• Hey! We're on Twitter!

  • Buy The Book!

  •  

     

    Click to Buy The Mug

    Buy The Book

Thanks to reliable farm club WorldNetDaily, we have another rookie wingnut to scout today:  Meet Dr. Nancy Pearcey.  Dr. Pearcey “is editor-at-large of The Pearcey Report,” which seems to be a sort of Huffington Post for people who’ve had a tamping rod blown through their left frontal lobe like Phineas Gage.  A sample of articles gracing the front page at press time:

Prop 8 Ruling Could Criminalize Christianity, Leaders Warn

FAKE HOMELESS Rake in Thousands

Prop 8 judge called ‘tyrannical activist devoted to satisfying himself’

CAN Black People Think for Themselves?

‘Faggot’ Easy to Defend

So it’s not like they’re trying to push an agenda.  Come one, come all; if you’ve got a pierced frontal lobe, whether from an industrial accident, or that lobotomy your parents were talked into when you were a rebellious teen, then you’re welcome at The Pearcey Report.  By the way, when I say “Dr. Pearcey,” I’m following the form of address favored by Philadelphia Biblical University, Langhorne, Pennsylvania, in their press release announcing Pearcey’s appointment as “scholar for Worldview Studies at the Center for University Studies.”

Dr. Nancy R. Pearcey, Christian scholar, educator, author and speaker, has been named Scholar for Worldview Studies at the Center for University Studies at Philadelphia Biblical University.

Dr. Pearcey will teach, speak and write on the integration of Christian thought with scholarship and the application of Christian perspectives to the academy and across the culture.

The release wraps up with the good doctor’s academic credentials.

Pearcey earned a Distributed Studies Degree from Iowa State University and Master’s Degree in Biblical Studies from Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis. She then pursued graduate work in the history of philosophy at the Institute for Christian Studies in Toronto.

But it outran her.

In addition, she holds an Honorary Doctorate in Religious Education from PBU.

So PBU appointed Dr. Pearcey a scholar after appointing her a doctor.  Now that’s the kind of vertical integration that would have made Andrew Carnegie blush.  Meanwhile, her Wikipedia bio tells us that:

Pearcey is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute‘s Center for Science and Culture, the center of the intelligent design movement. Pearcey has played a role in a number of controversies surrounding the institute’s campaign to challenge and ultimately unseat the teaching of evolution.

[She was] a contributing editor for the young-earth creationist Bible-Science Newsletter from 1977-1991

…which would suggest that, despite her honorary degree, she’s a moron.  But hold on a second!  According to Nancy’s much longer bio at The Pearcy Report, she was also:

Heralded as “one of the few female intellectuals in evangelicalism” (Evangelical Outpost), Nancy has ad- dressed staffers on Capitol Hill and at the White House; actors and screenwriters in Hollywood; sci- entists at labs such as Sandia and Los Alamos.

So even though she spent 14 years pushing the young-earth hypothesis, she’s not stupid enough to think the planet is 6000 years old.  She thinks it’s more like 6 million years old, but just looks really good for its age.

Anyway, now that we’re acquainted with the Honorary Doctor’s bona fides, let’s see how a female intellectual handles those flesh-dissing queers:

Who respects the human body? Not homosexuals

After a chilly reception from the crowd during a two-night stand in Key West, Abbott and Costello stopped doing this version of their classic Vaudeville routine.

The ruling by Judge Vaughn Walker to strike down Proposition 8 raises a host of issues that go far beyond the California case. Especially troubling is Walker’s view of gender. His ruling makes the sweeping assertion that “gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage.”

However, “gender remains a part of this complete breakfast.”

This declaration is being quoted in astonishment for its sheer breathtaking exaggeration. Yet it reveals a pivotal element in the liberal view of human sexuality.

Liberal ethics is based on a fragmented view of the human being that pits biology against choice.

And biology hates choice!  It was perfectly happy keeping the four piece bedroom set, but the studio audience kept yelling at biology to “take the curtain!” and then it turned out to be a years supply of Rice-A-Roni.

