Bumpersticker seen recently

Of course it was on a brand new Audi, and of course they got it wrong. I've included my corrections:

Republican = OwnershipA few owners
Democratic = DependenceAll are owners

Somebody noticed

"First, Larry [Kudlow] and other Republican cheerleaders have a nasty habit of using whichever number looks better. This is standard operating procedure. Rule number one of Republican economic pundits. Lie your ass off and hope no one notices."

Seems Lawrence Kudlow is at it again. But everybody's on the case:

Bonddad v Powerline (x2!), Kudlow, Instapundit

A Kudlow Whopper?

Kudlow Claims BLS is Considering Adopting His Lunacy

I Don't Think That Word Means What You Think It Means

And for my 300th post

Came across this while trying to find a way to get rid of the "The device 'Generic volume' cannot be stopped right now. Please try again later."

Of course I'm still looking for a good solution, but in the meantime:

Here’s how you disable XP’s annoying automatic preview:
regsvr32 /u /s shmedia.dll
You can enable it again by taking out the ‘/u’. This has no other side-effects.

(h/t to DjLizard)

Update: In the same thread, there is discussion of unlocker. It works.

What is Enlightenment?

This link was referenced by Mahoney in the previous thread, but I wanted to highlight it here. This is the world in which our Founding Fathers grew, learned, and matured - the world that led to the creation of the United States. It is a world that those in power today, and the radical religious in this country desperately want to destroy, so they can lead a nation of sheep, unquestioning, unblinking, accepting of all that is imposed upon them. A nation of slaves, peasants, followers who dare not challenge their power.

IMMANUEL KANT: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment? (1784)

Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere Aude! [dare to know] "Have courage to use your own understanding!"--that is the motto of enlightenment.

Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so great a proportion of men, long after nature has released them from alien guidance (natura-liter maiorennes), nonetheless gladly remain in lifelong immaturity, and why it is so easy for others to establish themselves as their guardians. It is so easy to be immature. If I have a book to serve as my understanding, a pastor to serve as my conscience, a physician to determine my diet for me, and so on, I need not exert myself at all. I need not think, if only I can pay: others will readily undertake the irksome work for me. The guardians who have so benevolently taken over the supervision of men have carefully seen to it that the far greatest part of them (including the entire fair sex) regard taking the step to maturity as very dangerous, not to mention difficult. Having first made their domestic livestock dumb, and having carefully made sure that these docile creatures will not take a single step without the go-cart to which they are harnessed, these guardians then show them the danger that threatens them, should they attempt to walk alone. Now this danger is not actually so great, for after falling a few times they would in the end certainly learn to walk; but an example of this kind makes men timid and usually frightens them out of all further attempts.

Thus, it is difficult for any individual man to work himself out of the immaturity that has all but become his nature. He has even become fond of this state and for the time being is actually incapable of using his own understanding, for no one has ever allowed him to attempt it. Rules and formulas, those mechanical aids to the rational use, or rather misuse, of his natural gifts, are the shackles of a permanent immaturity. Whoever threw them off would still make only an uncertain leap over the smallest ditch, since he is unaccustomed to this kind of free movement. Consequently, only a few have succeeded, by cultivating their own minds, in freeing themselves from immaturity and pursuing a secure course.

But that the public should enlighten itself is more likely; indeed, if it is only allowed freedom, enlightenment is almost inevitable. For even among the entrenched guardians of the great masses a few will always think for themselves, a few who, after having themselves thrown off the yoke of immaturity, will spread the spirit of a rational appreciation for both their own worth and for each person's calling to think for himself. But it should be particularly noted that if a public that was first placed in this yoke by the guardians is suitably aroused by some of those who are altogether incapable of enlightenment, it may force the guardians themselves to remain under the yoke--so pernicious is it to instill prejudices, for they finally take revenge upon their originators, or on their descendants. Thus a public can only attain enlightenment slowly. Perhaps a revolution can overthrow autocratic despotism and profiteering or power-grabbing oppression, but it can never truly reform a manner of thinking; instead, new prejudices, just like the old ones they replace, will serve as a leash for the great unthinking mass.

