Politics Plus

The Republican Pharisees and Sadducees at the AFA do not represent the same Jesus that authentic Christians do.

Just how anti-Muslim is the AFA’s Bryan Fischer?

So anti-Muslim that he is now claiming that the entire Iraq war was an epic failure [theocon delinked] and complete waste of American time, money, and lives because we did not seek to convert the entire country to Christianity.

Fischer says that the only thing that kept Iraq functioning under Saddam Hussein was that "Christians to help him run the country [because] Christians were the only decent, trustworthy, honest people he could find."  When Hussein was toppled, it left Iraq in the hands of Muslims and "Islam simply doesn’t produce men with the kind of character and integrity needed to run a country."

Fischer says America has offended God by creating a new Islamic Republic in Iraq which, "without the stabilizing values and presence of the Prince of Peace," will ultimately collapse.

Therefore, all of our soldiers have died for nothing:

It grieves me to the bottom of my soul to think of the soldiers who bravely gave their last full measure of devotion in such a misbegotten cause. They served bravely and well; it was their leadership that let them down.

All this is due to President Bush’s naive short-sightedness about the true nature of Islam and what it does to the human spirit. I believe him to be an honest and decent man, but deceived and foolish when it came to Islam.

He genuinely seemed to believe that Islam is a religion of peace which had been hijacked by evil men. The truth is the other way round. Islam is a barbaric religion of violence and war. The only hijacking that’s been done is by those trying to fool people into thinking it’s something benign.

… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Right Wing Watch>

Are we to thank God that Christians were helping Saddam run the country when that bastion of piety, Donald Rumsfeld, brokered the deal for Saddam to acquire chemical weapons and provided him training in their use?  Are we to thank God that Christians were helping Saddam run the country when he killed and tortured so many of his own citizens?  Are we to thank God that Christians were helping Saddam run the country when he accepted the invitation to invade Kuwait from April Glaspie, the US Ambassador appointed by GHW Bush?  I say no, no and no!

If US deaths in Iraq were futile, it is because we should never have invaded, not because we did not do more to convert them to Republican Supply-side Jesus.  How can this hate monger claim that Islam is a religion of violence and war when it was GW Bush who claimed that Jesus told him to invade Iraq?  Had we tried to force conversion on the Iraqi people, Iraq would be politically unified today… against us.

Supply-side Jesus, the Republican religious right invention, whose gospel is war, hate and greed, has nothing to do with Christ.  Just as Jesus opposed the Pharisees and Sadducees, authentic Christians today oppose their modern day counterparts.

I know.  I spelled it that way, because that that’s how Kelly Bundy spelled it, and Kelly is a perfect example of a Republican intellectual.  Republicans deny climate change, so much so that Bush ordered scientific data altered to prevent its recognition.  Republicans deny evolution and want biblical creation taught in our classrooms.  Not even Einstein is safe.

To many conservatives, almost everything is a secret liberal plot: from fluoride in the water to medicare reimbursements for end-of-life planning with your doctor to efforts to teach evolution in schools.

But Conservapedia founder and Eagle Forum University instructor [delinked] Andy Schlafly — Phyllis Schlafly’s son — has found one more liberal plot: the theory of relativity [delinked].

If you’re behind on your physics, the Theory of Relativity was Albert Einstein’s formulation in the early 20th century that gave rise to the famous theorum that E=mc2, otherwise stated as energy is equal to mass times the square of the speed of light. Why does Andy Schlafly hate the theory of relativity? We’re pretty sure it’s because he’s decided it doesn’t square with the Bible.

In the entry, "Counterexamples to Relativity," the authors (including Schlafly) write:

The theory of relativity is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.[1]

To what does that reference lead? Why, a note by Schlafly:

See, e.g., historian Paul Johnson’s book about the 20th century, and the article written by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe as allegedly assisted by Barack Obama. Virtually no one who is taught and believes relativity continues to read the Bible, a book that outsells New York Times bestsellers by a hundred-fold

In other words, reading a theory about physics is correlated to a decrease in people’s interest in reading the Bible, which means that it causes people to stop reading the Bible… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Gawker>

Rachel Maddow covers this beautifully.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

We certainly need those teachers, but I do have to disagree on one point.  Evolution is not the only theory that should be taught in the classroom, when a competing view has ample supporting evidence.  Consider the theory of devolution:

More and more, Churches are violating the establishment clause in the First Amendment and the 501(c)(3) tax code, from which they derive their tax exempt  status, by endorsing Republican candidates for public office.  The Bush Regime simply ignored the complaints about this.

