Katherine Kersten's first trip to the drink . . .

The Star Tribune began running Katherine Kersten's column last Thursday (May 26th); you can find it on page B1. Kersten is likely to get continuing trips to The Cucking Stool, since she was principally in mind when Spotty conceived the whole cucking stool/common scold metaphor. This post is actually from the initial post on a blog that turned out to be the first draft.

Kersten earns a dunking for her first column.

Right out of the box, Kersten criticizes Archbishop Harry Flynn, a guy who makes about $24,000 a year plus room and board, for suggesting that the governor and the rest of the Republicans who took the No New Taxes Ever, I Really Mean It, Cross My Heart and Hope to Die pledge ought to rethink their position. She goes on to say that all these layabouts we have in Minnesota really need a bracing dose of privation to become Better People.

Spotty really wonders who has put more energy into thinking about the poor, Harry Flynn who has been a Catholic clergyman all of his adult life, or Katherine Kersten who, according to an introducing article by a Star Tribune editor, can't seem to do that same thing for three years in a row.

In her column, Kersten says she is a Catholic, but she would make a heckuva Calvinist.

After setting us all straight on the immorality of taxes (someday Kersten will get Spotty's essay on the difference between morality and mere moralism, but that's for another day), she goes on to spout some numbers, and even make mere references to numbers, to support her position. In doing so, Kersten reveals to us why she is a writer, not an accountant, economist, or statistician.

She makes several references to the recently raptured Ronald Reagan and attributes many Miracles to Him. Of course, she makes no references to her sources, but then I suppose politics are a matter of faith for some. If there are sources, they are probably the right wing basket weavers at the Heritage Foundation (whose spawn did such a good job in bringing the Iraqi economy around) or the American Enterprise Institute.

Kersten was also apparently absent the day that causation and proof of it were discussed in law school.

Kersten's references to luxury boat taxes, West Virginia, western Europe, New York City, and Minnesota in the same breath are laughable. Spot is a little busy, so rather than taking her on directly, he suggests that you read these posts from his companion blog:

Yapping little dogs . . .

Oh and another thing . . .

Wow that saved spotty some work . . .

You really would think . . .

You will see from these posts and the statistics referred to in them (don't forget to follow the link to MN Politics in one of the posts), that Minnesota does quite well in national income and job growth. Spotty says this is not in spite of taxes in Minnesota, but in part because of them.

Spot also recommeds this blogger's take on the Kersten debut.

Retired clergy win a Spotty!

A Spotty is awarded for this Commentary in last Saturday's Star Tribune.

As retired United Methodist clergy, we are extremely disturbed by the comments of columnist Katherine Kersten about our church ("Methodists' focus on activism may be clearing out pews," June 5). They distort facts and disparage the work of our faith communities.

United Methodists continue to converse on the issues discussed at our recent annual conference. Human sexuality is not an issue of "church leadership vs. the pew." The 1,000 lay and clergy voters at the conference session represented every United Methodist congregation in Minnesota.

Regarding human sexuality, our church's Social Principles state, "sexuality is God's good gift to all persons ... . we call all persons to the disciplined, responsible fulfillment of themselves, others, and society in the stewardship of this gift ... . we recognize that God challenges us to find responsible, committed, and loving forms of expression."

We ask: So why did Katherine Kersten write inflammatory commentaries regarding conversations about which she was not even a part? Why did she make inaccurate and misleading comments about our church and its leaders?

Kersten has long been listed on its website as an advisory board member of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, a right-wing political action group that has been working for the last 25 years to discredit the social witness of three mainline denominations -- the United Methodist, Presbyterian and Episcopal churches.

Its reports on our sermons and meetings seem designed to encourage division in our congregations. The IRD is funded by far-right political foundations and persons such as Richard Scaife and Adolph Coors.

In other words, Kersten not only has strong personal biases behind what she says in her columns, but she has been closely aligned with a political action group with an agenda contrary to the social teachings of mainline churches.

Kersten's role as columnist should not give her license to take statements out of context and recklessly wage conflict against mainline Protestant denominations. If her calling is to pursue the truth, it is imperative that she disclose her ties, past and present, to right-wing organizations such as the IRD.

We are not a fundamentalist church. We do not seek to impose our will on one another or on those who are not part of our community. We dare to look for the presence of God in every person we meet; indeed, we embrace the diversity of God's creation.

Our communion table is open to all persons "who wish to live a new life, following in the ways of the Lord Jesus Christ."

That may open us to the scorn and ridicule of Katherine Kersten. So be it! Persons of faith have been scorned before. We do not apologize for daring to address the many critical issues of our day.

John Soderberg, Eagan; Jeanne Audrey Powers, Minneapolis; Lyle Christianson, Golden Valley, and Betty Lundeen, New Brighton, are retired UMC clergy.

Amen, brothers and sisters! The insightful Media Transparency also comments on Kersten's buffoonery:

Last year the Mpls Star Tribune hired a director and fellow of the Center of the American Experiment (CAE), a Twin Cities Republican propaganda outfit, as a general news columnist, after she was fired from the paper's op-ed page, even though she had zero experience as a journalist. Kersten was hired as a columnist after a former head of the Minnesota Republican Party who was CEO of a local bank threatened and then removed his bank's ads from the newspaper, this after another columnist criticized him.

 

Now, in typical Kersten fashion, she has smeared the United Methodist Church with attacks in concert with the unethical and nasty Institute on Religion and Democracy, where she sits on the advisory board.

 

Also, the prime contention of Kersten in her column on the United Methodists was that they are losing members because of their social witness beliefs, which is a lie. Proven social science research has shown the UMC's declining membership is due to a lower birth rate, which Kersten either deliberately ignored or didn't take the time to research.

Spot has already commented on this in Katie bashes religion.

 

Remember, boys and girls, a Spotty is awarded to someone who publishes a letter to the editor, commentary, blog post, or blog post comment that Spot wishes that he had made.

Powered By Qumana

A demagogue will have no honor, and a Spotty

After a long dry spell, there have been a spate of Spotty™ award winners of late. Here's another one from one of Spot's favorite categories, the "Why Katherine Kersten is an Ignorant Bigot" division. This "Commentary" was in the Star Tribune on July 24, authored by Khalid Elmasry:

It seems that I always finish reading a Katherine Kersten column by laughing at the fact that she's missing the point. Her July 12 column about Rep. Keith Ellison's speech to a group of atheists in Minnesota was no different.

Kersten doesn't seem to understand Ellison's point about the aftermath of 9/11 and its similarities to the aftermath of the Reichstag fire. However, I've grown accustomed to the predictable behavior in her writing, and Ellison can defend himself.

Rather, it's the opening paragraph in the column with which I take issue. Kersten quotes Ellison as stating, "You'll always find this Muslim standing up for your right to be atheists all you want." She follows this quote with her own parenthetical comment, "You might want to check the Qur'an on that, Rep. Ellison."

The implication, of course, is that Kersten has checked the Qur'an and found something to contradict Ellison's claim for tolerance of non-Islamic beliefs. Not surprisingly, she is wrong.

The Qur'an is clear that "there is no compulsion in religion." There are countless more verses instructing Muslims to respect others' beliefs. One such verse states, "Oh Prophet! Exhort them, your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe."

Critics of Islam often mistakenly refer to a Qur'anic verse out of context, which would suggest harshness by Muslims towards non-Muslims.