Nothing is required for this enlightenment, however, except freedom; and the freedom in question is the least harmful of all, namely, the freedom to use reason publicly in all matters. But on all sides I hear: "Do not argue!" The officer says, "Do not argue, drill!" The tax man says, "Do not argue, pay!" The pastor says, "Do not argue, believe!" (Only one ruler in the World says, "Argue as much as you want and about what you want, but obey!") In this we have examples of pervasive restrictions on freedom. But which restriction hinders enlightenment and which does not, but instead actually advances it? I reply: The public use of one's reason must always be free, and it alone can bring about enlightenment among mankind; the private use of reason may, however, often be very narrowly restricted, without otherwise hindering the progress of enlightenment. By the public use of one's own reason I understand the use that anyone as a scholar makes of reason before the entire literate world. I call the private use of reason that which a person may make in a civic post or office that has been entrusted to him. Now in many affairs conducted in the interests of a community, a certain mechanism is required by means of which some of its members must conduct themselves in an entirely passive manner so that through an artificial unanimity the government may guide them toward public ends, or at least prevent them from destroying such ends. Here one certainly must not argue, instead one must obey. However, insofar as this part of the machine also regards himself as a member of the community as a whole, or even of the world community, and as a consequence addresses the public in the role of a scholar, in the proper sense of that term, he can most certainly argue, without thereby harming the affairs for which as a passive member he is partly responsible. Thus it would be disastrous if an officer on duty who was given a command by his superior were to question the appropriateness or utility of the order. He must obey. But as a scholar he cannot be justly constrained from making comments about errors in military service, or from placing them before the public for its judgment. The citizen cannot refuse to pay the taxes imposed on him; indeed, impertinent criticism of such levies, when they should be paid by him, can be punished as a scandal (since it can lead to widespread insubordination). But the same person does not act contrary to civic duty when, as a scholar, he publicly expresses his thoughts regarding the impropriety or even injustice of such taxes. Likewise a pastor is bound to instruct his catecumens and congregation in accordance with the symbol of the church he serves, for he was appointed on that condition. But as a scholar he has complete freedom, indeed even the calling, to impart to the public all of his carefully considered and well-intentioned thoughts concerning mistaken aspects of that symbol, as well as his suggestions for the better arrangement of religious and church matters. Nothing in this can weigh on his conscience. What he teaches in consequence of his office as a servant of the church he sets out as something with regard to which he has no discretion to teach in accord with his own lights; rather, he offers it under the direction and in the name of another. He will say, "Our church teaches this or that and these are the demonstrations it uses." He thereby extracts for his congregation all practical uses from precepts to which he would not himself subscribe with complete conviction, but whose presentation he can nonetheless undertake, since it is not entirely impossible that truth lies hidden in them, and, in any case, nothing contrary to the very nature of religion is to be found in them. If he believed he could find anything of the latter sort in them, he could not in good conscience serve in his position; he would have to resign. Thus an appointed teacher's use of his reason for the sake of his congregation is merely private, because, however large the congregation is, this use is always only domestic; in this regard, as a priest, he is not free and cannot be such because he is acting under instructions from someone else. By contrast, the cleric--as a scholar who speaks through his writings to the public as such, i.e., the world--enjoys in this public use of reason an unrestricted freedom to use his own rational capacities and to speak his own mind. For that the (spiritual) guardians of a people should themselves be immature is an absurdity that would insure the perpetuation of absurdities.

