Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars links to and comments on an essay by Elizabeth Castelli on the history of Christian persecution, real and imagined. It’s interesting how many Christians argue that they are being persecuted, even as they are engaged in persecution themselves. Which reminds me again of Robby Berry’s classic “Life in Our Anti-Christian America." Hume's Ghost (2008-04-29): It reminds me of white supremacists complaining about being persecuted by blacks.One of the most pathetic things that has always struck me when listening to white supremacists speak is their sense of being persecuted by an oppressive minority and/or the forces of liberalism. It is difficult to make sense of the assertion that white males in the USA are disadvantaged unless you consider that supremacists are 1)scapegoating an Other they are prejudiced against for perceived societal failings and 2)that their definition of being persecuted amounts to not being allowed to persecute others.Another group that shares the same persecution complex is that of the religious right. More specifically, the dominionist or Christian nationalist elements of the religious right which similarly consider the failures of society to stem from an oppressive minority and also feels that not being allowed to enforce religious orthodoxy on others amounts to being persecuted. I suspect, however, that it is easier to see the bigotry underlying the persecution complex of the white supremacists than it is from the Christian supremacists, for the obvious reason that we've as a nation already rejected the ideology of white supremacism.For example, if one were to hear someone say the following, it would be fairly obvious that the person making the statement is a bigot:You can be any race you want and PROUD of it... except white. I watch tv and flip around and you've got networks for gays, for women, for Spanish speakers ... There's even BET a network just for blacks. Obviously, the owners of the network are black and are proud of it, but if the owners were white and tried to create a White Entertainment Television channel all Hell would break loose. Is that really that different than this comment agreeing with Ron Paul's view that Christmas is under siege?You can be ANY faith you want and PROUD of it... except Christian. I walk around one of the largest malls in California, during the holidays, festive colors everywhere, and what is directly in the center of the mall? A massive menorah. Obviously, the owners are Jewish and expressing their faith. Were the owners Christian and tried to do the same with a crucifix, Hell would've broken loose. ...

Simon Owens at Bloggasm interviewed Michael Edmondson, creator of the “Beware the Believers” viral video that was widely acclaimed by critics of the film “Expelled” for its humor and polish. Apparently the segment was originally intended to be in “Expelled,” but the producers decided to turn it into a viral video instead, since it didn’t fit with the character of the film. (Insert your choice of snarky comment about how it didn’t fit here.) ...

It’s a letter to the editor from Jeremy Gunn, director of the Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief at the ACLU, in response to an idiotic falsehood-ridden column by Pat Boone. If anyone ever comes across an attempt by the anti-ACLU crowd to actually respond to the content of Gunn’s letter, I’d be interested in seeing it. I suspect it will most likely be ignored, and any alleged responses will not respond to its content. (Via Dispatches from the Culture Wars.)

Matthew LaClair has an op-ed piece in today’s Los Angeles Times in which he talks about his evangelizing history teacher and the biased textbook used in his class. James Q. Wilson defends his textbook in a companion L.A. Times op-ed; the bulk of his defense is that the later edition of his book fixes the problems LaClair complains about. UPDATE (June 29, 2008): The July/August 2008 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer comments on this controversy. It seems that the later edition of the book is not yet available for schools and contains most, if not all, of the same misrepresentations and problems that LaClair complained about. Wilson, through his dishonest op-ed, has thrown away his credibility.

Jeff Shallit has a post at his Recursivity blog about some “comical misunderstandings” by intelligent design advocates Denyse O’Leary and Robert Marks. In O’Leary’s case, the misunderstanding is expected, but Marks is an engineering professor at Baylor University who should know better.

Jeff Shallit talks about Discovery Institute Fellow David Berlinski, notable as one of the few advocates of intelligent design who is not an evangelical Christian. He’s also not a scientist or a mathematician; he has a Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton. Although that’s a top school for philosophy in the U.S., Berlinski hasn’t been working as a professional philosopher, either. Of course, he was touted as an expert in “Expelled.”

Arizona’s legislature, like Florida’s, is considering creating “In God We Trust” license plates. Indiana already has them, which, unlike other specialty plates, require no additional fee. The ACLU’s lawsuit in Indiana against the plates was recently dismissed. In Arizona, the state Senate approved legislation (HB 2046) sponsored by Rep. Ron Gould (R-Lake Havasu City) which would require the Department of Transportation to provide “In God We Trust” license plates if some organization pays the $32,000 necessary for design costs. The bill was originally for “Arizona Highways” license plates when introduced in January, but has been modified into a religious proposal. It looks to me like Gould’s proposal puts the imprimatur of government on the promotion of religion, which violates both the U.S. and Arizona Constitutions. A contrary argument would be that there’s no financial expenditure by the government, since the fees to produce such plates come from the individuals rather than the government. But by allowing the expression of a particular religious sentiment (supporting monotheistic religions) and not other religious sentiments (including disbelief in any religion), it will clearly favor one set of viewpoints on religion over others. UPDATE (May 1, 2008): Correction, the Florida license plate under consideration was one which said “I believe” with a picture of a cross. The Florida legislature looks set to allow the legislation to die without passage. ...

Two of the least credible spokespeople for their respective political and religious positions… Gridman (2008-04-27): Ad hominem reason, surely... Lippard (2008-04-27): You're correct that it's ad hominem--which is a perfectly good reason to distrust a *source*, but it doesn't actually make an argument against the *claim*. ...

At the Evolved and Rational blog, John Ray gives a review of “Expelled” from a filmmaking perspective: Cinematically, Expelled gets off to a lovely start. First-time director Nathan Frankowski chooses a nice, rich level of contrast and uses it to create some sparkling opening shots of our nation’s capitol. Those who knew what they were in for when they walked into the theater (presumably, most of the film’s so-far few attendees) were given an artistic visual rough outline of where the film was going. By the time we see Ben Stein taking a deep breath, looking indeed like “the little investigative journalist that could” in his trademark adorable little sneakers, the audience is practically eager to believe whatever he has to say. ...

Kendra Wiseman, Jenna Miscavige Hill (niece of David Miscavige, head of the Church of Scientology), and Astra Woodcraft are three ex-Scientologists who are now running the Ex-Scientology Kids website, critical of Scientology. Jenna Hill will be on ABC’s “Nightline” tonight.