So much for James Randi

[The Laughing Man]

In his latest "commentary"/rant, James Randi took issue with the Alabama Ten Commandments monument and, of course, continued to bizarrely froth at the mouth about religion and "credophiles." I was compelled to email him about it:

From your recent commentary/rant against religion:

"...in what way does the state acknowledging God, not violate separation of church and state?" (Question from a reader, which you agreed with.)

Had you actually done a little research, you'd have discovered that "the state" acknowledging God is not new, rare or a violation of the First Amendment. (At least, not a violation according to the sensible, traditional standards that this country held up until the mid 1900s.) Almost every state constitution begins with an acknowledgment of God! More often than not, it's even "Almighty God" than just simply "God." Wouldn't that mean that all those constitutions are in violation of the modern misinterpretation of the First Amendment? Perhaps Michael Newdow, the ACLU, Barry Lynn's Americans United, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation can fight to get them declared "unconstitutional" by some whack-job federal appeals court whose standard off-the-wall decisions are nearly always overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Perhaps those states, with their constitutions declared "unconstitutional," should go back to British law. That'd be fun, wouldn't it? (Incidentally, the "defense" that the preambles to state constitutions have no "force of law" is meaningless. While it is true that they are not laws themselves, they still show the basis on which the constitutional laws are based.)

But I digress...

The author of the phrase "separation of church and state," Thomas Jefferson, would no doubt be appalled by how his words have been misused in this day and age. Remember (or, if you didn't know before, learn) that Jefferson attended Christian worship services within Congress shortly after he penned that phrase. Not only that, but he also allowed Christian worship services to be held in other government buildings. Doesn't sound much like someone who would agree with you and other hyper-separationists and your "separation of church and state" mantra, unless, of course, you want to call Jefferson a liar and/or a hypocrite (and a "credophile" for believing - albeit somewhat differently - in God in the first place).

Furthermore, countless national monuments and other sites in Washington, D.C., and the rest of the country have acknowledgments of God. Do we now move the Washington Memorial because the capstone is engraved with an acknowledgement (in Latin) of God? (I wonder if there are any closets in Washington, D.C., big enough to hide it from offended misotheist eyes.)

How about the U.S. Supreme Court itself? You do know that they begin every session by acknowledging God, don't you? "God save the United States and this honorable Court." Perhaps the Court should be declared unconstitutional, too. (Actually, I seem to recall that super-atheist Michael Newdow might try that tactic before the Court.)

I'm NOT sorry to tell you this, but your position on "separation of church and state" is built on nothing more than sinking sand. The facts are against you, as are the majority of people in this country who disagreed with the decision to remove the Alabama Ten Commandments monument. The history of this country is based on the freedom to acknowledge God, not rampant, look-down-your-nose-with-extreme-contempt-at-believers-whom-you-derogatorily-call-"credophiles", hyper-separationist secularizing.

I used to like your website and commentaries, but in light of your recent and bizarre obsession with trying to prove to everyone how big the chip on your shoulder against religion is, I find that I can no longer enjoy them. I also won't be refering anyone to your website anymore and will urge others to follow my lead.

Finally, a bit of advice: if you wish to criticize the Bible further in the future, try cracking one open and reading it first. Your blatantly obvious lack of knowledge about the simplest of subjects (e.g. how many children Adam and Eve had - clue: it was more than 2) betrays your ignorance and hypocritical stance on the value of research. A Sunday School student could have easily bested your knowledge of it. Perhaps in taking the time to read and research the Bible with an open mind, you might discover that it's not so bad. Who knows? You might even become a dreaded "credophile" yourself.

Here was his bizarre and extremely disappointing response:

You may be right. But then, Richard Nixon may be alive and well and living in Argentina with Martin Bormann.... I regret that the truth so offends you and evokes such fear and resentment. If you're right, then you needn't worry, right? Then why are you so terrified?

And my counter response:

Oh, I assure you that I _am_ right and that I am not motivated by offense, fear, resentment and/or terror. The same cannot be said about you and many others, however. Why get in such a panic over a monument (which is not a law that people are being forced to follow) that is little different from monuments that have been around for decade upon decade? Why irrationally compare Chief Justice Moore to racists of the 1960s? Why not take the time to actually read, research and learn about something you are criticizing? Why invent and continually use obviously derogatory terms like "credophile?"

Why, if not for the reasons you are projecting onto me?

:shrug:

[chsalvia]

Jinx:

As a skeptic I'm inclined to sympathize with certain aspects of James Randi's attitude towards religion. However, I find it somewhat obnoxious of him to have replied to your e-mail with a brief taunt bereft of any real polemical value. He could have at least acknowledged your arguments.