When South Dakota gubernatorial hopeful Gordon Howie put out a call for pastors to endorse him from the pulpit, the Rev. H. Wayne Williams was quick to respond.

Williams, pastor of Liberty Baptist Tabernacle in Rapid City, endorsed the Republican candidate during a church service on May 16.

An ecstatic Howie, the self-professed “Tea Party” favorite, quickly issued a press release praising the action.

“Last week, Howie challenged South Dakota churches and their pastors to become more politically active in the stretch run to the June 8th primary election, urging pastors to endorse candidates and advocate specific issues from the pulpit,” read the Howie media statement. “Reverend H. Wayne Williams, Pastor of Liberty Baptist Tabernacle in Rapid City, became one of the first to accept the challenge, adding an official endorsement of Gordon Howie for Governor to a message delivered during his Sunday night services.”

The release quoted Williams, who said, “I believe Gordon Howie has clearly demonstrated the courage of character and conviction to take a position that has long been forgotten and lost in this country. I’m glad that this issue has been brought to the forefront of public conversation. It is high time that churches return to the role that they’ve occupied historically in guiding their flocks in making election decisions.”

But not everyone agrees with this kind of blatant church electioneering. Williams seems to have been the only pastor to endorse Howie from the pulpit, and several South Dakota religious leaders spoke out publicly against pulpit partisanship.

Among them was Howie’s own pastor, Bishop Lorenzo Kelly of Faith Temple Church in Rapid City.

“I have encouraged our people to be participants in the political arena and showed them the scriptures that back it up,” Kelly told the Rapid City Journal. “But I have not from the pulpit endorsed him. I wouldn’t do that. I wouldn’t put my church in jeopardy of anything.”

South Dakota voters were also not impressed. On Election Day, Howie, a state senator running against four other Republicans, took fourth place with just 12 percent of the primary vote.

The church endorsement scheme was also legally problematic. Federal law prohibits all non-profit organizations that hold 501(c)(3) status from intervening in elections by endorsing or opposing candidates for public office. The Internal Revenue Service has repeatedly reminded churches to stay out of elections.

Nevertheless, some pastors continue to insist they have a right to tell their congregants which candidates to vote for or against. They are often aided and abetted by the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), an Arizona-based Religious Right legal group founded by right-wing television and radio preachers in 1993.

Alerted by members in South Dakota, Americans United began investigating the Williams affair. In early June, an Americans United staffer contacted Williams. He not only admitted that he had endorsed Howie during a church service but brazenly asserted that the IRS has no authority over him or his church. He was defiant and argumentative.

On June 10, Americans United filed a formal complaint with the IRS over Williams’ actions.

Americans United Executive Director Barry W. Lynn pointed out that Williams has admitted that he violated the law by endorsing Howie.

“Furthermore, he asserted that the IRS has no authority over his church and that he has a legal right to endorse candidates from the pulpit,” wrote Lynn to the federal tax agency. “Liberty Baptist Tabernacle appears to be in clear violation of federal law. Accordingly, I am asking the IRS to investigate this matter and enforce the law as necessary.”

Although Williams had been combative when he talked with Americans United, the complaint may have given him pause. The minister quickly began backpedaling after the IRS complaint became public, and his story suddenly became fuzzy.

“I simply preach from the pulpit principles, and when someone stands with our principles, I say this person is standing with the same principles we stand on and are worthy of our consideration,” Williams told the Associated Press. “I told them vote on the basis of your own conscience.”