In fact, when I called Kersten's editor to point out her error, he said his understanding was that the Qur'an "deals pretty harshly" with unbelievers. While I was taken aback, I almost couldn't blame him, since this myth is commonly perpetrated by the likes of Kersten. The truth is that any verse in the Qur'an that speaks "harshly" of non-Muslims by encouraging Muslims to fight them is always in the context of self-defense. Furthermore, this is always a means of last resort, when it becomes a matter of survival.

The critics who quote a verse about Muslims being encouraged to fight non-Muslims fail to mention that the non-Muslims are trying to kill the Muslims. They also fail to mention that these verses are followed by verses such as, "If one among the non-believers ask thee for asylum, grant it to him so that he may hear the word of God; and then escort him to where he can be secure." This is with the understanding that those who do not want to hear the word of God have the right to believe as they choose. Thus, Ellison was simply practicing what he has learned as a Muslim by standing up for his audience's right to be atheists, while Kersten chose to question him in her own misguided way.

One of my favorite verses in the Qur'an perfectly captures what Ellison was saying about respecting and embracing people's differences: "We have created you out of a male and a female, and have made you into nations and tribes so that you might come to know one another." While I have the feeling Kersten might miss the point of this verse as well, I'm no longer laughing.

Khalid Elmasry, St. Paul, is a media commentator on Muslim issues and a retired businessman.

Elmasry also managed to bloody Doug Tice's nose in the air as well! Well done, Mr. Elmasry. Spot has talked about Katie's column and Doug Tice's reaction to it.

This all puts Spot in mind of his favorite verse from Scripture:

In the end, a demagogue will have no honor in her home town.

Remember, boys and girls, a Spotty™ is awarded to the author of a letter to the editor, an op-ed piece, or a blog post or comment that Spot wishes that he had written.

Technorati Tags: Katherine Kersten, Muslims, Spotty award, Qur'an, Reichstag fire, Keith Ellison, religious tolerance

First Muslim Spotty winner!

At least Spot thinks it's the first one. For his powerful commentary in Saturday's Star Tribune, Ahmed Tharwat wins a Spotty™. Since the Strib will take the piece down in a few weeks, Spot reproduces it here in its entirety.

Ahmed Tharwat

Is it me, or has Star Tribune columnist Katherine Kersten used her forum at the paper to vent fear of Muslim Americans in our communities?

From the "flying imams" fiasco at the airport, to the cabdrivers facing off with the Metropolitan Airports Commission about transporting alcohol, to the current flurry of articles about plumbing adjustments to accommodate foot-washing at Minneapolis Community and Technical College, Kersten's interest strikes me as paranoia, or even out-and-out phobia.

In a culture like the United States, it seems, we have very few requirements for cleanliness beyond 'wash your hands.' Maybe that is why this topic appears to some a mystery.

Whatever her motive, Kersten is consistent in her attempts to agitate the reader about Muslims living in the United States and their perceived "threat" to Western civilization. Her zealous coverage of issues of the Muslim community is both puzzling and frightening.

The foot-washing topic has gone from a local concern at a community college to a national story. Will the shock jocks be ranting about it next? Shouldn't Kersten give more attention to students who bring guns or drugs to schools than to those who want to wash their feet and stay clean?

Kersten seems intent on stirring up negative public opinion on relatively minor topics in her apparent crusade to save American culture from the Muslims. If this is "just the beginning," as she warned of the foot-washing threat, what else might Muslims bring to campus? Lord forbid, Arabic books?

Let's consider this assault on Western values and North American culture by Muslim personal hygiene. To understand the topic, Kersten really needs to understand the importance of the washing rituals, which may have something to do with praying (in Arabic this is called wudu) or not. Some Muslims may complain about a lot of issues, but I do not think they complain nearly enough about their daily torture at public bathrooms, where you are provided condoms as an incentive for casual clean sex but are severely under-equipped for a thorough washing.

Besides lacking a low-level washing area with a drain for washing feet, there is also no bidet-like system for cleaning after using the toilet. Water is the essential element for a thorough cleaning -- toilet paper will not suffice.

You can say all you want about Muslims, but when it comes to the cultural issues of washing and personal hygiene, we are very meticulous. Without going into detail -- we like to keep our private parts private -- Muslims usually try to avoid public bathrooms. Muslim students at a college will, however, spend many hours on the campus and have to make do with the facilities available to them. "Being clean is half of religion," the prophet Mohammed said.

Washing and following cultural rituals of cleaning don't strike me as threats to North American culture.

To Kersten I would urge: If you are going to trail Muslims wherever they go, at least learn about this community's customs and values as much as you urge them to understand yours. Believe me, Muslim washing rituals don't constitute the threat to American culture that your writing does.

Ahmed Tharwat is host of the Arab-American TV show "Belahdan," which airs Sundays at 10:30 p.m. on Twin Cities Public Television (Ch. 17).

Not, it's not just you Mr. Tharwat. A lot of people, and some dogs, too, have concluded that Katie is a vicious bigot. When Katie talks about "western civilization," boys and girls, what she really means is Christian. And Katie means her brand of hysterical intolerance, masquerading as a religion. The Christo-fascist death brigade.

Spotty is really tired of Katherine Kersten. He is tired of the entire snake-oil sales force of which Kersten is a part: All of the pseudo-patriotic, pseudo-courageous, pseudo-religious, pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-human cretins who have infected the body politic like a virus. There is no sense in placating them, trying to negotiate with them, or trying to understand or respect their views. They're like the flying monkeys in the Wizard of Oz: relentless and evil.

The gloves are off, Katie.

Update: Sport forgot to add: Remember, boys and girls, a Spotty is awarded to the author of a letter to the editor, an op-ed piece, or a blog post or comment that Spot wishes that he has written.

Also, Spot saw the above commentary in the paper, but thanks to Mark at Norwegianity for reminding him how good it was.

Finally, for new readers, the handsome Spotty™ medallion was produced by Tild, proprieter of the eponymous blog Tild~.

Tags: Katherine Kersten, Muslim cultural practices

Kersten: Tolerate Intolerance . . .

In her Monday column, Kersten pays homage to the clown princess of Minnesota politics, Michele Bachmann. The premise of the piece is that we should all just be tolerant of one of the most intolerant pols in the state. Spottie was too stunned to respond for several hours.

Spottie's doctor friends say that being aware of one's surroundings, and being oriented as to time and place are important tools in diagnosing brain trauma. Kersten has clearly taken at least one upside the head, and probably several, including some recently. She obviously spoke only to Bachmann, an unimpeachable source herself, in writing the column. Spottie's readers are invited to check here and here for some different perspectives on Kersten and Bachmann's complaints. Really, go read them; they're good - and funny.

Just a couple of comments on the column itself.

First, conservatives trot out the "activist judges" stuff whenever the Constitution is brought to bear to protect civil rights or equal protection and the bug-eyed control freaks feel threatened by a departure from their idea of conventional behavior. You heard about activist judges in free speech and pornography cases, civil rights cases, and you're hearing about them again.

Both Bachmann and Kersten are lawyers - an involuntary shudder from Spottie - and they probably learned in their first constitutional law class about a case called Marbury v. Madison. It's really a gripping tale of political intrigue, but Spottie will spare you. The case did, however, declare that it is the duty, yes duty, of the judiciary to be the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution. Now in spite what you might think, the courts do not cruise the streets looking for trouble. However, when a court is presented with a genuine justiciable dispute, it must resolve it. And sometimes, that means a resolt to Constitutional principles. The Constitution has been understood by most jurists to be a living document, not a tablet of stone.

Sometimes the majority, who Kersten and Bachmann seem to care about so much, is just a mob.

