andrew Wilkie, to run as a Greens candidate against the God-ordained incumbent PM John Howard in the seat of Bennelong. Fortunately, the Exclusive Brethren were on hand to heckle the demon, taunting him about his marriage and about the homosexuality of Greens leader Bob Brown. In the end, Jeebus won the day and Howard was re-elected.

But now, in 2007, Satan's having another crack at the seat of God's ordained leader. This time the Evil One is being represented by Maxine McKew, whose former career as an ABC journalist simply underlines the threat she poses to our Christian democracy. And so, it's time for the Knights of the Exclusive Brethren to saddle up and confront the new demon McKew in the name of Jesus H. Howard.

Enlightened Christians across the country are depending on them. Read more!

The Wonderful Weekend of Magical Thinking (Blog Against Theocracy)

Well, it's Easter, and the time has come to Blog Against Theocracy. And contrary to expectations, I've been a little remiss: the rules are that participants blog on something in support of church-state separation on each day of the Easter weekend--the 6th, 7th and 8th--and I, well, plum forgot to do so yesterday. (Damn you, Scrubs!) Still, we soldier on . . .

*UK schools drop the Holocaust and the Crusades from history lessons for fear of offending Muslim students. (HT: SB)

*Meanwhile, many schools in the US eschew reality-based sex education for fear of offending Christians.

*Pope Benedict declares: "Hell exists and there is eternal punishment for those who sin and do not repent." The Pope proceeded to defend his assertion with solid evidence of Hell's existence, at which point Satan was heard to remark to one of his henchmen: "Did it just get cold in here?"

*Florida teacher suspended and facing jail after not fitting in with the fundie teachers and administrators at her school. (via Morons.org)

*Patrick Henry College defines a good science education thusly: "PHC in particular expects its biology faculty to provide a full exposition of the claims of the theory of Darwinian evolution, intelligent design, and other major theories while, in the end, teach creation as both biblically true and as the best fit to observed data." Patrick Henry is a feeder school into the Bush White House. (Pharyngula) Read more!

The Wonderful World of Magical Thinking X

The week in fundie . . .















*Catholic political correctness. (ABC News Online; see also Pharyngula)

*The "Creation Science Museum" phenomenon sweeps across America. (HT: Justaguy)

*Poland's war on gays (and Jews)

*Court ruling: Procter and Gamble "does not worship Satan" (via Morons.org)

*South Carolina pushes to force women--even rape and incest victims--to view ultrasounds before seeking abortions. (via Morons.org)

*The Argument from Peanut Butter: defeating Darwinism once and for all. (via Dispatches from the Culture Wars) Read more!

On message

Gerard Henderson, in today's Sydney Morning Herald, on Work Choices:

. . . over the past year about 250,000 jobs were created, real wages increased and industrial disputes were at their lowest levels since records were introduced just before World War I.

John Howard, speaking with Radio National Breakfast's Fran Kelly on Work Choices:

We've had, what, more than a quarter of a million more jobs created, wages have continued to rise strongly and strikes at their lowest level since 1913.

Why don't the two of them just get together and write a fucking jingle?

(HT: Mikey) Read more!

The Wonderful World of Magical Thinking IX

The week in fundie:

*Anglican Archbishop Peter Jensen's XO, Dr Philip Selden, warned NSW voters about the Greens' evil push "to remove loopholes in the Anti-Discrimination Act that allow private schools and religious organisations to discriminate against gays and lesbians." (Via Ninglun, who I should mention--in fairness to him--would probably disapprove of my use of the term "fundie." See also Mikey.)
*A German judge cited the Koran in her rejection of a Muslim woman's request for divorce. Both the woman and her husband, the judge noted, came from "a Moroccan cultural environment in which it is not uncommon for a man to exert a right of corporal punishment over his wife." (Dispatches from the Culture Wars)
*William Dembski calls for Charles Darwin to be dumped from the British 10-pound note, on the grounds that "he is the chief prophet of the materialist religion, and his presence on the 10-pound note is an inappropriate endorsement of that materialist religion and its related anti-religious ferment." (Via Jason Rosenhouse, who points this out as yet another example of creationists trying to discredit evolution by discrediting Darwin. See also Nullifidian's post.)
*Tom DeLay: "liberals are just like Hitler!" (Huffington Post) Read more!

The Wonderful World of Magical Thinking VIII

The week in fundie:

*Essay: "The Funhouse Mirror of Intelligent Design." (via Pharyngula)
*Texan state congressman links evolutionary theory to "Rabbinic writings"--declares that it therefore "cannot legally be taught in taxpayer supported schools, according to the Constitution." (Via Morons.org)
*Californian Congressman a "liberal bully" for not believing in God. (Via Pharyngula)
*Nick Minchin appeals to the authority of a Canadian newspaper columnist (rather than scientific opinion) to deny AGW. (Evidently he's of the Andrew Bolt school of enviroskepticism: "I'm not a climatologist but I do have a bull detector through being a journalist.") (Also read Ninglun's post.) Read more!