But would a society of pastors, perhaps a church assembly or venerable presbytery (as those among the Dutch call themselves), not be justified in binding itself by oath to a certain unalterable symbol in order to secure a constant guardianship over each of its members and through them over the people, and this for all time: I say that this is wholly impossible. Such a contract, whose intention is to preclude forever all further enlightenment of the human race, is absolutely null and void, even if it should be ratified by the supreme power, by parliaments, and by the most solemn peace treaties. One age cannot bind itself, and thus conspire, to place a succeeding one in a condition whereby it would be impossible for the later age to expand its knowledge (particularly where it is so very important), to rid itself of errors,and generally to increase its enlightenment. That would be a crime against human nature, whose essential destiny lies precisely in such progress; subsequent generations are thus completely justified in dismissing such agreements as unauthorized and criminal. The criterion of everything that can be agreed upon as a law by a people lies in this question: Can a people impose such a law on itself? Now it might be possible, in anticipation of a better state of affairs, to introduce a provisional order for a specific, short time, all the while giving all citizens, especially clergy, in their role as scholars, the freedom to comment publicly, i.e., in writing, on the present institution's shortcomings. The provisional order might last until insight into the nature of these matters had become so widespread and obvious that the combined (if not unanimous) voices of the populace could propose to the crown that it take under its protection those congregations that, in accord with their newly gained insight, had organized themselves under altered religious institutions, but without interfering with those wishing to allow matters to remain as before. However, it is absolutely forbidden that they unite into a religious organization that nobody may for the duration of a man's lifetime publicly question, for so do-ing would deny, render fruitless, and make detrimental to succeeding generations an era in man's progress toward improvement. A man may put off enlightenment with regard to what he ought to know, though only for a short time and for his own person; but to renounce it for himself, or, even more, for subsequent generations, is to violate and trample man's divine rights underfoot. And what a people may not decree for itself may still less be imposed on it by a monarch, for his lawgiving authority rests on his unification of the people's collective will in his own. If he only sees to it that all genuine or purported improvement is consonant with civil order, he can allow his subjects to do what they find necessary to their spiritual well-being, which is not his affair. However, he must prevent anyone from forcibly interfering with another's working as best he can to determine and promote his well-being. It detracts from his own majesty when he interferes in these matters, since the writings in which his subjects attempt to clarify their insights lend value to his conception of governance. This holds whether he acts from his own highest insight--whereby he calls upon himself the reproach, "Caesar non eat supra grammaticos."'--as well as, indeed even more, when he despoils his highest authority by supporting the spiritual despotism of some tyrants in his state over his other subjects.

If it is now asked, "Do we presently live in an enlightened age?" the answer is, "No, but we do live in an age of enlightenment." As matters now stand, a great deal is still lacking in order for men as a whole to be, or even to put themselves into a position to be able without external guidance to apply understanding confidently to religious issues. But we do have clear indications that the way is now being opened for men to proceed freely in this direction and that the obstacles to general enlightenment--to their release from their self-imposed immaturity--are gradually diminishing. In this regard, this age is the age of enlightenment, the century of Frederick.

A prince who does not find it beneath him to say that he takes it to be his duty to prescribe nothing, but rather to allow men complete freedom in religious matters--who thereby renounces the arrogant title of tolerance--is himself enlightened and deserves to be praised by a grateful present and by posterity as the first, at least where the government is concerned, to release the human race from immaturity and to leave everyone free to use his own reason in all matters of conscience. Under his rule, venerable pastors, in their role as scholars and without prejudice to their official duties, may freely and openly set out for the world's scrutiny their judgments and views, even where these occasionally differ from the accepted symbol. Still greater freedom is afforded to those who are not restricted by an official post. This spirit of freedom is expanding even where it must struggle against the external obstacles of governments that misunderstand their own function. Such governments are illuminated by the example that the existence of freedom need not give cause for the least concern regarding public order and harmony in the commonwealth. If only they refrain from inventing artifices to keep themselves in it, men will gradually raise themselves from barbarism.

I have focused on religious matters in setting out my main point concerning enlightenment, i.e., man's emergence from self-imposed immaturity, first because our rulers have no interest in assuming the role of their subjects' guardians with respect to the arts and sciences, and secondly because that form of immaturity is both the most pernicious and disgraceful of all. But the manner of thinking of a head of state who favors religious enlightenment goes even further, for he realizes that there is no danger to his legislation in allowing his subjects to use reason publicly and to set before the world their thoughts concerning better formulations of his laws, even if this involves frank criticism of legislation currently in effect. We have before us a shining example, with respect to which no monarch surpasses the one whom we honor.