It is also curious to Spottie that Kersten, a Catholic, and Bachmann, an evangelical, seem so unconcered about the protection of minority rights. These are two groups who were specifically worried about their own preservation and protection in the early days of the United States, and who were particularly interested in the First Amendment protections in the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses.

Second, the Sour Sisters professed concern about academic freedom. But it is really the opposite they are after: the intimidation of teachers who challenge their fundamentalist Christian orthodoxy. It's late; Spottie is tired, but Google "academic freedom" and "PZ Myers" just to get started on this discussion.

Finally, Kersten makes the remarkable statement that Bachmann "raised five kids and 23 foster children." Boy, Mothers' Day must be remarkable in Michele's house! Spottie has seen pictures of Bachmann's kids, and "raised" they ain't. They're little kids. Having "raised" 28 children is such an obvious fabrication that it's pathological. It calls into question every "fact" that has ever issued forth from Kersten's mouth or pen.

I Don't Know How Spotty Does It

In honor of the vacationing pooch, I will, for one day, brave the Strib and read the unreadable: Katherine Kersten. Since I do not normally read this screeching nag, I cannot relay to you a sense of relative quality vis a vis her previous scribblings. However, after reading her most recent column, this doesn't seem to be much of an issue; her writing does great violence to standards of decency, logic, and professionalism that even a five year old can (and should) understand as being inherently desirable.

Here is a summary of her article:

1- Some soldiers don't respect/understand/value freedom until they deploy to a country that doesn't have it.

2- One exception to this rule is some guy who told me a personal anecdote about how he got really upset in high school when one of his teachers brought in a series of speakers who disagreed with him.

3- He later got upset in college when he couldn't tell some jokes. I assure you that this incident was reported on but I will not give you any further details. What I will tell you is that Powerline sued his school.

4- He has since fought against the "elimination of bias" requirement because lawyers are not biased and because he is black (Ed note: Ms. Kersten's argument, not mine.)

5- Now he's in Iraq.

6- The end.

It is almost pointless to continue to point out just how inept and worthless Ms Kersten is as a columnist. Her column contains no argument or meaning. It is a series of lazy ideological talking points strung together in a weak attempt to elicit an emotional response from her target audience. Please understand that I'm not making any sort of political or ideological argument here. I'm making no judgments about Major Swanson or his beliefs. Ms. Kersten should not be writing at the Strib because she is a terrible writer and her columns make no sense. You really don't need to crack open her beliefs to understand this simple point. (Her column makes about as much sense as a Michael Moore movie [and for the same appeal-to-ideological-emotion reasons]).

The other interesting thing about her article is that when I googled "Peter Swanson University Minnesota" I got this:

I came to admire Peter at the time and my admiration has only grown over the years. After law school Peter entered the Army JAG Corps, where he served five years overseas in Bosnia, I think, and at home as a part-time JAG recruiter. At work he is a model colleague. Within the legal profession he is a tireless opponent of the reigning orthodoxies.

Peter's Army service came between the two Iraq wars. He has now answered the call for a return to duty. He will be serving in Iraq for an additional hitch of a year or so. At the moment he is stationed in Texas preparing for his duty in Baghdad. We offer him our respectful salute.

UPDATE: Peter writes: "Thanks for the post. The reaction has been very touching and encouraging. I will post some photos when I get my blog approved. I am trying to encourage my buddies to put their thoughts in 250-500 word blog posts. So far no luck. There are many interesting stories here." He also reminds me: "I spent five years on active duty, stationed in Kansas and Washington State. Six months of that time, I was in Hungary and Bosnia."

Which reminded me of this:

[Conservative Reverb] Here in the blogosphere, Spotty means. Why yes, there is. Katherine Kersten’s Thursday column in the Star Tribune, titled Gratitude, not anger, comes from Astrodome, sounded suspiciously familiar to Spotty. He decided to sniff it out.

What Spot found is evidence of the right wing echo chamber at work, and echoes that percolated up from the winger blogs almost directly into Katie’s column. Before we get into that though, let Spotty describe the column.

In that interesting post, Spotty finds that one of Ms. Kersten's columns is pretty much a cheap rewrite of an earlier post on Peter Swanson's blog, SwanBlog (I think this is the same Peter Swanson; even if it isn't, it doesn't diminish my following point.) The woman seems to be rehashing blog posts as Metro columns. (It should be noted that the original posts are much more interesting and heartfelt.) Powerline admits as much in one of their recent posts (italics are mine):

Kathy's profile follows up on our own "Salute to Major Swanson" last month.

It's nice to know that a major daily newspaper can help supplement a blog that hates it. What do Katie's editors think about her moonlighting effforts? (We know how Powerline feels: Surprise!!! They luv the "excellent profile.")

Finally, the humor of Ms. Kersten's writings should always be recognized. In her current opus she honestly (and seriously) advocates a quasi-argument that, at the very least, says that fighting the "assembled armies of political correctness" and/or Islamic fundamentalists is a desirable and proper way to appreciate the value of American freedom.

That's all I can handle for now. Hopefully, she won't have another column during Spotty's absence and I will be spared from having to read both the Strib and Ms. Kersten twice during the same week.

Set Like a Watch

In hindsight, I should have seen this coming:

In the Equality Minnesota poll, 61 percent agreed with the statement: "Minnesota already has a law banning same-sex marriage; we don't need a constitutional amendment." A year before, a poll conducted for Minnesota for Marriage found that 61 percent of Minnesota residents would vote for the amendment.

Thousands of Iowans can now tell you that a law is not enough.

This is a big subject for Ms. Kersten. A quick google search shows several of her columns on the subject and her blog page has a link list called On Marriage and the Family. At the very least she should have her facts down.

Yes and no.

First the nos. Since she is a lawyer, this transition is kind of disingenuous (at best):

In Hanson's view, Iowans had no rational basis for supporting such a law.

Hanson based his decision on the Iowa Constitution, ruling that the state's marriage law violated its equal protection and due process provisions.

I guess if she had written, "Iowans supported a law that was ruled to have violated their own Constitution," it would have diminished the majesty of her remaining work. She then goes on to tell her audience that if the judicial system works in the way that it is supposed to work, Iowa's marriage law could be a thing of the past. This is truly frightening stuff.

My only other factual quibble with Ms. Kersten is what she has to say about Dean Johnson. Mr. Johnson wasn't done in for gay marriage reasons alone. His unwillingness to keep the outdoors amendment alive did not play well in Willmar and it should play into any consideration of the reasons why he lost his election.

I suppose there may be some other things in there that I am unaware of. I'm not a lawyer and I don't really follow this issue so I'll have to pass judgment to someone like MNO to talk about Ms. Kersten's claims about 1/2 the country's marriage laws being attacked by a small group of activists, and that these activists are seeking out activist judges to agree with them (sort of like the activist creationists who clog up our court system, I suppose.)

The rest of the column actually works. She makes an argument and it flows logically from proposition to conclusion: Judges are overturning laws that you thought were "safe" and it is likely that if you don't do anything to change (enshrine in the Constitution) a law that you like, it will get changed (stricken down) for you.

Let's cut to the chase. While her reasoning, for once, may be sound, her argument's fatal flaw (aside from the might makes right crap) is displayed late in the game (italics are mine):

Some politicos claim that the marriage amendment is unnecessary because the Minnesota Supreme Court has already ruled on, and rejected, same-sex marriage. But that case, Baker vs. Nelson, was decided 36 years ago -- long before judges dreamed that elite opinion-makers would one day denounce male-female marriage as mean-spirited bigotry.

