Harris is correct. Religious belief is based on mistaken perceptions. One can believe that the Earth is flat, but when he makes a law that ships can’t sail more than a mile from the coast and outlaws air travel, it’s time to tell him he is wrong and to remove him from any position of responsibility. When one says that Jesus is returning to Earth within the next 25 years to preside over the end of days, he has forfeited the right to make environmental decisions, financial decisions, education decisions, etc. for society in general. When a US President believes that Jesus told him to attack Iraq, he needs to be told that he is wrong and that he has forfeited the right to be President. Or at a minimum, we should demand some proof. If Jesus is so determined to attack Iraq, He can tell us himself, or write it on golden plates and have the Angel Moroni deliver them to Mit Romney or some other Mormon running for President, or direct a talking burning bush to announce it live on Fox News. And to be safe, we should probably have Yahweh and Allah sign off on the attack plans.

The nutshell of Harris’ argument is summed up in his question to deluded believers: “What proof would make you stop believing in God?” Sullivan, and other believers always answer: “Nothing could do that.” But if you reverse the question and ask, “What would make you the atheist believe in God?” we can give you answers all day. How about, if God appeared to us and told us he exists. Or any number of experiments. Each time the Pope prays for something, God grants it. Atheists are always ready for some proof. True believers can’t be bothered with facts. That is fine, as far as it goes. But forgive me if I reject leaders who can’t be bothered with facts.

There is hope however. I spent most of my life as a true believer, but I wised up. If I can do it, others can as well.

Or, maybe Pat is looking at the small picture. Recently, James Dobson of Focus on the Family –you know, the fellow who counsels that fathers should shower with their young sons so that the sons can see the large penis and see who is in charge (no kidding)—said that if Rudy got the Republican nomination that he would back a third party candidate. Pat was not a part of Dobson’s “influential evangelicals” meeting where Dobson made the announcement. Pat may have perceived his exclusion from that meeting as a stick in his eye, and now Pat’s endorsement of Rudy is meant to be a stick in Dobson’s eye. This is more likely to me, but never bet against the drive for the end of days.

The main thing to remember here is that Pat is a moron. Lot’s of people send him lots of money and do what he says, but he is nonetheless a moron.

Rudy is a whore. I saw a button online that has a profile of Rudy’s face (very Mussolini) that said “Vote for Rudy—the last vote you’ll ever cast.”

I support Pat Robertson for President. Jesus told him to run in 1988 but somehow Pat lost. Jesus owes him. And having a President supported by the all powerful creator of everything couldn’t hurt, could it?

At the time I do remember saying, “A forgery of some outsider art,” not “a forgery of a forgery.” I don’t remember a comment about seeing something before, though at the time I felt much of what I was looking at had been done, which is what I was trying to get at with my admittedly snide, “if I’m not mistaken, has been done before.”

And I invite you again to write an article for The Vocabula Review. In your 1999 article for Vocabula, you wrote “I hope someday to have enough time to collect my unkempt thoughts into a form that might help undo the damage I believe linguistic luddites have done.” Do you have enough time now?

I happened to have been in the Gallery Project when you were observing the art. And since quarters were close, I heard what you had to say about the art.

I remember something about “a bad forgery of a bad forgery”. “When you look at this work, you feel as though you’ve already seen it although you know that you haven’t”.

These comments and others were absolutely spot on and accessible to anyone who was there or for that matter might not have seen the work at all.

In your blog, however, you used words such as “fun”, “fave”, “not faves”. Since I don’t know what your idea of fun is, that doesn’t communicate much to me.

And giving so much print to your “not faves” elevates works to a status of importance that you might not have intended since they’re not your “faves”. In fact, I don’t much like the word “favorite” in a review (”fave” even worse”). It sounds like a flavor of ice cream is being chosen.

I picked on a couple of your words as I tried to get at what was missing in the blog review. But maybe it’s a self-consciousness that comes out knowing that your opinion is no longer just for you.

In short, your blog review fell miserably short of your on site review. I take the time to say this, because your live commentary was some of the best I’ve ever heard (or read should it have been written) in the 30 or so years that I have been reading reviews. I urge you to write your very balanced and informed opinion as though you were muttering to yourself.

Thank you for your fine blog. I find it very interesting and educational.

Best,
EK