But I suppose he receives tons of e-mail, and doesn't have much time to respond to all of them in-depth.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
That was a good email, Jinx.

I couldn't fail to notice that the point you made about his lack of Biblical knowledge was the exact point I conceded was the best and only strongly supported criticism you had. You seem to have agreed with me that it was your best criticism.

I wish he admitted his error on that point. I guess you should be grateful he replied at all.

John Powell

[Minnesota]

You ACTUALLY wrote that to James Randi!?!? WOW! I bet he was grinning from ear to ear when he read that, just as much as I was. Got to say though, the man was being extremely polite to you, although I'm sure he's had more practice in responding to such tripe than he would care to remember. Think he sits at home just praying all the joe-schmoes in the country will let him know what they think? I'm sure he's all a-tingle when he goes to the mail box, pulls out ten or eleven letters written in crayon, and sees who doesn't agrees with him. I bet he slept with your letter under his pillow.

Your little girl is a cutie, though. I'll give you that.

[BeHereNow]

Minnesota:

Your little girl is a cutie, though. I'll give you that.

Huh?

[The Laughing Man]

Well, Minnesota, if you can respond to the points I made, go right ahead. Randi didn't, which actually surprised me, but I guess it ultimately makes sense.

[Minnesota]

BeHereNow,

Huh?

SEE HERE (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=203435#post203435)

[Vorkosigan]

Why invent and continually use obviously derogatory terms like "credophile?"

For the same reason you invent and use obviously derogatory terms like "misotheist."

Vorkosigan

[The Laughing Man]

Why invent and continually use obviously derogatory terms like "credophile?"

For the same reason you invent and use obviously derogatory terms like "misotheist."

:lol: Oh... So close and yet so far. Should I clue him in on why I chose to use that word or just let him stew in his own juices? Choices, choices.

Alright, I feel like being nice tonight.

I chose to use "misotheist" because I had the suspicion that someone (Randi or another) would object to its use. Someone did, so here you go:

misotheism

\Mis"o*the`ism\, n. [Gr. ? to hate + ? god.] Hatred of God. --De Quincey. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=misotheism)

Now, what was that about inventing derogatory words, Vork? :hilar:

[chickenman]

I used to like your website and commentaries, but in light of your recent and bizarre obsession with trying to prove to everyone how big the chip on your shoulder against religion is, I find that I can no longer enjoy them. I also won't be refering anyone to your website anymore and will urge others to follow my lead.

haha, I liked that bit.

[AtheistArchon]

- *shrug*

- Either you apply your skeptical standards across the board, or you pick and choose. Clearly you prefer to pick and choose.

- As for the ten commandments argument, it seems it's a dead issue anyway, reason has prevailed in Alabama for the time being. I have no doubt your fellow theocrats there will try some other silliness to try and project their beliefs into our government, but we'll just have to deal with those fires as they're started.

[The Laughing Man]

BTW, Minnesota, if you wish to insult me, I would not-so-kindly ask you to leave my daughter out of it. That was low, even for you. Or maybe it wasn't. In either case, don't do it again.

[The Laughing Man]

Today @ 12:39 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=205045#post205045)
AtheistArchon:

- *shrug*

- Either you apply your skeptical standards across the board, or you pick and choose. Clearly you prefer to pick and choose.

Whatever that means. There's a difference between asking questions about things and automatically disbelieving in something just because you don't like it. The former is open-minded while the latter is not. Guess which one most skeptics fall under. (Hint: steel trap.)

- As for the ten commandments argument, it seems it's a dead issue anyway,

Not really, as there are a couple of options still open. Also, consider other Ten Commandments displays that have been ruled constitutional (as in Pennsylvania).

reason has prevailed in Alabama for the time being.

:hilar: It's all the more funny because you are being dead serious.

I have no doubt your fellow theocrats

:ahem: Keep beating that dead horse, AA.

there will try some other silliness to try and project their beliefs into our government,

You mean like how the Founding Fathers did?

but we'll just have to deal with those fires as they're started.

Sorry, my friend, but you are trying to put out a forest fire with a squirt gun.