Ms. Kersten plays a neat trick here. She begins by talking about majority opinion being in support of Minnesota's current marriage law; however, by the end of her column she is using words like bigotry and assault to describe the minority opinion and its action against the majority.

You can't just make the leap from "a lot of people believe in X" to "Y's action against X is bigoted." There has to be something in between and that something has to be a valid indicator of bigotry. If we were to run around demanding that each and every majority opinion be protected against bigotry...well, here are some popular things that Americans believe:

- Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe that the Bible holds the answers to all or most of life's basic questions, yet only half of American adults can name even one of the four gospels and most Americans cannot name the first book of the Bible.
- In a 2004 study of Bible literacy among high school students, most evangelical participants were not able to identify "Blessed are the poor in spirit" as a quote from the Sermon on the Mount.
- Only one-third know that Jesus (not Billy Graham) delivered the Sermon on the Mount.
- A majority of Americans wrongly believe that the Bible says that Jesus was born in Jerusalem.
- When asked whether the New Testament book of Acts is in the Old Testament, one quarter of Americans say yes. More than a third say they don't know.
- Most Americans don't know that Jonah is a book in the Bible.
- Ten percent of Americans believed that Joan of Arc was Noah's wife.

You can find these troubling statistics (and many more), in the first chapter of Stephen Prothero's excellent book Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know--And Doesn't.

As you can probably guess by my selection of statistics, the pink elephant in Ms. Kersten's column is religious faith. I won't claim to know the reasons why it was left out of her column, but I know, you know, the editors know, and her readers know that religious faith is the bridge between majority opinion and claims of bigotry. There is no other option. Sure you can claim that single parent families do not fare as well as ones with a mom and a dad, or that married parents can help reduce crime, but these are observations and arguments up for debate, not innate qualities like race or gender.

Ms. Kersten needs religion to square this circle and she knows that she doesn't need to explicitly write it down in her column for people to understand what she is talking about. (This, it could be argued, is the most justifiable faith present in this entire debate.)

I have a theory about why conservative Christians are more likely than their more liberal countrymen to fear what is commonly called "Islamofacism". By explaining it I will also explain what is wrong with Ms. Kersten's column. (Hint: It has to do with the seriousness they place in their own holy book and their current lofty social status here in America.)

The reason why Ms. Kersten is opposed to homosexual marriage is because her holy book tells her that being gay is wrong. Her opposition to homosexuality is part of her faith. I don't care whether or not you agree with this statement on the grounds that the Bible doesn't really say that homosexuality is bad; the fact remains that the Bible is widely interpreted as being hostile to homosexuality and its adherents act accordingly in honest fidelity to their God. To assume that they would do otherwise for the enjoyment of non-believers is absurd.

The question now becomes: Where do religious adherents go with their beliefs? How do you act upon the declaration that homosexuality is a sin?

The underlying assumption in Ms. Kersten's column is that her truthful belief in the sin of homosexuality is part of her religious faith; and that this faith is protected by the first amendment; and her identity is incomplete without her Christianity, so therefore any shot across the bow of this belief can be interpreted as anti-Christian bigotry or anti-Christian racism. This is a horrible notion that must not be allowed to continue, if only for the simple fact that Christianity is not the only faith with a shovel that can dig deep in this hole.

What are you going to do about the problem of belief and action? To the majority of religiously illiterate Americans, it doesn't seem quite so bad when we're talking about gay marriage, but what about a bunch of jokers jumping around with Molotov Cocktails and machetes because someone had the nerve to draw up some cartoons about an illiterate businessman who was visited by three angels in the desert? At what set of ideas is this ignorance and bigotry pointed? By what set of principles can a reasonable person come to these sorts of conclusions?

The most important thing that can be said about my comparison of Islam and Christianity is that there is no slippery slope between the two. Action upon faith is an equal opportunity proposition whose factions are segregated not by any qualitative difference in method, but only by the grotesque boundaries set by this, that, or the other True Lord. (That and the secular thought that "moderates" them wherever they happen to catch hold.) According to the teachings of the illiterate businessman mentioned above, the fact that I do not believe he heard what he says he heard, and that there is an equal amount of proof for the belief that he is capable of receiving divine revelation as there is for my pet fish, means that I can (and should) be treated like an animal. Am I bigoted for being truthful? Am I bigoted for being unable to believe? Am I bigoted for not wanting to be an infidel? Am I bigoted for saying that those who violently act upon this very clear religious directive are insane? I don't accept Mohammed as a prophet. I'm not bigoted for doing so. Even more importantly, I can back up my case without an appeal to the unknown.

I guess it's all about whose ox is being gored.

I think Ms. Kersten knows that she can't explicitly bring religion into the debate because I think she is smart enough to follow this argument through. I think that one of the reasons why the hard religious right fears Islam is because, unlike Christianity, Islam's believers believe their holy book to be the inerrant word of God. Now that's some bigotry! Ms. Kersten's reasoning digs a big hole. There are other things out there that would be all too happy to continue her work at a much swifter pace and to a much deeper level.

Enjoy the dig.

Seven out of eight dentists

Chew Dentyne.

And, according to Katherine Kersten, one out of seven detainees released from Guantanamo “returned” to terrorism. Straight from the mouth of the Pentagon to Kersten’s ear. Immaculate reception.

The “statistic” was breathlessly reported by Kersten as part of her most recent column condemning lawyers who have represented Guantanamo detainees who have protested, and are protesting, the legality of their detention, often successfully.

Laying aside her poisoned broadside for just a moment, we must stop to consider that the figures she quotes are very much in dispute. In a special report for CNN, Peter Bergen and Kathine Tiedemann claim the figure is more like one in twenty five.

Moreover, it is a little hard to see how somebody released from Guantanamo is really considered a terrorist in the first place, because if there was any competent evidence of terrorism, he’d still be Guantanamo.

One also wonders whether being thrown in a hole for half a dozen years might have a, well, radicalizing effect on somebody?

But, back to Kersten’s main point! Any lawyer who would represent a Guantanamo detainee is pro-terrorist, contemptible swine. This is a line spun out recently by Karl Rove and Liz Cheney. But here’s Scott Horton, a far keener mind on matters legal than Katherine Kersten, on the subject:

[ . . . ] The first tier [of Guantanamo defense lawyers] are men and women in uniform, members of the Judge Advocate General’s corps, who provide defense for anyone called before a military court or commission. The second tier are lawyers from across the country who volunteered to support the JAG lawyers, helping to shore up their resource deficit vis-à-vis the government. These lawyers are attracted by the usual considerations that lead lawyers to perform pro bono services: the clients are indigent, and their cases raise novel or interesting legal issues which the lawyers involved will be able to test in court. In this case, they’ve been pretty successful–even an overwhelmingly Republican-appointed Supreme Court has now repeatedly found that the regime the Bush Administration created in Guantánamo was illegal.

But there’s another fact that Thiessen [a former Bush speech writer writing in the Washington Post] omits. In his world, the Gitmo prisoners these lawyers are defending are terrorists, full stop. If that’s the case, then why did the Bush Administration release fully two-thirds of them? Why do the largely conservative, Republican judges reviewing the habeas petitions of the balance keep finding that there’s no basis to call them “terrorists”? That’s been the result in about 80% of the cases heard so far. What has Thiessen and his Cheney friends in such a lather? I’d put a sharp point on it: these lawyers are putting the lie to their claims about Gitmo. [italics are mine]

And that is why Karl Rove, Liz Cheney and our very own Katherine Kersten are so upset.

