The mp3 of that show is floating around somewhere too.

Why is she so ignorant?

In defense of Laura, she is trained to do that. You'll notice almost all (famous) talk show hosts use similar tactics, regardless of religious stature.

I just posted the following on my blog.

Laura Ingraham had Brian Sapient of the Rational Response Squad as a guest on her radio show. Members on YouTube, such as AntiResponseSqd, have uploaded this recording and said Brian got "owned." I examined Laura's arguments and found them wanting. Thus, I wrote down the faults of her argument and responded to the video of the second part of the interview. AntiResponseSqd quickly deleted my comments. Why? Did I curse, make disparaging comments, spam, or violate the YouTube Terms of Service agreement? No. My only offense was not agreeing with them! Fortunately, AntiResponseSqd cannot exercise Fascism here. Thus, this is where my examination of Laura Ingraham's arguments shall be. 

Laura begins insulting Brian. That was petty. After she praises "love thy neighbor" she deletes it from memory. Jesus' ethical teachings were relevant a minute ago, not now. Laura has a "theology of the moment." Using "theology of the moment" as the base for morality is like using water as the base for hammock posts.  

Laura then argues that religion is the foundation for charity organizations. The implication: she thinks people are only charitable because they fear God or God's judgment, they're trying to get on God's good side, to ensure entrance into Heaven or not entering Hell. One moment she's praising them for how their morality goes beyond themselves and the next moment she essentially argues that their morality is because of a concern solely for themselves. I'm sure many people involved in charities would agree with me in saying God's existence is an unnecessary incentive because empathy and compassion offer more than enough incentive to do good deeds. Laura spits on these people.  

Laura then argues that religion is responsible for all freedom movements. She speaks of Martin L. King getting his views from the Bible and Mahatma Gandhi. I agree. However, she implies that Mahatma Gandhi was a religious man. Gandhi described himself as "super-atheist." Atheists also played a large part in ending racial segregation, Laura. Women's Suffrage? Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Stanton, and Matilda Gage were some of the leaders of the Women's Suffrage movement and they all considered organized religion to be an enemy to their cause--No Gods, No Masters. Animal rights? Most of the credit for the Animal Rights movement belongs to Jeremy Bentham and Peter Singer, atheists. She said that if atheists had their way there would not have been any freedom movements. She just spit on Mahatma Gandhi, Jeremy Bentham, Peter Singer, and many other good people.  

(After Laura made her "atheists would not promote peace" argument, John Lennon's song "Imagine"--which promotes the idea of abandoning religion in favor of peace--was playing in the background. That was humorous.) 

Laura then plays the "who's smarter" game. Laura then argues that Galileo and Da Vinci's intelligence is proof there was proof Mary gave birth to Jesus ~2,000 years ago and Jesus still exists. Galileo and Da Vinci may have believed through faith rather than reason. High intelligence does not equal infallibility. The premise of her argument consisted of the appeal to authority logical fallacy and her conclusion didn't follow from that invalid premise.  

Laura then tries to psychoanalyze Brian. Something bad must've happened in Brian's past that caused him to turn away from Catholicism. Psychoanalyzing people you don't know is never a good idea. What if I said of Laura that she only turned to the Heavenly Father because she hates her real father? I don't believe that's true, of course, but it mirrors the silliness of Laura's try at psychoanalyzing Brian.  

Laura's final argument was Pascal's Wager. The sole intent of this argument is to motivate people to gamble, using selfish and greedy reasons, on the hereafter. Would God favor a selfish, greedy, half-believing, faith-professing, Heaven-coveting gambler over an unbeliever who thought truth was more important than selfish, greedy wishes but didn't find the truth?

Welcome to the forums, Visual_Paradox!

We'd like to get to know you a little better. When you get a minute, we'd love it if you'd hop over to the General Conversation, Introductions and Humor forum and introduce yourself.