[The Laughing Man]

So anyway, here's Randi's response (apparently final) to my last email:

Point-by-point:
>Oh, I assure you that I _am_ right and that I am not motivated
by offense, fear, resentment and/or terror.<
Well, something gets you riled up, obviously....
>The same cannot be said about you and many others, however.<
Very true.
>Why get in such a panic over a monument (which is not a law that people
are being forced to follow) that is little different from monuments that
have been around for decade upon decade?<
No panic, I assure you. I'm amused, irritated, and shocked that a Chief
Justice can ignore the order of the Supreme Court. Sound like a good
reason?
>Why irrationally compare Chief Justice Moore to racists of the 1960s?<
I've not done that, and can see no reason for such a comparison.
>Why not take the time to actually read, research and learn about something
you
are criticizing?<
Oh, I have done so. It was summarized last week. Had you been less carried
away with your own righteousness, you might have read it.
>Why invent and continually use obviously derogatory terms like
"credophile?"<
Wrong. That term originated with author L. Sprague de Camp. I'm surprised
that you find it derogatory.
>Why, if not for the reasons you are projecting onto me?<
Jason, just stand out of the way and the fancied "projection" will pass you
by.
I now have no further time for you.

Aw, I'm hurt by that last line. :violin: At least he was kind enough to admit that he and his ilk are motivated by offense, fear, resentment and/or terror. :hehe: In the long run, though, his response amounts to very little. He's just a typical blow-hard skeptic - all bluster and no substance.

:wedgie:

[John Powell]

POWELL:
I found Randi's reply to be more substantive than Jinx seems to think.

JINX72:
Oh, I assure you that I _am_ right and that I am not motivated by offense, fear, resentment and/or terror.

RANDI:
Well, something gets you riled up, obviously....


POWELL:
Is Randi correct, Jinx?

JINX72:
The same cannot be said about you and many others, however.

RANDI:
Very true.


POWELL:
Randi seems willing to concede that he is motivated by offense, fear, resentment and/or terror. Do you really deny that such things motivate you at all?

JINX:
Why get in such a panic over a monument (which is not a law that people are being forced to follow) that is little different from monuments that have been around for decade upon decade?

RANDI:
No panic, I assure you. I'm amused, irritated, and shocked that a Chief Justice can ignore the order of the Supreme Court. Sound like a good reason?


POWELL:
Does Randi's reason seem to be a good one to support the removal?

JINX72:
Why irrationally compare Chief Justice Moore to racists of the 1960s?

RANDI:
I've not done that, and can see no reason for such a comparison.


POWELL:
Can you point to where Randi compared Chief Justice Moore to racists of the 1960s in an irrational way or at all?

JINX72:
Why not take the time to actually read, research and learn about something you are criticizing?

RANDI:
Oh, I have done so. It was summarized last week. Had you been less carried away with your own righteousness, you might have read it.


POWELL:
Have you read it, Jinx? I haven't. If you do and send another email, maybe Randi will respond again.

JINX72:
Why invent and continually use obviously derogatory terms like "credophile?"

RANDI:
Wrong. That term originated with author L. Sprague de Camp. I'm surprised that you find it derogatory.


POWELL:
Who invented the term "credophile"? I don't understand why Randi would be surprised, however. Maybe he's being facetious.

JINX72:
Why, if not for the reasons you are projecting onto me?

RANDI:
Jason, just stand out of the way and the fancied "projection" will pass you by.

I now have no further time for you.


POWELL:
This does not necessarily mean he won't have time for you later, especially if you find he was right and you were wrong on something and you admit to that.

John Powel

[Minnesota]

Jinx
BTW, Minnesota, if you wish to insult me, I would not-so-kindly ask you to leave my daughter out of it. That was low, even for you. Or maybe it wasn't. In either case, don't do it again.

My sincere apologies, Jinx. My mention of your daughter was in no way related to what you had posted. It came as an innocent reflection on the picture you posted. But believe me, I will never mention her again. However, if I may suggest, you might want to readjust your perspective a bit, and not be so quick to jump to conclusions. It would Save us both this unnecessary type of dialog.

[The Laughing Man]

Yesterday @ 08:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=206307#post206307)
John Powell:

POWELL:
I found Randi's reply to be more substantive than Jinx seems to think.

Or than they actually were. :shrug:

POWELL:
Is Randi correct, Jinx?

No.

POWELL:
Randi seems willing to concede that he is motivated by offense, fear, resentment and/or terror.

Which is hypocritical to admit after he took me to task for supposedly being motivated by those things.

Do you really deny that such things motivate you at all?

Sure, things offend me sometimes, but the other three are just dead wrong. I have no reason to fear, resent or be terrified by anything. As far as the Ten Commandments monument is concerned, I am far more offended by the absurd, ignorant and hypocritical reasons for its removal than by the removal itself.

POWELL:
Does Randi's reason seem to be a good one to support the removal?

No. In fact, Randi is once again wrong about the facts. He claims that Chief Justice Moore ignored the order of the Supreme Court. There was no order by the Supreme Court on this case.

POWELL:
Can you point to where Randi compared Chief Justice Moore to racists of the 1960s in an irrational way or at all?