Horton also linked to a funny tongue-in-cheek confession of a JAG lawyer to being an al-Qaeda operative:

The chance to actually be a U.S. government-paid spokesperson for al-Qaida under the guise of ‘promoting fairness, justice and the rule of law,’” he says, “was just too delicious an opportunity to pass up. I figured the military commissions at Guantánamo would be the perfect soapbox for me to espouse my terrorist ideology.”

At long last, Katie, have you no sense of decency?

Technorati Tags: Katherine Kersten,Guantanamo detainees,terrorism,pro bono publico,Scott Horton

So. There.

Where did she get that giant Styrofoam® pointing finger?

On Sunday last, Katherine Kersten turned her Gorgon's gaze on the unsuspecting citizens of Eden Prairie, using the school district and its students to try to make an ideological point, but winding up pointing out her own bigotry instead: trademarked Kersten, in other words.

Kersten offers the departure of the superintendent and defeat of three school board members in the last election as proof that school busing -- well, one kind of school busing -- is bad for children and does not work! The redrawing of school boundaries in Eden Prairie went into effect only this fall, but that doesn't stop -- or even slow -- Kersten from writing it off as a failure already.

Katie is right, in one sense; it was a political failure, but that doesn't mean it is an education failure.

People bus their kids to other schools for a myriad of reasons: a preferred school program in the arts, sports, language, or teaching method. This is true at all levels of K12 education: high school, middle school, and yes, elementary school. Katie's own kids spent a lot of time on the bus. But Kersten reports, without irony, that some Eden Prairie parents are sending their kids to charter or parochial schools (on a bus, no doubt) rather than put up with the tyranny of busing.

Parenthetically, there is a little Providence Academy bus that chugs by the house every day. Where is Providence Academy? Plymouth.

Of course, it's a particular kind of busing that Kersten finds objectionable: "racial busing." That's entirely different! You do need to ask yourself, though, why is "busing" bad only when "racial" is the adjective? The answer is obvious.

People like Professor Myron Orfield and former Federal Reserve economist Art Rolnick will tell you that minority kids need to be exposed to the majority culture long before they are thrown in with the white kids in middle school or high school, as they are in Eden Prairie. (The fact that most kids who come from inner city schools to suburban high schools under open enrollment perform more like the peers they left than their new ones make that pretty obvious.)

People more informed about the Eden Prairie school system than I am have said there was more to the departure of the superintendent than just the busing issue, but it seems clear that the school board, um, turnover was the result of it.

Kersten nevertheless trumpets this as a victory for common sense, rather than a victory for a rather more sinister force. Just as Eric Fromm suggests.

So. There.

It Truly is a Holy Day

I woke up this morning, took the dogs out to vacate whatever it is they have to vacate, watched them terrorize a garden-killing rabbit for a few minutes, got them back in their crates, filled their bowls with food, put on a pot of coffee, powered up the computer, and quick-checked my fantasy football team before finally dialing up www.startribune.com/kersten; hoping more than anyone has ever hoped before that she would not have written a Sunday column.

It worked!!! Since I was "praying" to my Casio keyboard (and since it came through in such a completely outstanding manner), I think I have found a new way to pass my time on Sundays.

However, in the spirit of truly filling Spotty's dog slippers, I feel compelled to dive head first into something written by Ms. Kersten. Off to her blog!!! Let's go with an oldie-but-goodie; today's episode: Mother Teresa's Dark Night of the Soul.

First, our Kersten proof:

1- Mother Teresa may be the most highly admired person of the 20th century.
2- Mother Teresa embodied the saintly virtues that people admire but find it hard to achieve.
3- Mother Teresa also was depressed; this depression caused her to doubt the existence of God.
4- Since doubt is the other side of faith, Mother Teresa had a profound faith because her doubt gave her faith meaning and value.
5- Mother Teresa's great faith may have been the result of her doubts.

A few important notes.

First, Kersten's post isn't the first to take the same title and approach and run with it.

Second, Mother Teresa didn't just have a bout of the doubts; she flat didn't believe.

In one letter to Father Michael van der Peet, a spiritual adviser and close confidant, Mother Teresa wrote: "Jesus has a very special love for you.

"But as for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great that I look and do not see - listen and do not hear - the tongue moves [in prayer] but does not speak.

"I want you to pray for me - that I let Him have a free hand."

Cheerful in public, despite the rigours of working among the poor and dying, she was in inner turmoil, saying her life was one of almost constant "torture" and "my smile is a mask - a cloak that covers everything".

"I spoke as if my heart was in love with God - tender, personal love," she wrote to another adviser, wondering if she was involved in "verbal deception" of the millions who followed her every act as proof of God's existence.

Other letters suggest that she didn't believe Christ was present in the Eucharist and that she didn't believe in heaven.

Finally, Mother Teresa's letters show a woman with clear emotional conflict and probable clinical depression. Ms. Kersten's reaction--that doubt is the result of the "dark" feelings, and that doubt itself is a sign of great spiritual importance--is the same reaction displayed by Mother Teresa's confessors. While Ms. Kersten didn't go to the exorcist extremes of the Archbishop of Calcutta (yes, you read that right; Mother Teresa had an exorcism), her take on the situation lies somewhere between general cruelty and sadism. Mother Teresa's pain and suffering do not exist for anyone else's benefit and/or spiritual entertainment. A doubting mind is not an abnormal condition or the result of disease. Mother Teresa did not die for someone else's sin of loving the darkness of an unprovable faith. The only original sin here is the one where people pretended that her inability to make the loose ends meet is proof that they really do. (And that you should recognize this inability as either pleasurable faith or crippling guilt when it is your turn at the crossroads.) This poor woman was used by the Roman Catholic church to win souls and put meat in the seats and she couldn't make it work; she couldn't make herself believe. Somehow, people like Ms. Kersten view this sad story as a magical virtue that confirms what lies at the heart of their faith: the doctrine of, in this case, the Catholic church. Maybe an eighth sacrament should be added: Disbelief as confirmation of belief.

Perhaps the most interesting thing I took away from reading this post, and from Googling several other similar posts, is the following quote from Dinesh D'Souza, author of the bat guano classic The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and It's Responsibility for 9/11. I have altered the quote a bit (a'la Mad Libs) to show you why I think it is so interesting (scroll over the blank spaces to see the original text):

The greatness of Mother Teresa is that even when she was deprived of the spiritual satisfactions of feeling God's presence in her life, she did not waver, she soldiered on. She was not deterred in her mission. And what she didn't have by way of feeling, she compensated for by way of will. In doing so, she teaches us all something about love: it is not merely a sentiment, to be set aside when feelings come and go, but rather a decision of the will. That she did what she did in exchange for the love of God is astounding enough. That she did it all even when this love was invisible to her—if this does not constitute saintliness, I don't know what does.

Here's how I read it:

The greatness of George Bush is that even when he was deprived of the evidence for going to war in Iraq, he did not waver, he soldiered on. He was not deterred in his mission. And what he didn't have by way of evidence, he compensated for by way of will. In doing so, he teaches us all something about leadership: it is not merely a sentiment, to be set aside when feelings come and go, but rather a decision of the will. That he did what he did in exchange for the scorn of those he leads is astounding enough. That he did it all even when this evidence was invisible to him—if this does not constitute presidential greatness, I don't know what does.

I think this pretty much sums up why any remaining Republican support of the man is creepy beyond all belief. It always has been. My next question would be to ask whether or not this type of support has anything to do with the type of religious faith of his supporters. Are certain people "programmed" in such a way to be more willing to accept this type of behavior in their leaders?

The real issue involved in gay and lesbian marriage.

