Religion – Page 44 – Politics Plus

A Cloud Over C Street

Posted by TomCat at 2:08 am Politics, Religion

Mar 192010

One difference between how Democrats and Republicans react to scandal is that Democrats tend to resign, while Republicans hang onto power until the bitter end. The end may be coming soon for a prominent resident of C Street, operated by the Family, a secretive religious cult. C Street bribes Republicans and Blue Dogs by providing them luxury accommodations at a fraction of their market value.

A federal grand jury has issued subpoenas to a Republican campaign committee and companies in Nevada in a probe of Sen. John Ensign, who has been under scrutiny for his efforts to find lobbying work for the husband of his former mistress.

One subpoena went to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which was formerly chaired by Ensign, a Nevada Republican, committee spokesman Brian Walsh said Thursday.

Sean Cairncross, general counsel for the group that is the campaign committee for Republican Senate candidates, said the committee has responded appropriately to questions concerning matters related to the timeframe of the 2008 election campaign.

Earlier Thursday, a Las Vegas television station reported that grand jury subpoenas in the Ensign probe went to six Las Vegas businesses that it did not name.

According to one subpoena obtained by the Las Vegas television station, recipients were ordered to testify March 31 in Washington, D.C., and to turn over documents relating to the Republican senator. The station posted one subpoena on its Web site with the recipient’s identity blacked out.

Ensign’s affair and the legal problems it has engendered have derailed talk that he might make a run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 and forced him to resign his position as chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee.

Asked about the subpoenas, Ensign spokeswoman Rebecca Fisher said, "Sen. Ensign is confident he has complied with all ethics rules and laws and will cooperate with any official inquiries."

The FBI and Senate Ethics Committee are investigating whether Ensign tried to limit political damage from an affair he had with the wife of one of his Senate aides by conspiring to help the aide find a new job as a lobbyist, which might have violated restrictions on lobbying by former congressional staff.

Federal criminal law prohibits congressional aides from lobbying their ex-bosses or office colleagues for one year after departing their Hill jobs… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <AP>

I am among the first to recognize that people have feet of clay. I do. I donate considerable time helping people that do. I believe that people who rehabilitate themselves deserve a second chance. So if I seem to have a double standard, here’s the difference. When someone takes responsibility for their crimes and accepts the consequences, they should be allowed to rebuild. I would have no objections to Elliot Spitzer or John Dean returning to public service. But when someone does not take responsibility for their crimes and tries to evade responsibility beyond the issuance of a brief theatrical mea culpa, especially when trying to pretending to be holier than the rest of us, that person is not fit for public service.

Rachel Maddow and Rev. Welton Gaddy discussed the issue:

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

Wow! It’s not often that I agree with a Baptist preacher.

Health Care Update – 3/18/2010

Posted by TomCat at 2:47 am Politics, Religion

Mar 182010

As of this writing, there is still no final score from the CBO, so the final vote will be on Sunday at the earliest.

Louis Gomert made the claim that ‘Deem and Pass’ is really ‘demon pass’, because there are demons involved. He exaggerated. I have found only one single demon involved in this debate, and I have the picture.

Last Friday, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) began freaking out that House Democrats are considering the use of a common parliamentary procedure known as either a “self-executing rule” or “deem and pass” to finish health care reform. “If they do that then American citizens have standing to sue against this bill,” said Bachmann on Friday. The next day, Bachmann suggested that citizens “don’t have to follow” the health care law if it passes using that procedure. (In fact, there will be an up or down vote on the bill.)

On Sean Hannity’s radio show yesterday, Bachmann went even further by accusing the media of “treason” [goose steppers delinked] for “not telling this story” that Speaker Nancy Pelosi “would even consider having us pass a bill that no one votes on.” Bachmann then suggested that if health care passed through “deem and pass,” it would warrant calls of impeachment:

BACHMANN: Well, yeah, and the other thing is treason media. Where is the mainstream media in all of this not telling this story? This is a compelling story.

HANNITY: Right.

BACHMANN: That the Speaker of the House would even consider having us pass a bill that no one votes on.

HANNITY: Yep.