Its roots go back to the French philosopher Rene Descartes, who proposed that the body is a machine controlled by a completely separate thing called the mind. The ghost in the machine.

That’s why his Syfy show, Rene Descartes: Ghost Hunter! mostly consists of colonoscopy footage.

As philosopher Daniel Dennett explains, “Since Descartes in the 17th century we have had a vision of the self as a sort of immaterial ghost that owns and controls a body the way you own and control your car.”

Thanks to the sub-prime lending crisis, however, your body is worth a lot less than you paid for it, and some ghosts are just choosing to walk away from their mortgage.

In other words, the body is no longer regarded as an integral part of the human person but as sub-personal, functioning strictly on the level of biology and chemistry – almost like a possession that can be used to serve the self’s desires.

That’s the most the elaborate euphemism for masturbation I’ve ever seen.

This is the philosophy that underlies arguments for same-sex “marriage.” The assumption is that our bodies have nothing to do with our identity as persons. And that, therefore, anatomy can be overridden by sheer self-expressive choice.

You see, homosexuals?  Your body isn’t gay; it’s just haunted by the ghost of Franklin Pangborn.

The denigration of physical anatomy does not stop with same-sex “marriage.” The cutting edge issue today is transgenderism, a movement that rejects the distinction between male and female itself as a mere social construction – and an oppressive one at that.

According to the New York Times, several universities now offer separate bathrooms, housing and sports teams for transgender students who do not identify themselves as either male or female. Some schools no longer require students to check male or female on their health forms. Instead, they are asked to “describe yourgender identity history.”‘ In other words: Which genders have you been over the course of your lifetime?

This opens many new opportunities for the makers of romantic comedies.  Instead of having to engineer patently artificial devices to keep a couple apart (she’s getting married — to another man!  He’s just gotten circumcised at age 30 and can’t use his penis for 90 days or he’ll void the warranty!), writers can just keep the characters out of gender sync for the first two acts:

HARRY:  And it’s not because I’m lonely, and it’s not because it’s New Year’s Eve. I came here tonight because when you realize you want to spend the rest of your life with somebody, you want the rest of your life to start as soon as possible.

SALLY:  Well that’s great, but as of the first of the year, I’m reclassified as neuter.

Gender has become a postmodern concept – fluid, free-floating, completely detached from physical anatomy.

Apparently, gender has become Slimer from Ghost Busters.

“What we have here is what we call a non-repeating phantasm, or a class-5 free roaming gender.  Real nasty one too.”

Several states have already passed laws mandating that schools and workplaces accommodate transgenders, and supporters are pushing hard for the same laws at the national level. In 2007, California passed a law requiring schools to permit transgender students to use the restroom or locker room of their preferred gender, regardless of their anatomical sex.

This is shocking, and an outrage!  Unless you follow Dr. Pearcey’s link, in which case you’ll see that the law actually just adds gender identity to the state’s non-discrimination law.  But hey, if an idiot like Janet Folger could get away with lying about a similar law in Colorado, then surely “a scholar for Worldview Studies at the Center for University Studies,” can pull off a little legislation legerdemain.

The new law redefines sex as socially constructed gender: “Gender means sex and includes a person’s gender identity and genderrelated appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.”

As an intellectual and an expert in young-Earth issues, Dr. Pearcey believes that gender is determined by genitals, because they both start with “gen.”  Also, she rejects the notion that gender dysphoria is a serious problem deserving of legislative attention, when Congress still hasn’t dealt with the threat of pteranodons plucking us from our yards and carrying us off to their high, rocky aeries.

Note the assumption that your sex is “assigned” to you, as though it were purely arbitrary instead of an anatomical fact.

Assigned sexing is too rigid for me.  I prefer festival gender.

The law is being used to impose a secular liberal worldview that dismisses physical anatomy as insignificant, inconsequential and completely irrelevant to gender identity.

As I show in “” this represents a devastatingly disrespectful view of the physical body. It alienates people from their own bodies, treating anatomy as having no intrinsic dignity. No dignity is accorded to the unique capabilities inherent in being male or female.