But only a ruler who is himself enlightened and has no dread of shadows, yet who likewise has a well-disciplined, numerous army to guarantee public peace, can say what no republic may dare, namely: "Argue as much as you want and about what you want, but obey!" Here as elsewhere, when things are considered in broad perspective, a strange, unexpected pattern in human affairs reveals itself, one in which almost everything is paradoxical. A greater degree of civil freedom seems advantageous to a people's spiritual freedom; yet the former established impassable boundaries for the latter; conversely, a lesser degree of civil freedom provides enough room for all fully to expand their abilities. Thus, once nature has removed the hard shell from this kernel for which she has most fondly cared, namely, the inclination to and vocation for free thinking, the kernel gradually reacts on a people's mentality (whereby they become increasingly able to act freely), and it finally even influences the principles of government, which finds that it can profit by treating men, who are now more than machines, in accord with their dignity.

I. Kant
Konigsberg in Prussia, 30 September 1784

Dominionism in America

Mahoney at dailykos has an excellent ongoing series of diaries on Dominionism, and its adherents' goals for America...it ain't pretty. Some key graphs (that don't necessarily flow together, being from separate posts):

Deconstructing the Dominionists, Part I
Deconstructing the Dominionists, Part II
Deconstructing the Dominionists, Part III

Deconstructing the Dominionists, Part I

[...]
Rousas John Rushdoony, generally considered the father of "Christian Reconstructionism" (a type of Dominionism), published The Institutes of Biblical Law in 1973, in which he argued for the application of biblical laws to modern society, i.e., a theocracy. Chip Berlet at Talk to Action describes Dominionism as follows:

Open advocates of dominionism declare that "America is a Christian Nation," and that therefore Christians have a God-given mandate to re-assert Christian control over political, social, and cultural institutions. Yet many dominionists stop short of staking out a position that could be called theocratic. This is the "soft" version of dominionism.

The "hard" version of dominionism is explicitly theocratic or "theonomic," as the Christian Reconstructionists prefer to be called. For America, it is a distinction without a difference.

[...]

The split between conservative and liberal Protestant Christians can be traced to the earliest days of the European Enlightenment. The introduction of the historical-critical method into the academic study of the Bible quickly sparked a raging controversy in European theology departments. Conservative theologians rejected the historical-critical method as an illegitimate intrusion of a secular science into the sacred realm. Liberal theologians welcomed the new method as a valuable tool for better understanding the texts of the Bible in a modern world. Conservative theologians clung to various doctrines of inspiration, maintaining that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, literally true in its individual parts and as a whole. Historical criticism called that claim into question, and theologians who employed the historical-critical method discovered many factual errors and discrepancies between the various books of the Bible (consider the example of the Beatitudes, which Jesus delivers on a mountain in Matthew and on a plain in Luke), as well as clear evidence of multiple sources, editors, and revisions within the biblical texts themselves (this from the sub-disciplines of historical criticism known as source, form, and redaction criticism).

[...]

For these conservative Protestants, the Bible was the only authority in all matters of faith and life, and its directives were unambiguous. It was simply a matter of assent to this authority and application of biblical principles in one's life. Liberal Protestants, on the other hand, sought to learn from the sciences, philology, philosophy, and many other academic disciplines, as well as developing what they called a "canon within the canon" of the Bible. In other words, not all parts of the Bible were considered equal. Martin Luther, the 16th-century Reformer, already used this type of critical thinking in his use of the Bible, arguing that what is essential in the Bible is was Christum treibt - "whatever preaches Christ." Everything in the Bible must be weighed against its proclamation of God's gracious love in Christ. Those passages that correspond to what Luther called "the gospel" are given more weight than those passages that do not. The conservatives, on the other hand, considered every word of the Bible to be just as important and essential as the next - there was and could be no distinctions, because every word is the literal Word of God. Furthermore, any attempt to apply critical methods to the Bible was seen as tantamount to a rejection of God.

[...]

One feature of the modern conservative resurgence that is of special concern to us here is the insistence on the Christian roots of the United States. The belief that the United States is a "Christian nation" lies at the root of many of the positions taken by the Dominionists in particular over the last several years. And this booklet, America, Return to God, is a good representation of this type of thinking.

[more]

Deconstructing the Dominionists, Part II

[...]

America, Return to God is an example of a conservative use of Scripture, in which there is no distinction between the Old Testament and the New Testament as sources for Christian theology, and in which every word and phrase is understood to be the literal, inspired Word of God. It is also an example of a particular reading of American history: the Founders clearly intended for the United States to be a "Christian Nation," regularly calling upon God in public prayer, referring to God in speeches and inaugural addresses, and favoring Christian morality as the bedrock of American civilization. We must remember these two basic perspectives on the Bible and American history as we work our way through the essays to follow.

