I rarely read the Olmsted County Journal, but last night I had nothing better to do so I started reading. The very first article I read nearly sent me through the roof. You can
read the article here. Allow me to break it down for you.
Before we deconstruct some of their most common themes, the reader should be aware of the most frequent tactics commonly used by the Right in promulgating their ideology: employing gross exaggeration and deception, "cherry picking" a phrase or sentence from an article or book that seems to support their viewpoint and ignoring the rest of the body of work that does not support their view, stating half-truths, using none, poor, or dubious supporting evidence, and frequently stating outright falsehoods.
First, Mr Panko starts out by saying that "cherry picking" data to support an argument is used by the Conservative Right to deceive and confuse the masses. Let me start by saying that anyone, Conservative or not, who cherry picks data is wrong and I would not support anyone who did. But pardon me if I dismiss the rest of the article two paragraphs in if Mr Panko thinks this a problem only perpetrated "by the Right". Please. This is like the pot calling the kettle black. Does Mr Panko not remember
Rex Nutting's infamously "cherry picked" report on Obama's spending from a mere two weeks ago? Debunking that erroneous article is for another time and another place, but pretending that only the Right states "half-truths, using none, poor, or dubious supporting evidence, and frequently stating outright falsehoods" is absurd. But let us move on.
First, let's take Mr. Goutcher's argument that we were founded as a Christian nation. That is contrary to most of our founders' beliefs and declarations. They were indeed mostly Deists, agnostics, and atheists. Simply taking an oath on the Bible or calling on God for support as was common at the time has more to do with generic use of the deity and political protocol than professing allegiance to an anthropomorphic, omniscient personal deity.
I wonder how many of those early oaths were taken with a hand on the Jeffersonian Bible. Jefferson did not believe Jesus was God or divine. He actually excerpted all passages in his Bible that referenced that belief---hardly a Christian act. In fact, nowhere does the Constitution say: "This is a Christian nation" or anything even close to that. In fact, the words "Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, Creator, Divine, and God" are never mentioned in the Constitution---not even once. The reason for that is intentional and very clear. The founders wanted to be sure that no religion, even Christianity, could make the claim of being the official, national religion. Therefore, it is inconceivable that the founders would have wanted the U.S. to be considered a Christian nation.
Incidentally, since most of the founders were either Deists or leaned toward Deism, any use of the word "God," "Creator" etc. was most likely a reference to the Deistic God, not the Christian God.
There is more proof that the early founders did not want this country to be considered a Christian nation. The 1796 Treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was "not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." This treaty was written under the presidency of George Washington and signed under the presidency of John Adams.
No where in these paragraphs does Mr Panko remotely begin to provide actual evidence to support his claim that the Founding Fathers were Deists. He makes several truth claims, but provides no evidence to back it up. He "wonders" about things, but that does not make them true. He is correct about fact, the Constitution does not have references to Jesus Christ, the Bible, the Creator or any such thing. But our Declaration of Independence does! And I assume he has not read the Federalist Papers either as they are littered with references about God. At some point in our recent history it has become fashionable to call the Founding Fathers Deists. But where is the proof of that?
Despite Mr Panko's assertions, I say the overwhelming evidence proves they were not Deists, but Christ followers. The word 'Founding Fathers' is a proper noun and refers specifically to the delegates of the Constitutional Convention. Undoubtedly there were others, but these 55 men made up its core. Twenty-eight delegates were Episcopalians, eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, two were Methodists, and two were Roman Catholics. So 51 of the 55 "Founding Fathers" were attending churches that had strict doctrinal creeds attesting to the divinity of Christ. Calling these men Deists is a blatant rewriting of history. Moving on.
Next, let's consider Mr. Gudmundson's reference to the March 28, 2012, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC). Mr. Gudmundson "cherry picks" one statement from the report that seems to support what he apparently wants to believe---that global warming is only a weakly supported hypothesis or at most a pure hoax. The statement that he conveniently excerpts from the report reads, "long-term trends in normalized (property) losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change." What Mr. Gudmundson conveniently does not tell you is that the basic thrust of the IPCC is that global warming/climate change is real and that we must prepare for it. In support of the opposing view, one could have "cherry picked" in the same article the statement, "human-caused climate change influences climatic-related disaster risk." But, of course, this is always a deceptive tactic regardless of which side of the fence one is on. What's important is the main thrust of the article which is that the IPCC is in agreement with the overwhelming consensus that we are indeed experiencing global warming. Anyone who disagrees with that is in denial or suffering from some type of scientific illiteracy.
Mr Panko is certainly well within his rights to believe that the IPCC knows what it is talking about when it comes to "climate change." My objection comes in his last two sentences as they are flat out wrong. First, there is no consensus about global warming. There is a large number of scientists who do not believe in man-made global warming as evidenced by the Oregon Project. I know proponents of anthropomorphic warming will holler and wail about the veracity of the Oregon Project, but it proves there is no consensus. But even if there was, a consensus is NOT science. As I recall, there was once a consensus that the Earth was flat. And then Mr Panko finishes off with ad hominem attacks, typical for anyone arguing without any facts.
Another favorite ideological punching bag of the Right is "Big Government." Mr. Kingsley falls in lock-step with the backward and flawed thinking of those who treat the federal government as our enemy. In his latest column Mr. Kingsley uses such phrases as "massive, corrupt government," and "the solution will not be found in government."
Both statements are half-truths at best. Such phrases showing "big government" as the enemy roll off the tongue easily as if such beliefs are self-evident and need no explanation. Those who make those claims have no idea of how to arrive at a "small governmentor" or whether it is even advisable. We live in a nation of 300+ million people, most of whom have a right to be served by the government in some capacity whether it be Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, agricultural and small business subsidies, federal student loans, transportation, communication, and education subsidies, and a myriad of other types of aid. The truth is that both politically and ethically it is nearly impossible to do much "cutting" to make a significant difference in the economy. "Big Government" in itself is not bad but it has to be funded. The problem is the Conservative Right takes the position that appeals to those who have a selfish and unpatriotic mindset--- that taxes should not be increased for any reason. And by the way, getting rid of waste and corruption in government is a laudable goal, but it is unrealistic; and even if we could do so, it would not solve our current economic woes.
Once again I see lots of truth claims with zero evidence to back any of it up. He continually throws out baseless claims like small government Conservatives have "no idea how to arrive at a 'small governmentor'". The fact that he makes a statement such as this proves to me that he pays no real attention to conservatives at any level of government. At the federal level I've heard all of the following ideas thrown out as ways to shrink the size of the government: elimination of Departments (Education, Energy, Homeland Security), no more bailouts (Detroit, the banks), and elimination of the IRS (to be replaced with a flat or fair tax). These are just a few, so to claim conservatives are putting forth no ideas is nonsense.
Then Mr Panko explicitly states that most Americans have a "right" to all sorts of government aid. Really? A right. I believe he needs some help understanding how a right is defined because government welfare certainly does not fall under the pervue of a right. Something is only a right if it does not impinge upon someone else "rights". For instance, I have a "right" to life because my living does not impinge upon anyone else's right to life. However, I don't have a right to murder. Why? Because it obviously violates someone else's right to life. All of these so called rights Mr Panko mentions are contingent upon the government taking my hard earned money and giving it to someone else. That's not a right, that's government sponsored theft.
