Republican Logic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hbL3I1RoCo

            It was not until I first started watching videos on YT that I encountered the word “facepalm.”  Since then, I have found it delightfully broad in its application.
            At one point, in the comments on I-don’t-remember-which video, I asked someone why Bush said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  His answer was that the WMDs are in Syria.  Hmm.  So the reason he said they were in Iraq was that they were in Syria.  When Bush says there are WMDs in Iraq, he means there are WMDs in Syria.  Interesting.  What if they actually had been in Iraq?  Where would he have said they were then?
            As the protests in Libya were taking off, someone from the Bush administration (I don’t remember who) made the insistence that this wave of successful revolutions sweeping through the Middle East was a delayed reaction to his handling of Iraq.  Interesting.  So the way you cause successful revolutions in Jordan, Tunisia and Egypt is by invading Iraq.
            The Republican fondness for the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is quite well documented.  “Event B followed event A.  Therefore, event A must have caused event B.”
            “Well, you know, the wonderful economic prosperity which characterized the Clinton years was a delayed reaction to the policies of Reagan.  After all, it takes a long time to build a strong, prosperous economy.”
            Right.  Or perhaps they were a delayed reaction to the policies of Polk, or better yet, the policies of Caesar.  After all, it takes a long time to build a strong, prosperous economy.
            Here’s another explanation that makes just as much sense.  Perhaps the wonderful economic conditions which characterized the Clinton administration were just left by the economy fairy.  How about that?
            “God was angry about healthcare reform and unleashed Hell in the form of a volcanic eruption in Iceland.”
            Hmm.  So when a natural disaster happens in one country, it means that God is angry about something someone did in another country.  I wonder what country God was angry at when He caused the earthquake in Haiti.
            It is just as likely, if, indeed, God is responsible for that eruption, that it was because he was angry for Xerxes sending his forces into the Thermopylae pass.  After all, if it is true, as I am told, that God works in mysterious ways, that is just as likely.  Given God’s mysterious nature, it could be that this is his way of saying, “No healthcare reform in the United States!” or maybe it is his way of saying, “No more battles in the Thermopylae pass, damn it!  It’s holy ground!”
            Great.  So if something bad happens to me, I have no way to tell whom God is angry at.  If something bad happens to someone, somewhere, it’s because God is angry about something, someone did at some point.
            What’s going on here?  Maybe those on the other side of these debates are trying to get us to spend so much time with our faces buried in or palms that we end up suffocating.
            But it’s not just politics that gives me occasion to facepalm.  The other day, I came across an attempt to glorify religious pluralism; that is, the attitude that one religion is as good as another.  I agree with the technical details of this argument, but not the spirit of it.  The spirit of it is that all religions are equally good while mine is that, well, that’s true, but that’s not saying much.  For me, equally good means equally ridiculous.
            Presumably, one who practices Christianity does not practice Buddhism, and vice versa.  If it does not matter which of the two one practices, then it also does not matter which of the two one does not practice, so why practice either?  There are thousands of religions in the world.  If it does not matter which one practices, then it also does not matter which thousands one does not, so what reason has one to practice any?
            This played a part in my deconversion.  My father, a Mormon, tried to raise me with the notion that Mormonism is the best religion.  My mother, on the other hand, a Christian, but very pluralistic about it, raised me with the notion that one religion is as good as another.  They are all part of what Mitt Romney would refer to as “the chorus of faith.”
            But then... if all religions are equally valid, how come only one of them is asking me to spend all this time with its practitioners?  How come only one is asking me to prepare for some mission?  How come we are only attending services with and making donations to one?  How come we are only celebrating the holidays of one?
            This started me thinking, and once that happened, my religious belief was effectively doomed.
            But with this particular “poem,” that was not the cause of my facepalm.  The cause was its choice of words.  Basically, it was about the god of all faiths.  “The God of Adam.  The God of Noah.  The God of Abraham.  The God of Moses.  The God of Mohammad.  The God of Hindu.”
            Who the hell is Hindu?  Even the Hindus don’t know!
            “You know.  Hindu.  The god of Hinduism.”
            FYI: Hinduism is polytheistic.  That means it has several gods, not a single one of whom has the name Hindu!  Am I to infer that the individual who wrote this “poem” did any research at all on this subject?  Am I to believe that he or she attached any priority whatsoever to a little thing like getting the facts straight?