Spottie finds it amazing that a person Katherine Kersten's age could be that hidebound; it is a tribute to her upbringing, I suppose. There is so much in her latest column raising the specter of the doom of civilization if gays and lesbians are permitted to marry to criticize, but Spottie will stick to a few points.

Kersten says the need for the protection of strictly heterosexual marriage flows directly from the fact that sex between men and women produces babies. The rest of her composition rests on this blinding flash of intuition. But the premise is a faulty one.

Marriage is both more and less than a baby making factory, a cottage industry so to speak. It is more because it establishes an emotional support network between partners, and very significantly provides legal recognition of the right and duty of the partners to protect each other. Marriage partners can inherit from each other, can make health care decisions for the each other when one partner is incapacitated, and one spouse cannot be required to testify against the other. There are many other legal incidents to marriage, as well, health insurance and survivor benefits to name just a couple.

Kersten acknowledges the existence of these attributes of marriage, and how they would be of advantage of couples of any sort, but argues they must be reserved for special people, because again, they make babies.

But a lot of marriages don't produce babies. A lot of marriages are entered into with no intention of producing babies; you don't sign an oath when you get a marriage license promising to have babies. A priest may threaten your eternal soul if you don't at least try, but there is absolutely nothing in the civil covenant we call marriage that requires the production of children.

Laying aside all the couples who get married that don't want kids, how about all the folks we allow to marry who can't have kids? Under Kersten's rule, post-menopausal women, impotent men, and infertile people of either sex couldn't get married. Society has no need for them to get married because they produce no offspring.

So reproducing is clearly not the only thing that society is trying to accomplish with the institution of marriage.

And don't be fooled by Kersten's recitation of a few anecdotes and vague referenced to "studies" about how children do better, etc. etc. There are a lot of kids from non-traditional families of several kinds who are perfectly well adjusted thank you, and kids from nuclear families who grow up to be serial killers.

So what's really at work here? It's just another face of the control freak phenomenon Spottie mentioned in the home schooling post. Kersten has her expectation of what a marriage should look like, and woe be unto anybody that suggests something else. She even says so in the concluding paragraph of the piece:

Minnesotan believe that gays and lesbians have a right to live as they please. (Well, clearly not all of them do.) But they don't believe that gays and lesbians have the right to redefine the institution of marriage for everyone else.

So in the end even Katherine Kersten admits this is an issue of civil rights and equal protection. Heterosexuals have something that gives them an advantage they don't want to give up. Just like every privileged class in the history of the world.

Energetic tail thumping

Spot is all out of the handsome medallions for Spotty™ awards, so until he gets a batch of news ones in, he'll just have to recognize good stuff with a thump of the tail.

This first thump today goes to Philip Adam of Plymouth for his letter in today's Star Tribune:

He was a progressive

It's curious that Katherine Kersten referred to William Wilberforce as a fundamentalist Christian -- a term not coined until at least 50 years later (" 'Amazing Grace' tells how Christian spirit rose to bring an end to the horror of the slave trade," March 5).

In his day, he would have been considered a progressive Christian attacking powerful economic forces, regardless of their vicious counterattacks.

Yet Kersten repeatedly sides with powerful economic forces, reciting talking points from organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute. Recently she attacked those concerned about global warming for not being based in a traditional faith, and implied Christians are naïve for getting involved in this issue.

In another column, she attacked a modern-day progressive Christian, Al Gore, not on the issue, but with vicious invective, lies and slander.

Why does Kersten insist on bearing false witness?

Da Wege also had a good post on Kersten's Monday column:

But I don't think Kersten really embraces the concept of abolition, because it was about so much more than just evangelicals and ending U.S. slavery. Unless Quakers have suddenly become evangelicals, Kersten is radically mischaracterizing the nature of the religious movement that was at the heart of abolitionism, or the fact that our founding fathers (mostly Deists), were largely opposed to slavery but subjugated this matter to the need to provide a united front to the British.

As you all know, boys and girls, religion can be profoundly anti-progressive. Or it can be used as anti-progressive force, anyway. Spot has mentioned this before, but a contemporary example of this is the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King's letter from the Birmingham jail. King was jailed because of his participation in a Good Friday march to end segregation.

On Good Friday in 1963, 53 blacks, led by Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., marched into downtown Birmingham to protest the existing segregation laws. All were arrested. This caused the clergymen of this Southern town to compose a letter appealing to the black population to stop their demonstrations. This letter appeared in the Birmingham Newspaper. In response, Martin Luther King drafted a document that would mark the turning point of the Civil Rights movement and provide enduring inspiration to the struggle for racial equality. Martin Luther King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail" strives to justify the desperate need for nonviolent direct action, the absolute immorality of unjust laws together with what a just law is, as well as, the increasing probability of the "Negro" resorting to extreme disorder and bloodshed, in addition to his utter disappointment with the Church who, in his opinion, had not lived up to their responsibilities as people of God. King's justification to the eight clergymen for protesting segregation begins with a profound explanation of their actions, "Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue." [italics are Spot's]

More recently, the so-called "evangelical Christians" have focused their jihad on another minority group, the gays.

§§§

Spot also want to recognize Dr. Charles Tietz of Virginia, Minnesota for this letter in Sunday's Star Tribune:

A public health issue

It is a shame that two female legislators have withdrawn their support for mandatory, with a parental-out clause, administration of the HPV vaccine for young females of our state (Star Tribune, Feb. 28).

Mandatory accomplishes one important thing: It forces third-party payers to stop rejecting payment for the vaccine for those patients who wish to have it. It will force Medical Assistance and MinnesotaCare to pay a fair amount for the administration of the vaccine, which they don't now and many low-income candidates don't receive as a result.

A task force to study it is not needed. The vaccine has been extensively tested and is fully supported by the American Cancer Society and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

This is not a moral issue but rather a public health issue. Why is the Legislature concerned about "ticket scalping" and not cancer prevention?

Spot wrote about this issue in The Wages of Sin are Death. The good doctor discusses an important practical angle: health plan reimbursement.

It moves Spot to near-speechless rage that "moralists" like Tom Pritchard and the Minnesota Family Council can be so callous and indifferent to a genuine public health concern.

Tags: Katherine Kersten, abolition, Martin Luther King, HPV vaccine

Katherine Kersten's religious hypocrisy

It was a real craw sticker, all right

There has been something sticking in my craw about Katherine Kersten’s Easter Day cudgel – other than Katie herself, of course – but I couldn’t put my finger on it. It came to me today, as if in a vision.

(I wrote, incidentally, about the Easter column here, here, and here.)

You will recall – unless you’ve been better at repressing the details that I have been – that Kersten took the occasion of celebrating Easter to moan and wail about, well, let’s let Katie tell it:

The left and much of our opinion making elite want to delegitimize and privatize religion for two reasons.

First, they don't like the idea of truth -- the idea that there is, in the nature of things, a blueprint for human flourishing. They don't like the notion of moral parameters that limit our actions on matters such as cloning, stem cell use, abortion or marriage. They believe that man can make himself: that there is no "floor" to the universe.

Second, our elite's fundamental political impulse is toward collectivism. They believe the state holds the solution to every problem, and that wise social engineers can be trusted to do what's best for the rest of us.

So have you got it? Religion should be right out there on the public square, loudly proclaiming its message.

Unless you don’t agree with that message.

Almost five years ago, Kersten wrote a column complaining about religion in the public square. There’s been a lot of drivel by Katie under the bridge since then; she may have even forgotten the column. But I didn’t.