Yes, but as long as we’re bringing Descartes into the conversation, let’s not forget that in The Description of the Human Body (1647), he wrote that “neither the manroot and its fecund spheres, nor the feminine cleft possess an innate dignity in and of themselves, unless they happen to be wearing spats.”

Ironically, Christians are often dismissed as prudes and Puritans because of their “repressive” sexual morality – and yet the Christian worldview actually affirms a much higher view of the body than the liberal, utilitarian view. It offers the radically positive affirmation that the material world was created by God, that it will ultimately be made whole by God and that God was actually incarnated (made flesh) in a human body.

So stop getting married, homos!  It’s causing confusion, and now Jesus doesn’t know what restroom to use.

In the ancient world, these claims were so astonishing that the Gnostics rejected them, and tried to turn Jesus into an avatar who only appeared to have a human body. They could not accept the idea of a Creator who celebrates our material, biological, sexual nature.

I’m predicting the next sentence will be a link to Nancy’s Jesus/Judas slash fiction.

Today’s liberal elites such as Judge Walker may pose as enlightened liberators, but in fact they are secular Gnostics, treating physical anatomy as having no intrinsic dignity or purpose. In an unexpected twist of history, it is once again Christians who are defending a high and holistic view of the human person.

I don’t know, Nance.  You guys have had some luck with using “judicial activism” as a rallying cry, but I don’t really see “secular Gnostics” sweeping the nation.  Maybe you should just stick to defending “faggot.”

30 Responses to “I Think, Therefore I Am…Fabulous!

“…As an intellectual and an expert in young-Earth issues, Dr. Pearcey believes that gender is determined by genitals, because they both start with ‘gen.’….”

Holy crap, this changes everything. In a general way, you could claim that any generous gentleman from Genoa is a genuine genetic genius, generating a whole new genre of gentility that may require the summoning of gendarmes and a fast train to Geneva. For a convention. A Geneva convention.

There is entirely too much emphasis on genitalia. Can we not take a moment now and then to sip iced tea and play bridge, with our zippers zipped and our dresses arranged prettily over our laps and covering our knees? Like we used to do in the olden days before there were “homosexual” people, or people who simply stubbornly refuse to look at what’s betwixt their nether appendages to get a darn clue?

Also, can someone please tell Mr. and Mrs. Duggar that God doesn’t really want them to either stop making babies or use birth control, that He just wants them to stop with the fucking already?

PS: Scott, has anyone mentioned lately that you are a genius OMG no no no! that you are a really really smart person?

Also, can someone please tell Mr. and Mrs. Duggar that God doesn’t really want them to either stop making babies or use birth control, that He just wants them to stop with the fucking already?

Oh, lark! There was a People Magazine thing with the Duggars on the cover with the headline that basically all about how they “Want more babies”.

I just want to shake them and say: “You know what? While God did give you the ability to reproduce yourselves, he also gave you free will and common sense. God is probably wondering why you aren’t using those gifts he gave you.

“Dr.” Pearcey’s scholarship appears to be as genuine as her doctorate.

I’m not convinced God *did* give the Duggars common sense. Have you any evidence?

For the record, Scott, I prefer festival sex to festival gender.

This was funny, and I agree with Larkspur, but I’m kind of losing patience with these fuckwits and their utter lack of understanding of anything outside their freaky little blue/pink worlds. If they weren’t so goddamned hateful, I’d feel sorry for them.

So…if I understand this article right, the argument, such as it is, is “gender dysphoria is a liberal lie; therefore, queers shouldn’t be able to get married.”

I’m sorry; I must be missing something. Would somebody like to explain how, EVEN IF TRUE (obviously it’s not, but let’s play along), this premise would lead to this conclusion? “You’re only PRETENDING to have gender confusion; therefore, we’re going to PUNISH you (or other people who are vaguely like you)” is pretty much the only way I can make sense of this.