[...]

The religious freedom granted in many of the American colonies was a natural corollary to the application of Enlightenment principles in the political realm. There is no need here to rehearse the Enlightenment roots of the American political system. We are well aware of this history. But Black suggests that it is the Left that is sowing the seeds of Enlightenment rebellion and threatening to destroy American civilization, never pausing to remember that it is the Enlightenment tradition itself that gave us our system of government in the first place. Black provides the standard list of areas in which American is being destroyed by secularism: morality, culture, justice, education, sexuality and the family, democracy, etc., all of which he attributes to the triumph of secular, Enlightenment principles:

The mindset of the sixties is still with us, as values and beliefs that were once cherished in this nation are being discredited by the left.

[Snip]

Obviously, a large number of Americans still cherish our Christian heritage, and faith is still strong in many places. But for a growing number, the enlightenment view of reality has become their accepted worldview. For them, moral consensus no longer depends on Christian truths, but on secular values. (Black, 30)

Emphasis in original

In this forum we have discussed the relationship between religion and morality ad nauseam. Is religion a prerequisite for morality? My answer to this question is a resounding "No." "Morality" in its most basic sense refers to a code of conduct. "Religion" in its most basic sense refers to a way of understanding the world and one's place in it, with particular reference to an Other. In terms of these definitions, then, religion is a much broader category than morality. Most religions encourage morality, but not all morality is necessarily religious. In other words, it is possible to be moral without being religious. Consider the case of the "Golden Rule," a particular moral command that, with slight variations, transcends cultural boundaries: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." There is nothing inherently religious about the Golden Rule, and one need not be religious to follow it. There are many more examples, but this one should suffice to demonstrate my contention that religion is not a prerequisite for morality.

This does not even begin to address Black's more specific claim that morality is limited to Christianity. According to his view, one must first believe in Jesus Christ in order to be a moral person. Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Unitarians, Wiccans, Animists, Secular Humanists, Agnostics, Atheists and a host of others in this view are inherently incapable of morality because they do not believe in Jesus Christ. According to this belief, then, some of the great moral figures of history - one need only think of Gandhi - were in fact immoral because they were not Christian. Clearly this is a position to be rejected.

Finally, Black addresses what he considers to be the failure of the Enlightenment:

The secular humanism that was supposed to liberate mankind from his enslavement to the past has bred not liberty, but atheism wedded with hedonism, which has resulted in a chronicle of devastated lives that boggles the mind.

[Snip]

In general, the left does not care about women, independent judiciaries, minorities, democracy, gays or almost anything else for which it marches. That is why the left opposed the war in Afghanistan, which liberated women from being treated like animals. Nearly all the causes the left speaks for are noble-sounding covers for its real agenda - the overthrowing of Western, especially Judeo-Christian and capitalist, values. (Black, 35)

Second paragraph attributed, without citation, to Dennis Prager.

[more]

At this point I can only say go read the remainder, because the analysis and history is too good and too much to pull out segments. And also, if there is a better example of projection than that second paragraph, I have yet to see it. Amazing.

Deconstructing the Dominionists, Part III

[...]

In this short installment we will explore an essay by the editor, Thomas Wang (dubbed

"The Chinese Billy Graham"), entitled "The Neo-Pagan Drift."

Unfortunately, Wang never defines what he means by "neo-paganism," preferring to allow the term to speak for itself. As we work through this short essay, we will soon see, however, that by "neo-paganism" Wang simply means any philosophy or ideology that is not explicitly rooted in conservative Protestant Christianity:

In America today, a gigantic force is advancing swiftly and cunningly among every walk of life (including some Christian churches). We call this devastating impetus the Neo-Pagan Drift.