The occasion for complaint about the very public nature of religion was the consideration by the United Methodists at a conference in St. Cloud of support for gays and lesbians:

In the past, Methodist leaders have often focused on racism and sexism. This year, however, gay issues jumped to center stage. The Minnesota Annual Conference outdid itself, passing nine petitions on various aspects of the topic. The conference went on record as supporting both gay marriage and the ordination of gay clergy.

Kersten used the column (which has bitten the electronic dust at the Strib long ago, but you can read several paragraphs of it at the link above) to bash the Methodists and other mainline Christian denominations for their social activism.

Katie believes in using your religion if you do so conservatively, but not if you use it liberally.

I concluded my post on Kersten’s Methodist bashing this way; these are still words I like:

Spot says to the Methodists, stick to your guns, so to speak. If the choice is living out the words of Jesus Christ in the world, or sinking into self-absorbed ascetic wankery, the Methodists have made the right choice.

Coming Mr. Tice!

Here's how a Thursday post to (Brian) Lambert to the Slaughter begins:

Thursday afternoon at the Star Tribune saw the paper's four metro columnists, Doug Grow, Nick Coleman, Katherine Kersten and Cheryl "CJ" Johnson called in to separate meetings with editors Nancy Barnes and Scott Gillespie and told, in so many words, that the paper was looking to scale back the number of columnists and would any of them care to raise their hands and volunteer for reassignment to the paper's suddenly thin -- and getting thinner -- ranks of street-level reporters?

Many, including Spot, have commented on Katie lack of experience, skill, or talent as a journalist. The last story she actually covered was a bake sale at St. Buford's in Fort Dodge when Katie was a high schooler. One of Lambert's commenters said it pretty well:

They put that ludicrous proposal to Kitty Kersten? Tuh, talk about empty, pro forma procedure. She's not qualified to hit the streets as a reporter. She's never done it. Certainly she invests no shoe leather in her columns.

She's a hot house lily from the world of partisan think tanks hired as a sop to the paper's shrill critics on the right.

So, judging from the misology [sic] that afflicts mgmt there, Kersten'll get to keep her column because she's not qualified to be a reporter (and it would set off Achinghinder et al at Powerlineblog like the Hound of the Baskervilles). So, paradoxically, either Grow or Coleman will suffer for his three decades plus experience as an actual journalists by losing his column, while Kersten will be inoculated from having the epaulets torn from her sensible frock for her utter lack of credentials as a journalist. Cue Alanis Morrisette [sic] ...

Bet Kersten's glad to be a member of one of those pesky liberal unions.

Oh, and it's Katie, not Kitty.

Katie is the most junior columnist of the four. Spot hopes that Katie becomes a reporter. Spot can hear it already: Katie, come in here. We have to go over this story you wrote about Muslims using the drinking fountains. Yes, Mr. Tice, coming.

Just desserts, Spot says.

Update: Credit where it is due. A thump of the tail to Paul Schmelzer at MinnMon who called the Lambert post to Spot's attention.

Tags: Katherine Kersten, Minneapolis Star Tribune

A pitch for tolerating intolerance

Here’s a letter in the Star Tribune today:

Yoder's response to Katherine Kersten was very moving. Yoder wrote about her two gay children, the struggles they have faced, and the love within their family. I thank her for her perspective, and I do not doubt her sincerity.

However, she completely missed Kersten's point, which was (that) it is not easy to be an opponent of same-sex marriage. [chortle]

Almost daily, the media accuses us of bigotry and hate. All of us have been dragged into fights we did not want. Most of us have lost friends we valued. Some have been financially, professionally or personally attacked. And it is getting worse.

Kersten's article documents how, increasingly, those of us who oppose same-sex sex activity are under attack in every region of our lives. Gay activists are beginning to threaten our grades in the classroom, our paychecks in the workplace and, in extreme cases, even our freedoms of speech and of worship.

Perhaps we deserve this. I certainly don't expect homosexuals to sympathize. They have faced much worse discrimination for much longer.

History may view our movement as the last courageous defense against a culture of death. Or as the last vestige of a homophobic Jim Crow. That history is being written now.

But Kersten is right. The gay-rights movement is no longer about mere tolerance. It is about enforced universal acceptance. Those of us who can never accept homosexual activity are weathering a worsening storm. Brittle courage keeps us afloat.

Please tolerate us, too.

JAMES HEANEY, GOLDEN VALLEY

The “last courageous defense against a culture of death” or the “last vestige of a homophobic Jim Crow.” Stirring.

You know, come to think of it, you do read almost every day about how some gay person went out and murdered a straight person. Like that killer out in Wyoming, Matthew Shepard.

No — wait — Matthew was the one who got killed! That’s right. Like all of the gay men who where slain by the convicted killers in this documentary film.

Heaney’s got his culture of death backwards.

It borders on the absurd is absurd to claim that Kersten — I have a passing familiarity with her writing — was merely remarking about hard it was to be an opponent of gay marriage. No, the column in question was just another call to arms in the shabby little charade that Kersten, and the Strib, too, call opinion journalism.

Andy Birkey did a nice debunk job on the said column in question.

It is laughable when, well, bigots like Heaney try to paint themselves as oppressed and deserving of tolerance. Consider Heaney’s last two sentences:

Those of us who can never accept homosexual activity are weathering a worsening storm. Brittle courage keeps us afloat.

This is a guy with a HUGE persecution complex. But as an exercise, where Heaney writes “homosexual activity,” substitute: blacks, Jews, Italians, or Irish.

And when Heaney replies, “This different; it says so in the Bible,” remind him that the Bible sanctioned slavery and multiple wives. And remind him that some “Christians” have been quoted very recently as saying that the Jews killed Jesus, when taking some time out from hating gays, apparently.

Finally, gay marriage does not mean forced acceptance. No one is forcing Heaney to have a gay wedding, or attend one, or even send a place setting of flatware as a gift for one. He doesn’t have to go to a church where gay marriages are performed.

Heaney actually summed it up pretty well himself: the last vestige of a homophobic Jim Crow. I doubt I could have said it better myself.

RIP Katherine Kersten

The world as we knew it has come to an end

It is Spot’s sad duty to report that Katherine Kersten has been sacked.

It sure seems that way, anyway. All of the posts on her blog at the Strib? Vanished. Any reference to her as a columnist there? Ditto.

Katie was last seen laying an enormous egg about two Sundays ago in a column that I commented on in a post entitled Lusting after the mitre and ermine.

In that column, Kersten entirely mischaracterized the writing of Professor Richard Flory of USC, and apparently did so based on plagiarizing from, perhaps inter alia, Fr. John Neuhaus, Marvin Olasky, and the Discovery Institute (at least that’s where the smart money is).

Professor Flory, in fact, wrote a comment to my post protesting what I had written; based on the fact that I had taken Kersten at her word, he was justified in being put out with ol’ Spot.  I had intended to write a follow up post and apologize to the professor, but now I’ll just combine it with this death notice.

Kersten may be gone, but it is going to take a while for the Strib to live her down.

A thump of the tail to MNO, who is the only crewmember here to notice the satisfying lifting of a weight from our shoulders.

Technorati Tags: Katherine Kersten,Star Tribune newspaper,Richard Flory,Fr. John Neuhaus,Marvin Olasky,the Discovery Institute,laying an egg,sacked,fired

An admixture of ignorance and venom II

This is the second post on Katherine Kersten’s scribblings yesterday. In the first one, I described her wildly inaccurate understanding of the concept of Social Darwinism. It is apparent that Katie based what she wrote (I won’t call it a column out of deference to journalists who actually write columns) on a book.