There IS plenty of sheer, small-minded vindictiveness; that goes without saying. But I think what’s also notable is the extent to which bad people like Nancy here feel compelled to construct ever-more baroque arguments against basic human rights for people they don’t like. They get so tangled up in these dubious logical curlicues that I kind of believe that they genuinely lose track of the fact that, even disregarding moral considerations, their arguments simply make no sense from any remotely objective standpoint. That’s not to say that they aren’t bad people who deserve our contempt; just that they’re also extremely CONFUSED bad people.

All right, I’m a bit puzzled here: what does Dr. Pearcey think philosophers thought was the soul/spirit prior to Descartes? Here’s the Gospel of St. John:

14: [Jesus] said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”

15: And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit.

And so on, and so on.

BTW, the “soul” can be used to refer to one’s emotional state (random example: Isaiah 38:15, “…despite the bitterness of my soul…”), so I can accept there’s no metaphysical statement there; but what about 1st Thessalonians 5:23, (“…may you entirely, spirit, soul, and body, be preserved blameless…”)? What exactly was Dante supposed to have thought went to hell, purgatory, or paradise? The body? Oh, wait, that’s what Frederick II had nailed inside a barrel.

Seriously, people had thought for millenia there was a spirit that dwelt in the body during life and left it at death. Thinking otherwise is generally speaking the more modern idea. Pearcey has it backwards.

it is once again Christians who are defending a high and holistic view of the human person

Well, you’d have to be …

But seriously, how are they taking a “holistic” (not that I, let alone Ph.D. Pearcey, have the slightest idea what holistic means) view if they are denying the mind & all its Jesus-imposed mysteries?

It’s long, but this wrap-up of the AFTAH Anti-Gay-Rights Academy conference is interesting, especially the reactions by the gawd-fearing drones to transgendered people.

They only thing funnier than homobigots who sputter about how icket teh gays is, are the ones who wrap their bigotry up in pseudointellectual blather.
And, yet ANOTHER wingnut who misunderstood what Walker was saying: that the LAW doesn’t draw distinctions between gender and treats them equally. That we no longer regard woman as property with a limited set of rights anymore.

Also, the Pearcey Report link is daid, daid, daid.

“I’m kind of losing patience with these fuckwits and their utter lack of understanding of anything outside their freaky little blue/pink worlds.”

That’s no exaggeration–they ARE incapable of understanding. It’s revealing that Pearcey brought up the Enlightenment, as that is likely where modern humans diverged from them.

These people have no moral skeleton and so lack anything remotely resembling what the rest of us describe as self-control. Instead, they must rely on a rigid social “exoskeleton” of rules, laws, and prohibitions to keep themselves behaving.

In their world, all people are evil, destructive, selfish, terrified brutes who must be given absolutely no opportunity to act independently. It’s why every conversation with one of them about religion always boils down to “well, mr/ms knowitallliberal, if there is no Gawd, what keeps you from doing whatever you want–raping, stealing, killing? hUh?!”

They really believe that the rest of us are lying or fantasizing about this thing called “ethics.” If we behave ourselves, it must be because we fear retribution from some source, not because we could actually choose some moral course of action.

This worldview is behind their unquestioning authoritarian tribalism and core insecurity about the universe.

Well, fuck me, she’s from Ioway state university? That’s where I work, as those of you keeping score know, and happily, we only run across this pig-ignorant fucktardedness in limited quantities. (And something I’ve learned while here, ironically, is that “pigs are smart and they got time on their hands.”

Unhappily, the college newspaper gives a disproportionate amount of editorial space to these clowns. Probably a bald-faced effort to inject excitement, controversy and unfettered language sprees into the daily dialog.

I will note that I know far more learned types who really don’t bandy about that title nearly as much as “Dr. Nancy.” Yeah, girl, beat that honorarium to fucking death; I’m impressed.

Cartesian hegemony! Fer chrissakes, that wasn’t even true when Descartes was alive. (I’m sorry, I mean “the French philosopher René Descartes,” accent aigu optional if you’ve pursued graduate studies in the History of Philosophy. God I love that construction. Like “Webster’s dictionary tells us…” it’s a warning sign the author has managed to open a book, and finds that sufficient to impress her usual audience.)