BACHMANN: That should laugh her out of the House and there should be people that are calling for impeachment off of something like this. That’s how bad this is. I mean trust me, Dennis Hastert never could have gotten away with this.

Listen here:

Bachmann’s outrage is ridiculous. As AEI congressional scholar Norman Ornstein pointed out yesterday, former Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) did get “away with this” when he was Speaker. “In the last Congress that Republicans controlled, from 2005 to 2006, Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier used the self-executing rule more than 35 times, and was no stranger to the concept of deem and pass,” wrote Ornstein… [emphasis original]

Inserted from <Think Progress>

In spite of Michelle Bachmann’s demonic rant, there is a simple explanation for “deem and pass”. The passage of the Senate bill is included in the reconciliation bill with the statement that the reconciliation bill deems the Senate bill passed. It is nothing but a lame mechanism to allow cowardly Blue Dogs to make the claim that the didn’t vote for the Senate bill. The claim is preposterous. By voting for the reconciliation bill they ARE voting for the Senate bill, and don’t think the Republicans won’t make that claim once the hellfire and brimstone emanating from the aforementioned demon and her infernal cohorts clears. Democrats would be better served to just vote for the Senate bill outright, followed by the reconciliation bill. This subterfuge just gives Republicans a handle to use process to distract Americans from substance.

On the Bart ‘Coat Hanger’ Stupak front, there appears to be a revolt within the Catholic Church.

Wow. On Monday, Catholic Bishops released a letter opposing the Senate health care reform bill because it didn’t contain the Stupak language. While they acknowledged differences with the Catholic Health Association, their message was clear: they were speaking as the official and authoritative voice of the Catholic Church.

This analysis of the flaws in the legislation is not completely shared by the leaders of the Catholic Health Association. They believe, moreover, that the defects that they do recognize can be corrected after the passage of the final bill. The bishops, however, judge that the flaws are so fundamental that they vitiate the good that the bill intends to promote. Assurances that the moral objections to the legislation can be met only after the bill is passed seem a little like asking us, in Midwestern parlance, to buy a pig in a poke.

In a clear break with the bishops, 60 leaders of religious orders representing 59,000 nuns have joined with the Catholic Health Association to support the Senate bill as written.

The letter says that "despite false claims to the contrary, the Senate bill will not provide taxpayer funding for elective abortions." The letter says the legislation also will help support pregnant women and "this is the real pro-life stance."

This is huge for a number of reasons. The nuns signing this letter are the ones in the trenches, serving in Catholic hospitals and health care clinics across the nation. They represent those who see the wreckage left behind when people are denied access to care until it’s too late, the damage done when poor women cannot get prenatal care, and when the sick are left to their own devices.

Even so, the word of the bishops is regarded as the word of the Church. For these nuns to stand in defiance because they are truly pro-life, before and after birth, is a stunning eye-opening development… [emphasis original]

Inserted from <Crooks and Liars>

I applaud their courageous stance.

Finally, I’m pleased to announce that Dennis Kucinich has returned.

U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich waited until Democrats had won last November’s health care reform vote before casting his ballot against it on the House of This time around — pressured by everyone from President Obama to Moveon.org — the Cleveland Democrat had no luxury to dawdle before taking a stance. He announced at a Capitol news conference this morning that he’ll vote "yes" on the bill’s latest draft.

"I have doubts about the bill," Kucinich said. "This is not the bill I wanted to support. . . However, after careful discussions with President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, my wife Elizabeth and close friends, I’ve decided to cast a vote in favor of the legislation."

Bill opponents pounced quickly. Said an e-mail alert from the National Republican Congressional Committee: "Left-wing icon flips from ‘No,’ exposes so-called moderates."

Kucinich’s move came after months of insisting he’d oppose the bill because it doesn’t do enough to curtail insurance company abuses. Kucinich advocates bolstering Medicare and expanding its coverage to include all Americans.

But he acknowledged this morning that his choice now is to either vote "no" on principle, and thereby possibly block the biggest (though imperfect) advance in health coverage in decades, or compromise for the good of the estimated 30 million more Americans who could gain insurance.