The book is We Still Hold These Truths by Matthew Spalding, and it has to be out in paperback. It explains why Kersten has apparently gotten a hold of a copy and did her little book report on it.

The premise of what she wrote is — unsurprisingly — the same as the book’s, namely that Progressivism is bad, in fact, it is downright un-American. Although, Kersten really didn’t even need a copy of the book to write what she wrote.

For example.

Kersten:

The Progressives viewed government's goal much more ambitiously than the Founders did. Instead of a limited government to protect individual freedom, they saw government's role as actually to achieve progress -- to constantly improve citizens' lives through scientifically planned reforms.

An Amazon “reviewer”:

The book focuses on ten principles: Liberty, Equality, Natural Rights, Consent of the Governed, Religious Freedom, Private Property, the Rule of Law, Constitutionalism, Self-Government, and Independence. It concludes with two chapters -- The New Republic, which describes the ideas of the Progressive movement, and American Renewal, which makes the case for a return to the ideas of the American Revolution.

* * *

You will gain from reading about the Founders' idea of natural rights, and the Progressives' very different idea of rights that should be guaranteed by government. These different ideas are at the basis of many political debates and conflicts. You may or may not change your mind, but you will better understand the "other side”.

Kersten writes that our liberties derive from “Nature and ‘Nature’s God.’” You can be sure this phrase is in Spalding’s book, too. According to one of the Amazon “reviewers,” Spalding says that human liberties derive, in fact, from natural laws — from a supreme being, and not the temporal laws of men and women (including the Constitution), although he probably just says “men.”

That would be an interesting proposition to discuss with Iranians or with women in, say, Kandahar. Some of them are undoubtedly unhappy with the “natural law” hand they’ve been dealt.

That’s the trouble with natural law: it’s entirely in the eye of the beholder. There were a handful of people who got hanged in Iran this past weekend for “waging war against God”: against somebody’s idea of natural law, in other words.

There was a sign at the Tea Party rally at the Minnesota Capitol on April 15th that I wish I had taken a picture of. It said, “We trust in God, not the government.” Same principle.

Discussing the rights of man is great for getting out from under the monarchy, divine right of kings dogma, but it doesn’t get you very far down to road to actual governance in a temporal world. No one has divined a natural law Uniform Commercial Code. (Although interestingly, the one we’ve got is rather Talmudic in the way it is laid out, with code and then commentary by the drafters, who apparently recognized they had some explaining to do.)

The framers of the Constitution wrote a thoroughly “positive law,” as opposed to “natural law,” document. It begins “We the people . . .  .” Not “As God hath ordained . . .  .” I can read the Constitution — and often do, really — and I don’t need the priestly class — which, after all, takes it pants off like everyone else: one leg at a time — to tell me what it means. The word “God,” appears nowhere in the text of the Constitution.

I do need Supreme Court Justices to tell me what the Constitution means sometimes, but they don’t purport to speak for God. Thank God.

Technorati Tags: Katherine Kersten,natural law,positive law,Constitution,monarchy,divine right of kings,Matthew Spalding,Progressivism

New member enters Faux Victim Hall of Fame

The Minister of Troubling Signs feted at induction ceremony

Taking her rightful place along side Anders Behring Breivik, Goldman Sachs, and everybody who ever sang the Horst Wessel song, Katherine Kersten takes a seat in the pantheon of faux victims for her column in the Strib bemoaning the ill treatment of people who favor the ill treatment of gays.

Kersten uses the word "aggression" to describe the opposition and push back to the initiative that she and the rancid bunch of Republicans in the legislature brought up in the first place. She has a lot of damn nerve claiming that it's the opponents to the gay marriage amendment who are the aggressors.

But let's look at some of the aggression. In one of the column's great gems, Kersten writes:

As a result [of a Minnesota Campaign Finance and Disclosure Board decision], Minnesotans who believe that gay people have a right to live as they wish, but who oppose redefining marriage, may find their civil rights, livelihoods or safety threatened if they dare to oppose what's becoming politically correct orthodoxy.

Aw, come on, Katherine, you'd gut gay people like trout, if you could. You, and John Nienstedt, and Bradlee Dean, and Maggie Gallagher, and Tom Pritchard, and Joel Adkins, and the whole rotten, poisonous bunch of you. Don't compound the sin by claiming that you're prepared to just leave gay people alone.

Kersten wants us to pity the poor people who want to discriminate against gays. I mean, gay people have never been discriminated against right? In truth, an unmarried gay couple is discriminated against in about 1,500 way in the law when compared to married partners.

Gay people have never been discriminated against in their livelihoods for being gay, right? Truly, it is to laugh. Kersten has apparently never heard of "don't ask, don't tell, " and the fact that Michele Bachmann and many others would reinstate it they could; well, until they could ban gays from the military altogether.

As far as safety goes, Katherine, when one of the people on your side get crucified on a barbed wire fence in freezing weather, come on back, and we'll talk. Or, perhaps, after a straight kid in Anoka is ostracized and taunted to death for bullying a gay teen. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about, Katherine.

Conservatives like Kersten are always preaching about how choices have consequences. The "choices" of being black, or Latino, or gay, or a woman seem to have consequences, all right. It seems only fair that something you have some control over, your attitudes, might have consequences as well.

Mr. Tice come quick!

Mister Tice come quick!

What’s the matter Lileks?

It’s Katie, I mean Katherine Kersten. She’s slumped over her Underwood!

Oh my God! Lileks, run and get Anders and meet me at Katie’s desk! Go!

Doug Tice hurries over to Kersten’s desk and finds a crowd is gathering there. The atmosphere is, well, festive.

Make room! Give her some air! bellows Tice. He rushes to Kersten’s desk and she is indeed slumped over her typewriter, apparently not breathing. Anders, who has now joined them, says Let’s get her off this typewriter on to the floor! Maybe that’ll help. They lay Katie carefully out on the coffee-stained newsroom floor, and peer cautiously, and expectantly, into her face. An ellipse of curious heads forms around Kersten’s prostrate form.

Kersten is even grayer than usual, and after a few moments, it is clear that some intervention is required. Who knows how to perform CPR? shouts Anders. In response there is a scraping and scuffing of shoes and everyone in the crowd takes a couple of steps back. Anders say to Tice, You do it!

Me? I’m not gonna do it. You do it! replies Tice.

I’m not gonna do it! Anders says, and then adds Let’s get Coleman!

Just then, Nick Coleman saunters out of the men’s room where he had been composing a cable to Crawford. What’s the fuss? he asks. Coleman, get over here and help Katie! bellows Anders. So Coleman walks over and gives Katie’s prostrate form a glance. Help me get her on her feet! Coleman orders.

What? Are you crazy? says Anders. Humor me – for once, replies Coleman. So, Anders, Tice, and Coleman struggle to erect a vertical Katie. When they do, Coleman circles behind Katie, puts his arms around her waist, cinches them tight, and gives a mighty heave upward and backward.

There is a rumbling and a shaking in the room and the lights seem to dim just briefly. Then with a mighty explosive foom, Katie ejects a baseball-sized bilious green viscous blob that hits Tice in the chest, knocking him over. The air pressure in the room drops noticeably as Katie draws her first breath in a couple of minutes. Somebody sets her in a chair where she wheezes nosily until her normal pallor returns.

How did you know what to do? asks Anders. Pretty easy, replies Coleman. You see, I know that Katie was writing a column condemning 200 wealthy Minnesotans for taking an ad in the paper last week suggesting that the state raise income taxes. She had to be choking on her own bile. I hear it almost happened to Captain Fishsticks over at the Pioneer Press too!

Tag: Katherine Kersten