And th’ fuck are you picking on Descartes for anyway? Near as I can figure it’s the half-remembered opening lecture from a senior seminar entitled “From Post-Reformation Catholic Philosophy to Today’s ‘Do Your Own Thing’ Generation: A Direct Link” at Greater Nodaway Bible & Barber.

Dr. Nancy R. Pearcey, Christian scholar, educator, author and speaker, has been named Scholar for Worldview Studies at the Center for University Studies at Philadelphia Biblical University.

Is this an actual game show or the home version?

Pearcey earned a Distributed Studies Degree from Iowa State University and Master’s Degree in Biblical Studies from Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis. She then pursued graduate work in the history of philosophy at the Institute for Christian Studies in Toronto.

Oh, the home version…

[She was] a contributing editor for the young-earth creationist Bible-Science Newsletter from 1977-1991

You can’t fool me! The Young Earth society claims the world was made in 1980!

Who respects the human body? Not homosexuals

Really? So all those stories about gay gym rats in those Tom of Finland movies were nonsense?

However, “gender remains a part of this complete breakfast.”

A wise man once said to me “I hate you”.

This declaration is being quoted in astonishment for its sheer breathtaking exaggeration. Yet it reveals a pivotal element in the liberal view of human sexuality.

No? Really? Cuz I dunno, but I’m a liberal, and I like a woman, and I’m sure there are gay men…BillS, help me out here…who wouldn’t give a woman the time of day when it comes to sex. I think the exaggeration you speak of is not the one you speak of.

Its roots go back to the French philosopher Rene Descartes, who proposed that the body is a machine controlled by a completely separate thing called the mind. The ghost in the machine.

It also appears in Karen Finley’s work, the seminal “I think therefore I yam.”

(cf Popeye)

In other words, the body is no longer regarded as an integral part of the human person but as sub-personal, functioning strictly on the level of biology and chemistry – almost like a possession that can be used to serve the self’s desires.

So is “Dr.” Pearcey suggesting the soul does not exist? Since body and mind must, in her view, be unified, and the body decays after death, by her own definition, the soul, which we presume to be part of the non-corporeal self, must decay as well.

So she’s not really a Christian, and therefore does not exist. QED.

Gender has become a postmodern concept – fluid, free-floating, completely detached from physical anatomy.

But according to her, gender is united with body and mind, therefore if a person believes he or she is not he or she, by her definition, she or he is not and must physically manifest themselves accordingly.

In other words, FORCED GAY MARRIAGE FOR ALL! WHOOPEE!

Um, I’d go on, but I fear I’d repeat myself. Carry on, folks.

Holy crap, this changes everything. In a general way, you could claim that any generous gentleman from Genoa is a genuine genetic genius, generating a whole new genre of gentility that may require the summoning of gendarmes and a fast train to Geneva. For a convention. A Geneva convention.

Alliterate much? And it should be “A Geneva genus convention”…

The article about defending the word “faggot” is pretty damned amazing.

See, feminists can’t object because they believe logic is a tool of male oppressors, so they really can’t make any arguments based on logic.

Also, Darwinists can’t object, because there might be an evolutionary link between calling somebody a faggot and not calling somebody a faggot.

I’d paraphrase the rest of this brilliant satire, but let’s just say that Pearcey owes me a new keyboard. See, my head exploded and covered it in brain matter when I got to the paragraph entitled Camus and Sartre.

Actually, the whole thing is a defense of that time Ann Coulter called John Edwards a faggot. Why revisit that?

Apparently, because Victor Davis Hanson wrote a column about how an argument can’t be bigoted if… somebody is making it.

Luckily I didn’t need my brain to understand that one.

Anyway, great stuff, as always. I think Pearcey might be ready for the big leagues.

It should also be pointed out that she quotes Daniel Dennett out of context, shocking I know, he most certainly does not believe in mind body dualism. One more tiny dishonesty in a larger piece of nasty hearted insanity (I rather like kindhearted or even curmudgeonly insanity).

“They could not accept the idea of a Creator who celebrates our material, biological, sexual nature.” What celebration ? Jesus didn’t even get a hand-job, much less headline the Festival o’ Sex !