In an interview with the Journal, Williams took an even more curious tack: He insisted that his church never sought 501(c)(3) status, and, although he admitted the church is tax exempt, he claimed the IRS has no power over him… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Alternet>

Many of you have read that I do volunteer work and am on the board of a small nonprofit corporation that helps prisoners learn to change into law abiding citizens and help them transition to community life when released.  I often discuss it here in general terms, but never give specifics.  If you have wondered why, our group is also a 501(c)(3).  Since I regularly endorse and oppose candidates for public office here, I must keep the group I represent completely separate from my political blogging.  I respect the law.

Why won’t the the followers of Supply-side Jesus (the Republican abomination, not the real one) do the same?  They do not respect the Constitution, the law, or even the biblical injunction to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.

I hope the Obama administration will strip such churches of their tax exempt status.

The following is just a small part of a fascinating article by Naomi Cahn and June Carbone.  I strongly encourage you to click through and read the rest of this fine piece that examines the cultural difference between Red State and Blue State families.

Families are on the front lines of the culture wars. Controversies over abortion, same-sex marriage, teen pregnancy, singleparenthood, and divorce have all challenged our images of the American family. Some Americans seek a return to the “mom, dad, and apple pie” family of the 1950s, while others embrace all of our families, including single mothers, gay and lesbian parents, and cohabiting couples. These conflicting perspectives on life’s basic choices affect us all—at the national level, in state courts and legislatures, in drafting local ordinances, and in our own families.

In our new book, Red Families vs. Blue Families: Legal Polarization and the Creation of Culture, we go behind the overblown rhetoric and political posturing of the family values conflict. What we have found is that the new information economy is transforming the family—and doing so in ways that create a crisis for marriage-based communities across the country.

The “blue families” of our title are on one side of the cultural controversy. These families have reaped the handsome rewards available to the well-educated middle class who are able to invest in both their daughters’ and sons’ earning potential. Their children defer family formation until both partners reach emotional maturity and financial independence. Blue family champions celebrate the commitment to equality that makes companionate relationships possible and the sexual freedom that allows women to fully participate in society. Those who have embraced the blue family model have low divorce rates, relatively few teen births, and good incomes. Yet, the ability to realize the advantages of the new blue family system appears to be very much a class-based affair. Women who graduate from college are the only women in American society whose marriage rates have increased, and they and their partners form the group whose divorce rates have most appreciably declined.

The terms of the successful blue family order—embrace the pill, encourage education, and accept sexuality as a matter of private choice—are a direct affront to the “red families” of our title and to social conservatives who see their families in peril. Driven by religious teachings about sin and guilt and based in communities whose social life centers around married couples with children, the red family paradigm continues to celebrate the unity of sex, marriage, and procreation. Red family champions correctly point out that the growing numbers of single-parent families threaten the well-being of the next generation, and they accurately observe that greater male fidelity and female “virtue” strengthen relationships. Yet, red regions of the country have higher teen pregnancy rates, more shotgun marriages, and lower average ages at marriage and first birth. What the red family paradigm has not acknowledged is that the changing economy has undermined the path from abstinence through courtship to marriage. As a result, abstinence into the mid-20s is unrealistic, shotgun marriages correspond with escalating divorce rates, and early marriages, whether prompted by love or necessity, often founder on the economic realities of the modern economy, which disproportionately rewards investment in higher education. Efforts to insist on a return to traditional pieties thus inevitably clash with the structure of the modern economy and produce recurring cries of moral crisis… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Alternet>

This article confirms what I have known for some time.  The hallmark of red state ideals is ignorance.  Often time we impugn the morality of these people, and I confess to joining-in, but for the most part, those who hold red state views are good people.  They want the same things we want.  They work too hard for too little.  They are just too ignorant to understand that they are trying to carry 19th century ideas into the 21st century.  They have been brainwashed to believe that the very ideas, needed to achieve the happiness and stability for their families that they seek, are a threat to them.  The irony is that people, who hold views opposite to theirs, are far more likely to achieve the family values they espouse than they are.  The true villains in this are the purveyors of the lies that imprison them, not the red staters themselves.  The true villains exploit their labor for slave wages.  The the true villains demand their obedience to Supply-side Jesus (the GOP invention, not the real one) and his gospel of war, greed and hate.  The true villains undermine their education to keep them ignorant enough to enthrall.  The true villains are the Republican party and their corporate masters.