Stop fundies entering politics, Five Public Opinions says

Five Public Opinions is calling for an immediate moratorium on Christian fundamentalists entering politics.

Five Public Opinions' blog author, Arthur Vandelay, believes it is necessary because there has been no serious study on the potential effects on Australia of the Christian fundamentalists who are already here.

Reverend Vandelay says temporarily stopping fundies entering politics would give some breathing space to assess the situation.

He says while the policy may be offensive--not to mention fallacious--he stands by it.

"It's an issue that's affecting everyone and I think many of the political parties are frightened to even discuss the issue," he said.

He says in the meantime Australia should extend a welcoming hand to the many thousands of persecuted atheists, secular humanists, rational Christians and non-Christians alike, and other members of the reality-based community in the United States and western Sydney.

Read more!

The Wonderful World of Magical Thinking VII

The week in fundie:

*Girls suspended for using the word “vagina” during reading of “Vagina Monologues.” (Pharyngula)
*Coulter rationalises domestic terrorism. (Alternet)
*Orthodox churches: human rights are evil. (Bartholomew's Notes on Religion)
*Wingnut Senator calls for an answer from his state Educational Commissioner on the creation of the universe (via Morons.org)
Read more!

This is your brain on authoritarianism

Bob Altemeyer, Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Manitoba, might be the world's foremost authority on Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA). His latest work on the subject has recently been released as a free e-book, The Authoritarians, available here. In the Introduction, Altemeyer defines authoritarianism thus:

Authoritarianism is something authoritarian followers and authoritarian leaders cook up between themselves. It happens when the followers submit too much to the leaders, trust them too much, and give them too much leeway to do whatever they want--which often is something undemocratic, tyrannical and brutal. In my day, authoritarian fascist and authoritarian communist dictatorships posed the biggest threats to democracies, and eventually lost to them in wars both hot and cold. But authoritarianism itself has not disappeared, and I'm going to present the case in this book that the greatest threat to American democracy today arises from a militant authoritarianism that has become a cancer upon the nation.

And from Chapter 7:

Question: Is it the duty of every patriotic citizen to help stomp out this rot that is poisoning our country from within? No, I hope it’s obvious that that’s no solution at all. It may be just as obvious that social dominators will want to hang onto control until it is pried from their cold, dead fingers in the last ditch. And authoritarian followers will prove extremely resistant to change. The more one learns about the
problem, I think, the more one realizes how difficult it will be to change people who
are so ferociously aggressive, and fiercely defensive.

You’re not likely to get anywhere arguing with authoritarians. If you won every round of a 15 round heavyweight debate with a Double High leader over history,
logic, scientific evidence, the Constitution, you name it, in an auditorium filled with
high RWAs, the audience probably would not change its beliefs one tiny bit. Authoritarian followers might even cling to their beliefs more tightly, the wronger
they turned out to be. Trying to change highly dogmatic, evidence-immune, groupgripping people in such a setting is like pissing into the wind.

Hat tip: Larry Gambone.

UPDATE: On the subject of authoritarian followers. Read more!

Pandagon on Coulter

Amanda Marcotte reflects on the role Ann Coulter plays in red-blooded red-staters' fantasies as a fuckable WASP bitch.

While I abhor it when men who take cheap shots at her fuckability, one can safely state that Coulter does have this exaggerated femininity, and appears to cultivate it. But I wouldn’t characterize it as American so much as the exaggerated version of the stereotype of the bitchy WASP—not the girl you marry, of course, but the one you party with while listening to your yacht rock while your baby factory wife stays at home tending your heirs. Or, in the other fantasy of the yuppie good life, the fantasizing man is the confirmed bachelor banging the skinny, bitchy blondes in his abundant spare time. Think of Bill Maher’s own view of himself or maybe Chevy Chase’s character in Caddyshack.

Taken from that point of view, the conservative dude obsession with Coulter makes perfect sense. Most wingnuts aren’t going to be That Guy—leaving the wife home to tend the baby while you go out to fuck bitchy, skinny blondes tends to be out of the reach of your average wingnut. Anyway, even if you can get away, it’s unlikely that said bitchy, skinny blondes will give you the time of day. But then there’s Coulter on the TV and she wants you to know that she loves you and thinks you’re a hot manly man and totally like the Chevy Chase character and the only thing you have to do in order to get into her good graces is vote Republican and hate liberals, those fags. Framed that way, there’s no mystery to her appeal.

Meanwhile, the Huffington Post suggests that Coulter's recent shark-jumping (which has resulted in advertisers and newspapers dumping her left, right and centre--so to speak) has wrong-footed the Republicans, exposing their homophobia as the bigotry that dare not speak its name among "respectable" conservatives. ("No, Arthur, you have us all wrong. It's not bigotry: it's 'compassion.'") Read more!