If there be a day that America should decline and fall, it would not be due to enemy missiles or nuclear attack from the outside, but because of this neo-pagan drift from within America herself! (Wang, 56)

This "neo-pagan drift" is the reason for all of America's ills, as Wang repeatedly laments that America could again be great if only it would

go through a nation-wide self-examination, under the search light of the Spirit of God on her national purpose, integrity and allegiance to Jesus Christ. (Wang, 56)

It has been said here many times, and, sadly, it must be said again: America IS NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN a Christian nation. The fact that a majority of Americans may self-identify as Christian does not make America a Christian nation. Any such claim is expressly forbidden by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. America owes no allegiance to Jesus Christ. America owes allegiance only to its own Constitution, to the rule of law, and to the protection of the right of every citizen to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[...]

What is most alarming in this collection of truly alarming statements by Wang is his claim that the Constitution must be subordinated to what he calls the "Constitution of God which governs the whole universe." (I can only surmise that he means the Bible here - I've been studying theology for almost 10 years and I've never heard of "God's Constitution.")

Let us be reminded that high above the Constitution of the United States is the CONSTITUTION of God which governs the whole universe! Dare we tamper with it! If prayer and Bible reading in our public schools are "unconstitutional," then our Constitution is unconstitutional under the Sovereign God! (Wang, 57)

Here we arrive at the true agenda of the Dominionists. First they attempt to demonstrate a relationship between what they consider to be an unprecedented decline in American morality and the "de-Christianization" of America. Next, they attempt to rewrite the history of the United States to emphasize its "Christian" character and issue a call for renewal. Finally, they call for theocracy. If the Constitution is shown to be "unbiblical" and incompatible with extreme conservative Protestant Christianity, then American constitutional democracy must be abolished and replaced with biblical law.

Wang finally turns to public education as the prime example of America's decline:

Higher education today serves only to build up an apology for atheism. Christian young people today continually confront human theories against the Bible; Darwin's Evolution or God's Creation? We are not leading our young people to God through our current educational system.

[Snip]

Our educational system should be operated on a God-honoring basis. The knowledge and faith in God should be taught to our students starting from kindergarten. (Wang, 57)

This is the true intention of the Dominionists: replace the secular with the religious in every sphere of public life, including public education. If the Establishment Clause forbids "leading our young people to God" through the public school curriculum, then the Establishment Clause should be overturned.

The Dominionists are not content to limit religious education to the home and the church; it must be the priority of the public schools as well. Never mind that there are adherents of other religious traditions also attending public schools. If they do not confess Jesus Christ as their personal lord and savior, they must be converted. Never mind that the purpose of public education is to prepare citizens for life in the secular democracy that is the United States. If American doesn't soon "return to God," it will be destroyed.

Again, these Dominionist positions are rooted in the claim for Christian absolutism and exclusivity. (I hasten to add here that not all Christian absolutists are Dominionists. But all Dominionists are Christian absolutists.) According to this way of thinking, Christianity is the sole "true" religion, and therefore all other religions are "false" and, by extension, manifestations of evil or, as Wang puts it, "neo-paganism." Dominionists are not interested in religious pluralism of any type, nor are they interested in dialogue with other religious traditions or peaceful co-habitation. They are interested in conversion and in a Christian government with free license to evangelize its citizens with public funds and public means.

[...]

That's why the radical right can't stand universities - they teach people critical thinking and how to get beyond the frames of religion. How dare anyone question the authority of God. Therefore, religion (specifically this brand of Christianity) must get 'em young and indoctrinate them into the cult of Christianity. Can't have the rubes actually learning of other ways to worship (or not worship).

Way to avoid stealing BW when linking to pics

h/t to benburch over at DU...

This works for most pictures.

Say you have a picture you want to use in a posting;

http://foobar.com/JulieNewmar.jpg

Now, if you just link it to your DU posting, you immediately start stealing bandwidth from foobar.com.

This is simply not a nice thing to do as some websites pay for every byte they transfer.

If you change that URL a little;

http://foobar.com.nyud.net:8090/JulieNewmar.jpg
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It then uses a free public caching service from www.coralcdn.org. It gets fetched ONCE from foobar.com, and they are not made bankrupt as each of DU's horny guys look at your Catwoman picture.

It helps to preview the posting before you hit post as this gets the caching service to do the initial fetch of the picture, which can be slow, before your posting appears to the public. Sometimes you need to wait a few minutes and re-preview it before everything will appear as it should, and some web servers will not play ball with the cache, and this is how you weed those out.

ENJOY!