"I have taken this fight further" than many other Congress members, Kucinich said, citing his two presidential campaigns in which he advocated universal coverage and his bill introduction and other attempts in the House to get single-payer insurance… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Common Dreams>

I didn’t know whether Dennis would come around or not. He can be uncompromisingly stubborn when it comes to principle, especially when he’s right. Single-payer, such as Medicare for all is the ultimate fix America needs. But we can’t get there from here. This is the best we’re going to get right now. As we have improved the original Social Security and Medicare, we shall improve this too. I’m glad Dennis saw the wisdom in that and congratulate him on his decision.

I expect this bill to pass.

Texas Has an Authentic Christian!

Posted by TomCat at 4:37 am Religion

Mar 012010

I’m in shock over this article by Bob Ray Sanders from Fort Worth.

Last Friday morning I turned on the car radio and quickly checked a few stations — National Public Radio, a sports program and the most listened-to local conservative talk show.

I was about to click back to NPR when I was captivated by a caller to the conservative station. In that instant between dial flipping, I heard the caller "correct" WBAP host Mark Davis, who apparently had offended the listener by implying or saying outright that Buddhism was older than Christianity.

"Where is this coming from?" I wondered.

The agitated caller continued to insist — as the host attempted to interrupt — there was absolutely no religion older than Christianity.

By now, I’m shaking my head and saying to myself, "Surely he doesn’t believe this."

To his credit, Davis delicately tried to explain that Buddhism dates to between the 6th and 4th century B.C., as in before Christ, so obviously it was a religion that preceded Christianity.

As I turned into my downtown garage, the last words I heard were from the caller who passionately explained that the Creator was a "Christian God" from the very beginning of the world and, thus, Christianity has been in existence since creation. Therefore, absolutely no other religion is older.

"Wow," I thought as I headed into my office, still puzzled about what in heaven could have brought on such an intense discussion.

Turning on the computer and the television almost simultaneously, I realized that disgraced golfer Tiger Woods had mentioned his Buddhist faith during his long-awaited apology for marital transgressions.

I admit that I thought: "Poor Tiger. It was bad enough that he admitted to being an adulterer, but the one sin many people would never forgive him for was believing in any religion besides Christianity."

I often wonder what makes religious people, especially Christians, so arrogant and, frankly, so bigoted.

Being Christian, I understand the teachings of the Bible and I’ve come to know that even within the faith, depending on one’s denomination, there are still those ready to proclaim your place in hell.

That’s just the way it is with some folks: If you don’t believe what I believe, Christian or not, hell is definitely reserved for you.

What is difficult to accept are those who find it impossible to respect other people’s beliefs. One does not have to agree with the religious teachings of others in order to respect them or their faith.

Besides, as I’ve said many times before, most of the world’s great religions teach that you serve God by serving humanity. Certainly many of the principles of Buddhism — seeking wisdom, respecting others and leading a moral life — are found in many different faiths, whether that religion is based on a belief in a Godhead or not.

But too often we become like feuding children, bragging about whose God is the biggest, boldest, oldest; whose religious teachings are divine; whose faith will get them to heaven.

Surely God can’t be pleased with that kind of childish bickering.

It would be less troubling if the radio caller were alone in his thoughts or was among a very few who felt that way. The truth is there are many, many more who express the same view and, in their zeal to extol their own religion, debase the beliefs of others.

We live in a nation that incorporated freedom of religion as a founding principle. People in this country have the right to believe in anything or nothing.

If human beings have a set of values, regardless where they come from, that instructs them in the decent treatment of others, then we ought to applaud that without trying to find fault in their religion…

Inserted from <McClatchy DC>

The unique mixture of ignorance and arrogance exhibited by the religious right, exemplified by the caller, never ceases to amaze me. Once I visited a Church in which the Pastor said that a black skin the ‘mark of Cain’. In the fellowship that followed, I confronted the man (politely) and asked him from which of Adam’s sons Noah was descended. He correctly said Seth. I asked him if anyone other than Noah and his family survived the flood. (Personally, I think the flood story is myth, but I wanted to base my point on what he believed.) He said no. I asked him how black people could bear the mark of Cain, when all Cain’s descendents perished in the flood. His face became quite red. He sputtered that he would discuss it later, but needed to attend to a pressing matter. A few minutes later a deacon called me aside and asked me to leave and not return,

Like this author, I am a Christian who believes in honoring the faith of others. I hold the opinion that God honors authentic faith regardless of the religion, from Atheism to Zoroastrianism, from which it proceeds, What God does not honor is the intolerance and hypocrisy.of the Pharisees and Sadducees, the ancient equivalent of the American Taliban.

Theocons Sue for Right to Advocate Hate Crimes

Posted by TomCat at 2:18 am Politics, Religion

Feb 072010

Seldom have I seen a lawsuit where the actual intent was so despicably transparent.

A Christian group in Michigan has filed a lawsuit alleging that a package of hate crimes laws named after murder victim Matthew Shepard is an affront to their religious freedom.

Far from the intended purpose of severely punishing criminals who commit unspeakable acts against a persecuted minority group, the religious activists claim the laws are a guarded effort to "eradicate" their beliefs.

Filed by the Thomas More Law Center [theocon delinked]– which bills itself as the religious answer to the American Civil Liberties Union — the complaint claims that protecting gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people "is an effort to eradicate religious beliefs opposing the homosexual agenda from the marketplace of ideas by demonizing, vilifying, and criminalizing such beliefs as a matter of federal law and policy."

The suit was placed on behalf of American Family Association of Michigan [theocon delinked] president Gary Glenn, along with pastors Rene Ouellette, Levon Yuille and James Combs.

Claiming "there is no need" to extend hate crimes definitions, Thomas More chief counsel Richard Thompson attempted to minimize the impact of violent crimes against homosexuals.

"Of the 1.38 million violent crimes reported in the U.S. by the FBI in 2008, only 243 were considered as motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation," he wrote on the group’s Web site [theocon delinked]. "The sole purpose of this law is to criminalize the Bible and use the threat of federal prosecutions and long jail sentences to silence Christians from expressing their Biblically-based religious belief that homosexual conduct is a sin."

However, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act clearly stipulates that it does not apply to constitutionally protected speech.

(3) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence.

(4) FREE EXPRESSION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual’s expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual’s membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs.

The Thomas More Law Center’s argument is eerily similar to a fundraising letter circulated by the Family Research Council at the end of 2009, in which the conservative group claimed that extending workplace non-discrimination rules is really Obama’s secret plot to "impose" homosexuality on America.

However, according to the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, "[the non-discrimination rule] exempts all religious organizations, which includes corporations, associations, and religious societies. In addition, all educational institutions are exempt if the educational institution is at least substantially controlled or owned by a religious organization or if the institution’s curriculum is directed towards the propagation of a religion."

The Thomas More suit, however, goes even further than just challenging hate crimes protection for LGBT people; it challenges the findings of the Matthew Shepard investigation.

"Thomas More attorneys make the case that the perpetrators of the murder of Matthew Shepard were subject to more several criminal penalties under existing state criminal law than under the new federal Hate Crimes Act," religious news outlet Christian Post notes [theocon delinked]. "They also say there is evidence demonstrating that the senseless and brutal attack on Shepard was not motivated by hate or bias; rather, it was motivated by money and drugs."

Matthew Shepard was a 21-year-old gay man from Wyoming who was tied to a fence and beaten to death in 1998. A foundation carrying his name played an important role in helping to broaden hate crimes definitions to cover LGBT people.

The Post’s story, which does not point out that the actual law carries protections for constitutional speech, claims that plaintiffs are merely seeking "judicial reassurance" that they can continue to disparage homosexuals "without being investigated or prosecuted by the government."… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Raw Story>

The law on this is crystal clear. Speech in opposition to what these bigots call homosexuality, however misguided, perverse, and obtuse, is Constitutionally protected speech. Since the judicial reassurance they claim to seek is already written into the law, that claim must be a law. Were this law to be overturned, the only right they would gain is the right to advocate hate crimes. Therefore, that is what they are seeking to obtain.

I have to make one more point here, even though I’ve beaten it to death. Real Christians do not advocate hate crimes. We advocate acceptance for all people of good will. The American Taliban represent Supply-side Jesus, a GOP/theocon invention to justify their dogma of fear, hate and greed. Historical Jesus opposed religious hypocrites, the religious right of His time on earth. So should we.

The Supply-side Jesus Guns

Posted by TomCat at 2:47 am Politics, Religion

Jan 192010

The arms contract in question here is another hangover from the Bush/GOP regime.

Coded references to New Testament Bible passages about Jesus Christ are inscribed on high-powered rifle sights provided to the United States military by a Michigan company, an ABC News investigation has found.

The sights are used by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the training of Iraqi and Afghan soldiers. The maker of the sights, Trijicon, has a $660 million multi-year contract to provide up to 800,000 sights to the Marine Corps, and additional contracts to provide sights to the U.S. Army.

U.S. military rules specifically prohibit the proselytizing of any religion in Iraq or Afghanistan and were drawn up in order to prevent criticism that the U.S. was embarked on a religious "Crusade" in its war against al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents.

One of the citations on the gun sights, 2COR4:6, is an apparent reference to Second Corinthians 4:6 of the New Testament, which reads: "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."

Other references include citations from the books of Revelation, Matthew and John dealing with Jesus as "the light of the world." John 8:12, referred to on the gun sights as JN8:12, reads, "Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

Trijicon confirmed to ABCNews.com that it adds the biblical codes to the sights sold to the U.S. military. Tom Munson, director of sales and marketing for Trijicon, which is based in Wixom, Michigan, said the inscriptions "have always been there" and said there was nothing wrong or illegal with adding them. Munson said the issue was being raised by a group that is "not Christian." The company has said the practice began under its founder, Glyn Bindon, a devout Christian from South Africa who was killed in a 2003 plane crash.

‘It violates the Constitution’

The company’s vision is described on its Web site: "Guided by our values, we endeavor to have our products used wherever precision aiming solutions are required to protect individual freedom."

"We believe that America is great when its people are good," says the Web site. "This goodness has been based on Biblical standards throughout our history, and we will strive to follow those morals."

Spokespeople for the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps both said their services were unaware of the biblical markings. They said officials were discussing what steps, if any, to take in the wake of the ABCNews.com report. It is not known how many Trijicon sights are currently in use by the U.S. military.

The biblical references appear in the same type font and size as the model numbers on the company’s Advanced Combat Optical Guides, called the ACOG.

A photo on a Department of Defense Web site shows Iraqi soldiers being trained by U.S. troops with a rifle equipped with the bible-coded sights.

"It’s wrong, it violates the Constitution, it violates a number of federal laws," said Michael "Mikey" Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, an advocacy group that seeks to preserve the separation of church and state in the military.

‘Firearms of Jesus Christ’

"It allows the Mujahedeen, the Taliban, al Qaeda and the insurrectionists and jihadists to claim they’re being shot by Jesus rifles," he said.

Weinstein, an attorney and former Air Force officer, said many members of his group who currently serve in the military have complained about the markings on the sights. He also claims they’ve told him that commanders have referred to weapons with the sights as "spiritually transformed firearm[s] of Jesus Christ."

He said coded biblical inscriptions play into the hands of "those who are calling this a Crusade."…

Inserted from <Common Dreams>

As a Christian, I find this practice highly offensive and remind you that the gospel of fear, greed and intolerance comes from Supply-side Jesus, the invention of the GOP and the American Taliban, and has nothing to do with the real Jesus’ teachings or practices.

From a practical perspective, this is a great recruiting tool for Muslim extremists, their hateful equivalent to our religious right. In my opinion, all these scopes should be recalled, and the offending inscriptions removed at company expense. Their contract should be cancelled, and they should be banned from further government contracting.

That the Army and Marine Corps were unaware of this is an obvious lie that reemphasized the need for Obama to clean house at Defense to remove the Bush/GOP ideologues, starting with Robert Gates.

GOP Leaders Respond on HATEee

Posted by TomCat at 3:21 am Politics, Religion

Jan 142010

I’m amazed that I have heard no statements from GOP politicians on this tragedy and Obama’s excellent response to it. However, the politicians are not the party leadership. In a poll conducted by 60 Minutes and Vanity Fair, Rush was voted most influential conservative, becoming the de facto leader of the GOP. He beat second place finisher, Glen Beck, by more that two to one. Under the Bush/GOP regime, graduates of Pat Robertson’s Regent University were several times more likely to receive federal appointments than Ivy league graduates, indicating that he is a spiritual leader of the GOP. Here is how they responded to the disaster.

First, let’s examine Rush’s response:

Mr. Limbaugh wasted no time trying to turn the horrific tragedy in Haiti into a sleazy partisan attack on the very people working around the clock to save as many lives as possible:

[Paraphrased via Media Matters here and here] I want you to remember, it took [Obama] three days — three days! — to respond to the Christmas Day fruit of ka-boom bomber … He comes out here in less than 24 hours to speak about Haiti … [later in same program] … they’ll use this to burnish ahhh their, ahhh shall we say, ahhh credibility with the black community, both the light skinned and, ahhh, hmmm … dark skinned black community …

Wow. At this very moment the streets of Haiti’s capital are still littered with bodies of the dead and dying. Thousands of men, women, and children — including an unknown number of Americans — are buried alive under tons of rubble, many no doubt crying out in agony for help that will come too late. And this sick twisted racist monster doesn’t even have the decency to wait for them to finish dying before equating their death and suffering to an incident where no one got a scratch except the bad guy… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Daily Kos>

I know that’s hard to believe, so here’s the video:

That just turns my stomach.

Next is Robertson’s contribution:

Every disaster that befalls a nation — hurricanes, floods, terrorism, earthquakes — constitutes God’s punishment of a people gone astray, according to Pat Robertson, who famously blamed feminists for 9/11 and gays for Hurricanes Katrina and Andrew. In the case of Haiti’s devastating earthquake, he blames an ostensible deal that black Haitians made with the Devil in order to win their emancipation and independence from the French colonials who enslaved them. So, in Haiti’s case it might not be God who did the nation in, but rather the Devil calling in his chit.

From today’s edition of "The 700 Club":

[S]omething happened a long time ago in Haiti and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French, uh you know Napoleon the third and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the Devil. They said we will serve you if you’ll get us free from the French. True Story. And so the Devil said "Okay, it’s a deal." And they kicked the French out. You know, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after the other, desperately poor. That island is Hispaniola is one island. It’s cut down the middle. On one side is Haiti, on the other side is the Dominican republic. Dominican Republic is prosperous, healthy, full of resorts, etc.. Haiti is in desperate poverty. Same island. Uh, they need to have, and we need to pray for them, a great turning to God and out of this tragedy. I’m optimistic something good may come.

Because, of course, black people couldn’t possibly have the wherewithal to defeat their white oppressors without a little supernatural help — and it sure wouldn’t be coming from God, right?

The association of black people with the devil goes back to Puritan times — remember the role of the slave Tabitha in the Salem witch trials? — and it lives in the unconscious of a certain sort of white evangelical Christian. The sort like Pat Robertson… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Alternet>

And, because this is so incredible, here is the video:

What a hypocrite!

I remember a few years back, Disney World adopted a policy not to discriminate against openly gay employees. Robertson called on his sheeple to pray that a hurricane would hit Orlando to show God’s judgment against Disney World. The next hurricane to hit the US made landfall at Virginia Beach, Robertson’s HQ. Doesn’t God have a divine sense of humor?

As I was doing my research this morning I felt so angry that I was considering how to express my outrage without coming off like a wing-nut. Then I heard Keith Olbermann’s comment, so I’ll leave you with that.

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

Would Jesus Oppose Capitalism?

Posted by TomCat at 3:27 am Editorial, Politics, Religion

Jan 102010

Here’s an interesting notion:

Would Jesus Christ – the founder of the largest religion in the world, unequivocally recognized as a messenger of peace and love – support capitalism?

It’s one of the questions filmmaker Michael Moore, the well-known creator of documentaries such as Bowling for Columbine and Sicko, asks in his latest film, Capitalism: A Love Story.

In Capitalism, the filmmaker wonders whether Christ would support a system that, as the filmmaker stated, "has allowed the richest one per cent to have more financial wealth than the 95 per cent under them combined."

Moore, a Roman Catholic, argues that Jesus’ commandments to care for others and feed the poor and hungry go against the love of money and greed that make up capitalism. He argues that one cannot be a religious Christian and a capitalist.

Clement Mehlman, a Lutheran chaplain at Dalhousie University, agrees.

"Jesus was a Jewish peasant, coming from an underprivileged tradition Himself, so He would have been what we would call a communist or a socialist," he says. "And there are elements of communism in descriptions of early Christian communities. They pooled their resources. There was not independent wealth, there was communal wealth."

The idea that Christ preached a socialist message would probably scare some conservative believers, but Mehlman has no problem with that.

"Jesus says to follow Him, you have to give everything you own to the poor," he says with a wry smile. "How many Christians do you see doing that? It’s a text that should be thrown at the wealthy fat cats."… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Common Dreams>

It rarely happens, but in this case I completely disagree with Michael Moore. I think Jesus would have no problem whatsoever with capitalism. But there is a catch. Capitalism is an economic system in which a free market sets the price of goods and services between an unlimited number of suppliers, with no barriers to entry, and an unlimited number consumers, based on the law of supply and demand. In Adam Smith’s view, monopolies and oligopolies were the ultimate evil. True capitalism has no place for corporations, because they concentrate suppliers, create barriers to entry, and form both monopolies and oligopolies, which collude to function as monopolies. In fairness to Moore, he was referring to our current economic system, but that system is NOT capitalism. Jesus never raised an objection to the common free market trade of goods and services between individuals, which is capitalism.

Mehlman’s argument that to follow Jesus we have to give all we have to the poor has a problem. It takes Jesus’ statement out of context. The person to whom Jesus was speaking was one of the elite theocrats, who was rich from the temple monopoly. Jesus required this of him only because the man’s life was centered around his greed. Jesus often dined in the homes of believers who had not divested themselves of all their possessions. One cannot care for the poor and feed the hungry without the means to do so.

The system we have in the US today is hard to label, but I’ll try to give it two labels. One is crony corporatism. We have rule by corporations through the empowerment of corporate cronies. The other is plutocratic fascism. I don’t mean Nazism here. Fascism is a system where access to power is available only through elite status or membership in a group. Thus, plutocratic fascism is government of, by and for the rich, and the rest of us have to band together into groups to be heard at all. Economic exploitation by the elite is the norm. Would Jesus oppose this? I say yes, and I’m sure Moore would agree, because this is what I think he meant.

The closest thing Jesus encountered to our system was the monopoly on mandated temple sacrifice held by the religious right of his day. There was no other source of supply for sacrificial animals and the unique currency required to buy them. These theocrats manipulated the system to fleece the common people. Sound familiar? Jesus’ response was to drive them out of the temple. Unlike the religious right, Jesus would certainly oppose our economic system.

It saddens me immeasurably that the most vocal groups, who identify themselves as Christians, have sided with the plutocrats and corporatists against the poor, contrary to Jesus’ teaching. This is the opposite of authentic Christianity!

Editorials on the GOP from Charles Blow and Me

Posted by TomCat at 4:26 am Editorial, Politics, Religion

Jan 092010

Amid all the wailing and gnashing of teeth coursing through the media and the blogosphere forecasting the imminent demise of the Democratic party, we need to recognize that the other side is worse off than we are.

The first editorial is from Charles Blow:

The attack on the Republican establishment by the tea party folks grabs the gaze like a really bad horror flick — some version of “Hee Haw” meets “28 Days Later.” It’s fascinating. But it also raises a serious question: Are these the desperate thrashings of a dying movement or the labor pains of a new one?

My money is on the former. Anyone who says that this is the dawn of a new age of conservatism is engaging in wishful thinking on a delusional scale.

There is no doubt that the number of people who say that they are conservative has inched up. According to a report from Gallup on Thursday, conservatives finished 2009 as the No. 1 ideological group. But ideological identification is no predictor of electoral outcomes. According to polls by The New York Times, conservative identification was slightly higher on the verge of Bill Clinton’s first-term election and Barack Obama’s election than it was on the verge of George W. Bush’s first-term election.

It is likely that Republicans will pick up Congressional seats in November partly because of the enthusiasm of this conservative fringe, democratic apathy and historical trends. But make no mistake: This is not 1994.

This is a limited, emotional reaction. It’s a response to the trauma that is the Great Recession, the uncertainty and creeping suspicion about the risks being taken in Washington, a visceral reaction to Obama and an overwhelming sense of powerlessness and loss.

Simply put, it’s about fear-fueled anger. But anger is not an idea. It’s not a plan. And it’s not a vision for the future. It is, however, the second stage of grief, right after denial and before bargaining.

The right is on the wrong side of history. The demographics of the country are rapidly changing, young people are becoming increasingly liberal on social issues, and rigid, dogmatic religious stricture is loosening its grip on the throat of our culture.

The right has seen the enemy, and he is the future.

According to a Gallup report issued this week, Republicans were more than twice as likely as Democrats and a third more likely as independents to have a pessimistic outlook for the country over the next 20 years. That might be the fourth stage of grief: depression.

So what’s their battle plan to fight back from the precipice of irrelevance? Moderation? A stab at modernity? A slate of innovative ideas? No, their plan is to purge the party’s moderates and march farther down the road to oblivion… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <NY Times>

The second editorial is from me:

I consider the retaking of America a two step process. First get rid of the alligators. Then drain the swamp.

Get rid of the alligators. The alligators are the GOP. They are divided into four segments:

Neocons: They believe that the US should rule the world by force. They brought us wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. They also planned to conquer Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Iran, but could not proceed because the GOP botched the first two. They also believe in ruling our nation by fear, and if that does not work, by force. In the event of a civil disturbance in which US troops refused to fire on our citizens, Bush and the GOP had Blackwater storm troopers poised to cut us down. The US public is tired of war. The GOP has played the fear card so many times that only the most delusional Faux Noise sheeple believe it. And we are reasonably safe from the threat of force from our government, as long as the GOP is never allowed back in power. They cannot win over the public, unless a major terrorist attack, on the scale of 9/11, succeeds.

Theocons: They believe in establishing a theocracy through which they can mandate observance of their piety codes on those who do not share their beliefs. They would overturn a woman’s right to control her own body, muzzle science, criminalize the LGBT community, enforce abstinence only education, and require the teaching of the Genesis creation account in schools. They cannot win over the public, because the majority opposes their repressive policies, and because the numerous scandals from Pastor Ted to John Ensign exposes them as the hypocrites they are.

Corporocons: They believe in No Millionaire Left Behind, the only successful Bush/GOP policy. Because of them, the bottom 40% of Americans own only 0.2% of the wealth. The banksters are a subset of the corporocons. They cannot win over the public by themselves, although they have worked in close concert with the GOP, they are equally happy to buy Democrats. They have been successful enough in that endeavor that eliminating them will have to wait until the second step of the process.

Insanocons: This is the teabagger set. They believe only what they see on Faux Noise. Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, and Michelle Malkin are their demigods. The think what they’re told, say what they’re told, go where they’re told and do what they’re told, happy to goose-step into insignificance. They are dangerous because of their passion, but there are few enough in numbers, and so far off the deep end, that they cannot win over the public.

There is also a fifth segment of the GOP: the authentic intellectual conservative. I did not include them, because the other four segments have turned on them, marginalized them, and driven them out of the party to such an extent that they are virtually extinct. That is a sad thing, because without them, the GOP has no redeeming value.

So this is what we’re up against. The only way we can fail is to form a circular firing squad. Though the Democrats are far from perfect, supporting them is a necessary step toward reclaiming our nation, and we need to be just as passionate in that support as the insanocans are in theirs.

Then drain the swamp. The swamp is the Democratic Party. But that’s another editorial.

Older Entries Newer Entries