Damn, I didn’t know love was just about the genitalia. Very interesting. Especially since these fundies always seem to wish genitalia and sex didn’t exist.

Oh, and as to how righties respect the human body– examples can be seen in Iraq and Afghanistan: Blow it to bits with bombs. Barbeque it with white phosphorus. Blast bullets through it.

Oh, and by the way, here’s something to piss off the Coulterites*: Happy 90th Anniversary to the 19th Amendment!** If you happened to be a woman who is 91 years old, you were born into a society that hadn’t quite decided yet whether you were competent enough to be entrusted with a vote.

*On account of how Coulter said that time that women really shouldn’t have the right to vote. Talk about gender dysphoria. Ooh! When’s her birthday? I’m gonna send her a wedding invitation, in which I inform her that in accordance with Kenyan-Amerilib common law she has been assigned to marry me.

**Thanks to the reminder on the google home page.

secular Gnostics

I’ve been looking for something to compliment my lawn Gnostics. Now, if they’d only come out with secular jockeys.

Don’t do it, Larkspur! Her species decapitates and eats partners while mating. Which I suppose at that point comes as something of a relief. But you’re too good for her!

Thanks for talking me down, D.Sidhe. Now I’m going to unwind with a Buffy episode. Perhaps an early one, like “Teacher’s Pet”. Bugs, decapitation, incentive to stay single forever.

Good god, is there a wingnut left out there who is not a “doctor” of some sort?

She’s obviously watched a lot of those “In Search Of_______” shows on the History channel, where they look for and often find PROOF that everything in the Bible actually happened, such as the destruction (by meteor fallout) of Sodom & Gomorrah, and proof there actually were 7 (or 9?) plagues visited on Egypt by the Santorini Volcano. But… did God send the meteor & trigger the volcano eruption, or did the Bible writers just use them as handy story devices?

What fascinated (fasces-inated?)me was the peculiar and extensive collection of links: Further Information, Cities, Publications, etc. Suppose this counts as “scholarship” among honorary Ph.D. crowd. (Doctor of Philadelphology?)

I have nothing to say that is pertinent to this thread, because I’m derailing to make a comment all about MEEE! Well, basically to thank Scott and D.Sidhe for their kind words in the previous comments. I do resolve to delurk more often, though I’m not sure the quality of my snark is up to the standards of the other commenters.

Well, maybe I will make a relevant comment. Scott, this: “But it outran her.” was awesome.

“…the self as a sort of immaterial ghost that owns and controls a body the way you own and control your car.”

I hate to say this but she really describes the way I treat vehicles.

Kind a rules out the old categorical imperative, too, don’t it?

” Dr. Pearcey “is editor-at-large of The Pearcey Report,” which seems to be a sort of Huffington Post for people who’ve had a tamping rod blown through their left frontal lobe like Phineas Gage.”

To be fair, so is the Huffington Post.

Pearcey is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute‘s Center for Science and Culture, the center of the intelligent design movement. Pearcey has played a role in a number of controversies surrounding the institute’s campaign to challenge and ultimately unseat the teaching of evolution.
[She was] a contributing editor for the young-earth creationist Bible-Science Newsletter from 1977-1991

But I thought ID and creationism were, like, totally different!

It should also be pointed out that she quotes Daniel Dennett out of context, shocking I know, he most certainly does not believe in mind body dualism.

Indeed. I mean, the guy wrote an entire book dedicated to destroying Cartesian dualism. It’s not as if his views on the subject are unclear.

Um, Dr. Pearcey…?

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” ~Galatians 3:28

Seems Paul is saying that where it really counts, that is in Christ Jesus, “gender no longer forms an essential part” of a human being. Which is far more extreme than Judge Walker’s simple recognition that gender no longer plays a role in modern American marriage law.

I’m not a Christian nor a lawyer, but my reading comprehension is pretty good. Unlike Dr. Pearcey’s…

It’s revealing that Pearcey brought up the Enlightenment, as that is likely where modern humans diverged from them.
Yep, Medieval Americans. Finally a hyphenated word for them!

Something to say?