I wasn't pointing out that Randi himself made that comparison, but it was a comparison made by those on his side of the issue (and I'm sure he supports the comparison).

POWELL:
Have you read it, Jinx?

I've read all his ignorant babblings about "religion" (read: Christianity) since his big rant a few weeks ago.

I haven't. If you do and send another email, maybe Randi will respond again.

No. He has "no further time" for me. Obviously, intelligent, reasoned discourse isn't what he is looking for. No, he only wants to concentrate on emails that portray Christianity in a negative light - like the email he reproduced in another recent rant. You know the emails where the author doesn't have very good typing skills and sloppy grammar. What better way to portray the "ignorant, uneducated, backwards masses of Christianity?" I doubt that my emails will make any appearances on his website, but maybe he'll surprise me.

POWELL:
Who invented the term &quot;credophile&quot;?

Supposedly the person he mentioned, but I haven't been able to verify that yet.

I don't understand why Randi would be surprised, however. Maybe he's being facetious.

Or maybe he's lying through his teeth.

POWELL:
This does not necessarily mean he won't have time for you later, especially if you find he was right and you were wrong on something and you admit to that.

Of course. :ahem: But as long as I'm right and he's wrong, then he doesn't have time for me anymore. :hehe:

[johnransom]

Today @ 12:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=206485#post206485)
Jinx72:
Supposedly the person he mentioned, but I haven't been able to verify that yet.
I did a quick check and it looks like this is the case. De Camp was, BTW, a sci-fi author, and therefore highly likely to have been a skeptic. A credophile is defined, AFAICT from a German website (the only one I could find with the attribution), as a person with a strong predisposition towards belief, such a predisposition being viewed as worse than simple naivete. Thus Randi's "surprise" at your offense is disingenuous to say the least.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
I think JINX should send another email (if he's still interested).

I suggest that Jinx admit to errors that he committed and point out errors in what Randi wrote.

Of course, Jinx will do whatever he thinks is best.

John Powell

[Warcraft3]

Jinx wrote:
BTW, Minnesota, if you wish to insult me, I would not-so-kindly ask you to leave my daughter out of it. That was low, even for you. Or maybe it wasn't. In either case, don't do it again.

And Minnesota responded:
My sincere apologies, Jinx. My mention of your daughter was in no way related to what you had posted. It came as an innocent reflection on the picture you posted. But believe me, I will never mention her again. However, if I may suggest, you might want to readjust your perspective a bit, and not be so quick to jump to conclusions. It would Save us both this unnecessary type of dialog.

Here is the original post by Minnesota:
09-06-2003 @ 09:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=204828#post204828)
Minnesota:

You ACTUALLY wrote that to James Randi!?!? WOW! I bet he was grinning from ear to ear when he read that, just as much as I was. Got to say though, the man was being extremely polite to you, although I'm sure he's had more practice in responding to such tripe than he would care to remember. Think he sits at home just praying all the joe-schmoes in the country will let him know what they think? I'm sure he's all a-tingle when he goes to the mail box, pulls out ten or eleven letters written in crayon, and sees who doesn't agrees with him. I bet he slept with your letter under his pillow.

Your little girl is a cutie, though. I'll give you that.



Now despite the fact that both Jinx and Minnesota feel rather strongly about their position and sometimes engage in bickering with one another, I actually enjoy reading their posts. With that said......

I do think you are wrong here Jinx. I really dont think Minnesota was trying to be insulting, in fact I think he was complimenting you on your daughter.

I would say you owe Minn an apology for misunderstanding his intention.

We all have different viewpoints and perspectives here that often divide us on very important issues, but we are all still human beings with hopes, fears, dreams, jobs, friends, and family. Surely there is some common ground we can find as people. So I think we all need to cool down a little bit and not be quite so defensive and suspicious of those who are on the other side of the fence.




Russ

[Passant]

I do think you are wrong here Jinx. I really dont think Minnesota was trying to be insulting, in fact I think he was complimenting you on your daughter.

I would say you owe Minn an apology for misunderstanding his intention.

Really. I thought Jinx seemed really paranoid with his respone.

[Socrates]

09-07-2003 @ 02:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=204923#post204923)
Jinx72, replying to the misotheist Vork:

For the same reason you invent and use obviously derogatory terms like &quot;misotheist.&quot;

I chose to use &quot;misotheist&quot; because I had the suspicion that someone (Randi or another) would object to its use. Someone did, so here you go:

misotheism

\Mis&quot;o*the`ism\, n. [Gr. ? to hate + ? god.] Hatred of God. --De Quincey. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=misotheism)

Now, what was that about inventing derogatory words, Vork? :hilar:

:metro: Blast, I thought I was the inventor of that word :argh: