The review was written by Rebecca Watson of the SGU. She's the female host of the program. Most of the male hosts share a surname and are, I assume, related.
In her review she replies to the points I made that she felt most relevant and in need of commentary. She also complimented her fans on their replies to my original review, and plunged into a few other pages of my blog to point out where she disagreed with me on issues like vaccination.
I have little to say about her review. It's largely the kind of rationalization I've come to expect. I do however want to make a few points.
She comments on my post "The Coward who could save Billions of Lives." In it she criticized me for accepting the word of an anonymous source, clearly ignoring the fact that the entire POINT of the post was my complaining about the fact that the source is in fact anonymous. Such cherry picking attempts at criticism fall flat when you read my actual article about the unknown vaccine researcher and his claims.
Surely she can admit that if the interview is genuine and accurate then serious questions about the safety of vaccines are raised. The problem is, the source is refusing to come forward and reveal himself. This is a cowardly act if the interview is genuine. Miss Watson and myself agree on the fact that the source needs to come forward.
She further comments on my mention of the fiction of "Separation of Church and State" and pretends I was criticizing the Founding Fathers with the comments. She admits the phrase "Separation of Church and State" never appears in the Constitution and even quotes the passage revisionists use to cram the "Separation" claim into the Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .
What I didn't spell out in my SGU review is that I do not blame the Founding Fathers, most of them pastors, for the fiction of "Separation of Church and State." The frequent appeals to God in their writing and the overall bodies of their works, make it clear that they saw Christendom as the cornerstone of the nation.
The myth of a church / state barrier was injected years, even decades later by humanist thinkers seeking to exclude God from the pubic sphere. I think my understanding of the Constitution's actual words is highlighted in my essay "It's legal for the states to ban Islam." The Constitution's goal was to prevent the Federal Government from making a national religion, in part because many of the original 13 states already HAD an official religion.
The Fed is banned from making laws regarding religion, not the states. A stab against federal hegemony is being misused to alienate God himself.
Finally, she goes over some of my previous podcast reviews and agrees with most of them. I guess there's hope for her after all.