Today's Wapo Is So Aarghful this whole post is post (while the earth vibrates as Katherine graham whirls in her grave)

I really have spared BLCKDGRD of rants against christers (and I've got them, believe you me), and I'm not going to start now, but this bullshit by Bush's former speechwriter, the crafter of "Axis of Evil," a man personally complicit in the deaths of tens of thousands, needs mentioning (and quoting at length):

But there is a problem. Human nature, in other circumstances, is also clearly constructed for cruel exploitation, uncontrollable rage, icy selfishness and a range of other less desirable traits.

So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between good and bad instincts? Theism, for several millennia, has given one answer: We should cultivate the better angels of our nature because the God we love and respect requires it. While many of us fall tragically short, the ideal remains.

Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma. It cannot reply: "Obey your evolutionary instincts" because those instincts are conflicted. "Respect your brain chemistry" or "follow your mental wiring" don't seem very compelling either. It would be perfectly rational for someone to respond: "To hell with my wiring and your socialization, I'm going to do whatever I please." C.S. Lewis put the argument this way: "When all that says 'it is good' has been debunked, what says 'I want' remains."

Some argue that a careful determination of our long-term interests -- a fear of bad consequences -- will constrain our selfishness. But this is particularly absurd. Some people are very good at the self-centered exploitation of others. Many get away with it their whole lives. By exercising the will to power, they are maximizing one element of their human nature. In a purely material universe, what possible moral basis could exist to condemn them? Atheists can be good people; they just have no objective way to judge the conduct of those who are not.

Thus, the philosophical and theological scaffolding of The Fuckofferer's - and all christers' - fuckyouing: I don't believe in their invisible friend jeebus, and therefore cannot judge their actions.

   *

I normally agree with the gist, if not the thrust, of E.J. Dionne's columns, but he's come down with a nasty dose of broderitus in his column today:

But a big part of me is rooting for Vitter to survive because I so want to return to a time when we -- that "we" includes the media -- chose to pay little attention to the extracurricular sexual activities of our politicians...

...I greatly admired the late Paul Wellstone not only for his boisterous brand of liberalism but also because of the profound bond of devotion, respect and love that existed between Paul and Sheila Wellstone, who were married for 39 years. The Wellstones didn't talk about family values. They just lived them.

The point is, if the profound bond of devotion, respect and love that existed between Paul and Sheila Wellstone, who were married for 39 years was between a Paul and a Tim, Vitter would have been frothing at the mouth, demagoguing for a law to criminalize that profound bond of devotion. He would have said that 39 year relationship undermines moral values irreparably.

Hypocrisy is good for giggles and good for the political prospects of the caught hypocrite's enemies, but the Vitter issue (beyond  pigviews of female sexuality), vis a vis Dionne, is that it's Vitter's politics that makes Dionne's broderesque yearning for comity and decency impossible, not my giggles at Vitter's indiscretions.

But I'm just an atheist, and have no moral foundation from which to judge.

   *

As long as I'm rant-squelching (and I am) on WaPo, the wheelchaired eschatologist says you're a traitorous atheist bastard for not worshiping god's second son, Petraeus Christ, unquestioningly; and Howie, noting that the court stenographers have stirred from their seven year slumber and have begun daringly modest and moderate and cautious truth-telling, says they've "declared war."

I'd say their finally beginning to do the job of a free press in an open Democracy, but I'm just an atheist and have no moral foundation from which to judge.

   *

UPDATE: 7/13/07 4pm:

A friend emailed me and said I'd better trademark Petraeus Christ, or at least timestamp it.

Petraeus Christ, Petraeus Christ, Petraeus Christ.

There. Never mind any atheist blogger can backdate a post. Atheists have no moral foundation.

Oh, while I'm here: I hereby trademark Ulysses S Petraeus, George Patton Petraeus, and David Beckham Petraeus.

   *

FMF will be Saturday or Sunday. In the meantime, remember: