The Effectiveness of Waterboarding

Waterboarding is a crime. All of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" are illegal as well as immoral. Cheney is repeatedly confessing to a crime on national television and basically daring anybody to do anything about it.

Jesse Ventura is a nutjob on some issues (the ones where we disagree) and brilliant on others (the ones where we agree).

Here he is at his most brilliant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoqmH49VBC0

The Effectiveness of Teabagging

On April 14 Obama's job approval rating was 62%
On April 18 Obama's job approval rating had risen to 63%
Now, 3 weeks later Obama's approval rating is 67%

I hear more Tea Parties are scheduled for July 4th. I'm excited. They might even push Obama's approval rating up past 70%!!!

Worldnut Daily Overheats

"Worldnutdaily Overheats" is really like saying "Stop the presses! The sky is blue!"

Joseph Farrah (founder, editor and CEO of Worldnetdaily.com) thinks Obama has done something radical, crazy and totalitarian. Srsly! President Obama fired (actually asked for the resignation) of an extremely lousy CEO who was sucking up taxpayer money like a Hoover. Farah is prepared, though, he won't be pushed around!

I have news for you, though: If Obama calls for my resignation as CEO of WND, he needs to know he can have my business when he pries it from my cold, dead fingers.

Of course WND isn't taking any government money that I know of, nor will it any time in the future. But who cares about a little detail like that?

Then he gets unintentionally (more) funny:

What's going on in this country? Has everyone gone mad? Are we all suffering from a new form of collective Alzheimer's disease? Have we forgotten our roots, our heritage of freedom, our constitutional foundations?

This is from someone who cheered while Bush wiped his butt with the US Constitution and was snatching American citizens off the streets and disappearing them into torture and permanent detention without trial or charges.

But asking some incompetent CEO to go ruin someone else's company is soooo horrible. How horrible is it?

It's like directed chaos – which is why I say it is becoming more obvious all the time that the goal is to destroy rather than save or build a viable economy.

Farrah needs to lie down and take smelling salts. Maybe loosen his corset strings a little.

No New Deal on Drug War

The drug "war" pours billions of dollars a year down a bottomless rat hole. But who cares? It's only money. The problem is, it pours millions of human lives down the same rat hole. All for nothing. Nothing at all. They do it to save us from a harmless drug that grows naturally along the roadways. A toxic dose of it has never been discovered. A McDonald's Happy Meal will kill you quicker.

But the very suggestion that anti marijuana laws be repealed was laughed off by Obama. He's not alone in that reaction. It's a joke. It's laughed off by everybody.

The next time a child is killed in a drive by shooting or a little old lady is murdered because the police had the wrong address, I'll try to remember to laugh my ass off.

Are we a free people?

Let's stop treating people who fly in airplanes like penitentiary inmates. Let's get rid of the "no fly" list. If a terrorist blows up a plane the people on that plane died for our freedom.

Let's stop living in terror. Let's stop torture. Let's release the prisoners at Guantanamo if there is no evidence that they committed a crime. If they commit terrorism and kill people, those people died for our freedom.

Let's stop wiretapping American citizens. If some terrorists carry out a plot to kill people, those people died for our freedom.

The people who died on 9/11 didn't die to turn America into a police state. Let's make their sacrifice meaningful and consider them martyrs who died for our freedom.

Freedom comes at a price. Let's decide that all of us are brave enough to pay that price and stop living like lily-livered, yellow-bellied cowards.

I Want to Live in Obama's America

From Victoria Jackson, a Saturday Night Live vet:

I don't want a political label, but Obama bears traits that resemble the anti- Christ and I'm scared to death that uneducated people will ignorantly vote him into office.

You see, what bothers me most, besides being a Communist, and a racist . . . is that he is a LIAR. He pretends to be a Christian and he incriminates himself everytime he speaks about Christianity. To lie about being a believer in Christ is very dangerous. Lightning could strike him at any minute! But seriously, he doesn't have a clue what the Bible says and yet he pretends to be a church-going Christian to win votes. That is sooooo evil.

ok, she's an extreme wingnut and obviously not terribly bright. Here's what McCain is saying:

I'm an American. And I choose to fight. Don't give up hope. Be strong. Have courage. And fight. Fight for a new direction for our country. Fight for what's right for America.

Fight to clean up the mess of corruption, infighting and selfishness in Washington.

Fight to get our economy out of the ditch and back in the lead.

Fight for the ideals and character of a free people.

Fight for our children's future.

Fight for justice and opportunity for all.

Stand up to defend our country from its enemies.

Stand up, stand up, stand up and fight. America is worth fighting for. Nothing is inevitable here. We never give up. We never quit. We never hide from history. We make history. Now, let's go win this election and get this country moving again.

It's very typical Republican rhetoric. "We have enemies and we must defeat them. Be afraid. Be very afraid." McCain hinted that Obama is a socialist ("spread the wealth around") but he doesn't actually say it.

Palin isn't so fussy:

Senator Obama says now he wants to spread the wealth, which means government taking your hard-earned money and doughing it out however the politician sees fit, and Barack Obama calls it spreading the wealth and Joe Biden calls higher taxes patriotic. Joe the Plumber said it sounded to him like socialism.

And again the standard Republican "be very afraid" rhetoric. Everybody knows a socialist is just someone whose too shy to call themselves a communist. They think they can win with this rhetoric. I really hope they keep it up. Every time they say the word "socialist" or "elitist" or "Muslim" or "terrorist" a Democratic angel gets her wings.

Fortunately it looks like they are burying themselves in their own big piles of steaming manure.

Here's what Obama is saying:

I know these are difficult times for America. But I also know that we have faced difficult times before. The American story has never been about things coming easy - it's been about rising to the moment when the moment was hard. It's about seeing the highest mountaintop from the deepest of valleys. It's about rejecting fear and division for unity of purpose. That's how we've overcome war and depression. That's how we've won great struggles for civil rights and women's rights and worker's rights. And that's how we'll emerge from this crisis stronger and more prosperous than we were before - as one nation; as one people.

The question comes down to which America you want to live in. I want to be what Barack Obama thinks I am and I want to live in his America.

Better than He Is

The quote below from The New Republic is a more expanded version of a "Quote of the Day" from the Dish:

Tyrants and génocidaires would sleep less soundly during a McCain presidency. And yet it is impossible any longer to ignore the contradiction between the nobility of his past and the ignobility of his present. He is abstracted, dispersed, out of focus, Stockdalesque, mentally undone. Often he sounds simply unintelligent. I would be more affected by his championing of soldiers and veterans if it were not also the championing of people like himself: solipsism is a common effect of solidarity, and McCain's sense of reality seems to be narrowing. The financial crisis harshly exposed these limitations: it made McCain more dogmatic and more doctrinaire, with his wild refrain about tax cuts and his unmaverick-like refusal to examine his party's cult of corporations. His economics refuted his compassion. McCain feels with his heart, but he thinks with his base. And when he picked Sarah Palin, he told the United States of America to go fuck itself. I used to think of my dilemma this way: Obama's conception of America is better than he is, McCain's conception of America is worse than he is. But McCain is looking more and more like his America, which is Bush's America: a country of capitalists and Christians. I do not know how to explain what has become of him. But the more I regard him, the more I recall Gene's ominous words. You vote for the man.

Though I like the "told the United States of America to go fuck itself" line very much, I thought the far more important line was the next one: "I used to think of my dilemma this way: Obama's conception of America is better than he is, McCain's conception of America is worse than he is."

That, ladies and gentlemen, hits the nail on the head.

Why The Repubs will Lose. . .and why they should

I ran across this via MSNBC Political Cartoons of the Week:


This image completely captures the pointlessness of the McCain campaign. It's now a cliché to say McCain is out of touch, but this man just doesn't get it at a level beyond the imagination. Palin doesn't know there's an "it" to get.

It seems like the entire right wing is hysterical. They can't figure out what in the hell is going on. Someone I know likes to say "reality is that which blithely ignores what you think about it." Reality is that cartoon.

I do a lot of opposition research and came across this at the NRO:

That is to say, the continued association [with Ayers] is easily explained for anyone willing to look at the facts. The post 9/11 Ayers was exactly the same guy as the pre-9/11 Ayers. That's what drew Obama to him in the first place. The media and our esteemed commentariat choose not to look at the facts — after all, Obama is such a fine writer and has such intellectual rigor. So we have the usual dismissal or complex rationalizations of something that is obvious and simple: Obama shares Ayers's Leftist politics. Whatever distance Obama has imposed in the last couple of years is strictly a function of his electoral ambitions.

The truth is if Obama had any kind of association with Ayers, it would be screaming in the headlines. It's not there. Obama served on a board with him along with a bunch of people including Republicans. Obama's career was not launched in Ayers's living room. That's simply a bald-faced lie. Annenberg who gave millions to Ayers's projects has endorsed McCain for president. Why did McCain accept an endorsement (and I assume a contribution) from someone who gave almost 50 million dollars to a terrorist?

The Ayers thing is steaming pile of bullshit. And it's what the right wing--along with McCain and Palin--are all about.

Meanwhile this is what Obama is about (with thanks to The Dish):

And Did You Notice He's Black?

Obama isn't letting any state go without a fight. This is from his campaigners in West Freekin' Virginia:

"He is black" was the first thing Kenny Perdue, the state's AFL-CIO president, said. "The gentleman that's in the White House and John McCain — they're white men. And I'm absolutely ashamed of what George W. Bush has done to this country."

The president of the United Mine Workers, Cecil Roberts, spoke after Perdue in a parking lot set in the flat plateau below the remains of a strip-mined mountain.

"I'd rather have a black friend than a white enemy," he said. State Democratic Party Chairman Nick Casey spoke, too. Casey, 57, grew up Irish Catholic in Charleston, and he said the bus was following John F. Kennedy's bus route in the 1960 Democratic primary.

"There's a lot of people out there think you're a bunch of inbred, redneck racists," he told a couple dozen people wearing union hats and jackets. "They say you won't vote for a man who's black."

"The rest of the country thought when Kennedy ran we were a bunch of ignorant, inbred religious bigots," he said. "They were wrong, and we made Kennedy president."

And I'm also ashamed of what Bush & Co. have done to this country. I want Obama to restore the America we remember. I want him to get rid of the banana republic we have now. A reputation is hard to gain and easy to lose. Bush has thrown our national reputation away with both hands.

Signs of the Times

This is what McCain & Palin have wrought:

by way of fivethirtyeight.com

and

by way of Pharyngula

the author of the second sign seems to be an ideal McCain-Palin supporter.

Country Last

McCain has a new stump speech. He's desperate and while he's lumbering along slugging at Obama, Obama is defending himself with akaido, jujitsu. McCain is beating himself up rather badly and seems to be finally realizing it's his own blows that are rebounding back on him. Today in a stump speech he said this:

“What America needs in this hour is a fighter; someone who puts all his cards on the table and trusts the judgment of the American people. I come from a long line of McCains who believed that to love America is to fight for her. I have fought for you most of my life. There are other ways to love this country, but I’ve never been the kind to do it from the sidelines.”

I used to believe he meant that, more or less. I used to believe he believed it of himself and he still may. But I don't believe it any more. He proved that it was all a lie when he chose Palin as his vice. When he did that he showed us that it's McCain first.

And the rest of us dead last.

Reaping the Whirlwind

Reaping the Whirlwind. Letting the genie out of the bottle. Opening Pandora's box.

John McCain is starting something he may not be able to finish. He is whipping up a mob filled with hate and fear.



Picking Sara Palin disqualified him as worthy of the presidency. If he hadn't done that and had gone with a saner choice, his behavior of the last few days would disqualify him to be president. McCain wants to be president at all and any cost. If he can't get elected, he simply doesn't care what happens to the country. Country is first, all right. First to be thrown under the bus when he doesn't get his way.

The US has made it clear that we don't want to be his "fellow prisoners." We don't want to live in terror, beholden to the king. Thanks anyway.

If you watched the video above, you should watch the one below to clear your palate:

McCain in Kamakazi Mode

McCain is losing everywhere. If the election were held today they wouldn't be able to find him underneath the crushing landslide.

So what's he going to do? Dive! Dive!

He's going negative. He's going to start slinging the shit and hope some of it sticks to Obama.

I subscribe to Townhall.com's daily email and received this today:

Defeat Obama with 'Shock and Awe'

An Urgent Message from The National Republican Trust PAC

Dear Fellow American:

Never before in the history of our nation have we faced such a grave crisis: one of the most radical political figures ever to be nominated by a major party is just minutes away from becoming President of the United States.

That man is Barack Obama.

He promises to change America forever. If elected, he will do just that - but in ways
you may not like.
...
He even has terrorist friends he won't denounce. One such man is William Ayers, a leader in the radical terrorist group the Weatherman Underground. The group bombed several government buildings, including the Pentagon, killing civilians and police officers.
...
Obama has even been endorsed by radicals such as Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan.

No one can deny hearing about Obama's relationship with the America-hating Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

There should be little doubt that William Ayers and Louis Farrakhan and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright are rooting for Obama - because he is one of them.

In keeping with such friends, Obama has promised to meet with radical leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without "preconditions" even though Ahmadinejad has promised to "wipe Israel off the map" and "destroy" America .

Even radical Hamas terrorists have praised him.

"We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election," Ahmed Yousef, senior Hamas leader was quoted by ABC radio as saying.

Sleazy smears. That's what they think "shock and awe" are. The truth? Who cares about that? This stuff is blatant lies and they think the American public is stupid enough to fall for it. Hate is all they have left, but hate is what they do best and they know it's worked before.

Why is it that when Palin (or whoever) is criticized Democrats are warned that being nasty might backfire, but the right wing is NEVER warned about that? Could it be because they know it works? Could it be that they don't have anything else?

McCain's campaign is in major meltdown at the moment. Anything honorable McCain once stood for is now utterly gone, sacrificed to his naked ambition.

Chipper Chatter

Well, Palin didn't shriek and faint nor did she wander off into Alzheimer-esque rambling.

In the first part of the debate Palin seemed to be channeling Alvin the Chipmunk. She calmed down as the debate wore on and I swear it was because of Biden's thoughtful, reassuring manner. Biden calmed her down and got her to slow the chatter to something less than warp speed.


The CBS polls say Biden won. So did the CNN polls.

And the conservatives? Well some of them are over the moon, of course. She was chipper and can fake sincerity so well! John. J. Miller at The Corner had a more measured reaction:

I love her style, doggone it, and I sure was cheering her on—but I must say, with respect to all of the positive reviews, I think Sarah Palin really benefited from low expectations. No, she didn't fall off the stage, as some had hoped or feared. Yet her nods to economic populism made me wince. . . .

I'm heartened that others are giving her a big thumbs up. I'm certainly not giving her a thumbs down. It might be said that she was good enough. But I want her to do better, for her sake and ours.

I'm glad this debate is over. Sarah Palin can go back into her box and not be heard from again for a while. She can tour Hate Radio, Republican fundraisers and churches and maybe dream of being Reagan in 2012. But for now, I think she's finished.

Proud to Be an American

This man makes me proud to be an American and proud to be a human being.



Can you feel it? It feels like the winds of history are changing.

hat tip to The Dish

The Newest Phony Hissy-Fit

The right wing is having its most recent tantrum. Gwen Ifill, the moderator of the Veep debate, whom they have known about since sometime last summer, has written a book which will be released in January. This book, called The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama, is about various young, up-and-coming black leaders.

That automatically means she's going to be biased, right?

Somehow she'll pick questions that Biden can answer and Palin can't. Sneaky gotcha questions like "What newspapers do you read?"

Nate Silver at the New Republic says the Obama campaign should offer to replace her.

I'm going to watch the debate with great interest. I keep thinking Palin can't be this dumb. Surely she's just flustered, rattled, out of her depth. She's been cramming for this exam so surely she'll at least hold her own.

Surely.

Or it could be as cringe-worthy as her Katie Couric interviews. If it is bad/horrible/worse, then the right wing will have a tailor-made excuse already warmed up and ready to go.

The Debate

I listened to the debate. Since I'm something of a computer nerd, I checked Andrew Sullivan's Live Blog of the event and also live blogging going on over at NRO's The Corner. It was interesting to watch the two different reactions. Andrew was clearly biased toward Obama but trying to be fair to McCain. At The Corner? Not so much. Biased toward McCain and . . . biased toward McCain.

Unsurprisingly Sullivan thought Obama won and The Corner denizens thought it was McCain hands down.

Generally pundits think it was a wash and neither won. However, polls at CNN and CBS showed Obama as a decisive winner. Newsweek showed them dead even.

As much as I'd love to say Obama stomped McCain, I sort of agreed with the pundits. It was a wash. Obama was vastly better than I've seen him before in a debate but McCain was fully awake and not as creepy as usual. Several people have pointed out that McCain refused to look at Obama. Some people thought it was because of McCain's contempt for Obama, others thought it was because he was afraid of Obama. For all I know there were tv lights behind Obama that were uncomfortable to look in to.

I'll be very interested in seeing how it all washes out.

And I'm going to be front and center for the Palin/Biden debate next Friday!

Free Sara Palin! Free Sara Palin! Free Sara Palin!

Free Lipstick Palin!!

"Tonight I call on the McCain campaign to stop treating Sarah Palin like she is a delicate flower that will wilt at any moment," said Brown. "This woman is from Alaska for crying out loud. She is strong. She is tough. She is confident. And you claim she is ready to be one heart beat away form the presidency. If that is the case, then end this chauvinistic treatment of her now. Allow her to show her stuff. Allow her to face down those pesky reporters... Let her have a real news conference with real questions. By treating Sarah Palin different from the other candidates in this race, you are not showing her the respect she deserves. Free Sarah Palin. Free her from the chauvinistic chain you are binding her with. Sexism in this campaign must come to an end. Sarah Palin has just as much a right to be a real candidate in this race as the men do. So let her act like one."

Palin Derangement Syndrome

I've been trying to get a leash on my Palin derangement syndrome. I do pretty well until some conservative pundit describes her as "authentic."

When I hear the word "authentic" I think about her little story about how the teleprompter went out during the Republican convention and she had to just ad lib parts of her speech. This was with a bunch of people behind her who could see the teleprompter. In other words, it was a trivial lie, easily exposed.

The same with the bridge--and road--to nowhere. The same with her fictional rejection of earmarks. The same with the little lie about how she "didn't blink" when asked to be VP. In another version of the story she asked her daughters to vote on it. In her husband's version they didn't tell the daughters.

Again, trivial lies.

She is a compulsive liar and the most inauthentic person who ever stood in the position to possibly become president of the United States of America.

In the words of Andrew Sullivan: She's a farce.

Obama Deals With Protesters

I love the way he deals with protesters:

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=178233

I've seen him deal with them before a couple of times. He's courteous and respectful! It must really gripe their butts that he doesn't have any reaction beyond "There's a few young folks hold up their signs." When they leave (I can't tell from the video if they are being escorted out by security or just giving up.) He says "See ya later fellas!"

Funny But True

This is funny:



but it's also true.

Look, Obama isn't Jesus.

If you go to factcheck.org you'll see that he can twist, stretch and embroider the truth with the best of them. Let's get real, he's a politician. And there's only so much the president can do anyway.

What I'm hoping to get from Obama is what I hoped to get from Clinton. I'm hoping for a change in the zeitgeist. I didn't realize at the time that the Clintons are a part of the zeitgeist. Bill, Hillary, McCain, Rove, Bush, Cheney--all of them are talking to fellow Baby Boomers. Obama is talking to the generation that will replace the Baby Boomers.

Obama is--or can be--a turning point. Something that we have been needing for a very long time.

If he is elected, he will be a turning point in history. And that makes me feel like that song.

This is Why Obama

But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope. For when we have faced down impossible odds; when we’ve been told that we’re not ready, or that we shouldn’t try, or that we can’t, generations of Americans have responded with a simple creed that sums up the spirit of a people. Yes we can.

It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation. Yes we can.

It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail toward freedom through the darkest of nights. Yes we can.

It was sung by immigrants as they struck out from distant shores and pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness. Yes we can.

It was the call of workers who organized; women who reached for the ballot; a President who chose the moon as our new frontier; and a King who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the Promised Land.

Yes we can to justice and equality.
Yes we can to opportunity and prosperity.
Yes we can heal this nation.
Yes we can repair this world.
Yes we can.

Barak Obama, January 2008

It is my belief that we are engaged in a battle for the soul of America. We have a choice between someone who will lift us up and someone who puts us down with the cynical belief that we are too stupid to see through his lies.

We have a choice between facing into the 21st century or being dragged back into the comfortable and familiar Vietnam Era-Cold War-Culture War. Even horribly abused children will cry and grieve when removed from their brutal parents.

We have had an abusive government for eight years, but it's familiar and Obama is not. Obama is the unknown. He's a leap of faith. To me it's a no-brainer. It's leaping out of a burning building. To others? Yes, the building is burning but it's familiar. It's home.

Let's make history. Let's leave the old century behind and face into the future. It's what Americans have always done. It's what we need to do now.

Comparing the Candidates

This isn't original with me. I don't think it's even original with Blah3.com, but I liked it and I thought I'd reproduce some of it here:

Black teen pregnancies? A 'crisis' in black America.
White teen pregnancies? A 'blessed event.'

If you spend 3 years as a community organizer growing your organization from a staff of 1 to 13 and your budget from $70,000 to $400,000, then become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review,create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new African American voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor,then spend nearly 8 more years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, becoming chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, then spend nearly 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of nearly 13 million people, sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you are woefully inexperienced.
If you spend 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, then spend 20 months as the governor of a state with 650,000 people, you've got the most executive experience of anyone on either ticket, are the Commander in Chief of the Alaska military and are well qualified to lead the nation should you be called upon to do so because your state is the closest state to Russia.

If you are a Democratic male candidate who is popular with millions of people you are an 'arrogant celebrity'.
If you are a popular Republican female candidate you are 'energizing the base'.

If you are a candidate with a Harvard law degree you are 'an elitist 'out of touch' with the real America.
If you are a legacy (dad and granddad were admirals) graduate of Annapolis, with multiple disciplinary infractions you are a hero.

If you manage a multi-million dollar nationwide campaign, you are an 'empty suit'.
If you are a part time mayor of a town of 7000 people, you are an 'experienced executive'.

If you go to a south side Chicago church, your beliefs are 'extremist'.
If you believe in creationism and don't believe global warming is man made, you are 'strongly principled'.

If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian.
If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years with whom you are raising two beautiful daughters you're 'risky'.

If you're a 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton, the right-wing press calls you 'First dog.'
If you're a 17-year old pregnant unwed daughter of a Republican, the right-wing press calls you 'beautiful' and 'courageous.'

If you teach abstinence only in sex education, you get teen parents.
If you teach responsible age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.

In other news

A friend forwarded this NYT article to me. Some parts of it sound suspiciously familiar:

n 1997, Ms. Palin fired the longtime city attorney, Richard Deuser, after he issued the stop-work order on a home being built by Don Showers, another of her campaign supporters.

Your attorney, Mr. Showers told Ms. Palin, is costing me lots of money.

“She told me she’d like to see him fired,” Mr. Showers recalled. “But she couldn’t do it herself because the City Council hires the city attorney.” Ms. Palin told him to write the council members to complain.

Meanwhile, Ms. Palin pushed the issue from the inside. “She started the ball rolling,” said Ms. Patrick, who also favored the firing. Mr. Deuser was soon replaced by Ken Jacobus, then the State Republican Party’s general counsel.

“Professionals were either forced out or fired,” Mr. Deuser said.

...

The Wasilla High School yearbook archive now doubles as a veritable directory of state government. Ms. Palin appointed Mr. Bitney, her former junior high school band-mate, as her legislative director and chose another classmate, Joe Austerman, to manage the economic development office for $82,908 a year. Mr. Austerman had established an Alaska franchise for Mailboxes Etc.

...

While Ms. Palin took office promising a more open government, her administration has battled to keep information secret. Her inner circle discussed the benefit of using private e-mail addresses. An assistant told her it appeared that such e-mail messages sent to a private address on a “personal device” like a BlackBerry “would be confidential and not subject to subpoena.”

So she is secretive, dictatorial and likes to surround herself with cronies regardless of their abilities. It has SUCH a familiar ring! KOFF*(Bush!)*KOFF

The media is doing a fairly good job exposing the lies she and John McCain are telling over and over. I'm hoping that people really are as sick of Bush as they say they are, because if they love being screwed McCain and Palin will be delighted to continue ruling in the grand Bush style.

The Lies of John McCain

Palin=Lipstick, McCain=Pig

I stopped having any respect for McCain when he started answering every question with "I was a POW." Apparently Sullivan was a tougher nut to crack.

From the Dish:
McCain's Integrity

For me, this surreal moment - like the entire surrealism of the past ten days - is not really about Sarah Palin or Barack Obama or pigs or fish or lipstick. It's about John McCain. The one thing I always thought I knew about him is that he is a decent and honest person. When he knows, as every sane person must, that Obama did not in any conceivable sense mean that Sarah Palin is a pig, what did he do? Did he come out and say so and end this charade? Or did he acquiesce in and thereby enable the mindless Rovianism that is now the core feature of his campaign?

So far, he has let us all down. My guess is he will continue to do so. And that decision, for my part, ends whatever respect I once had for him....

Some of Andrew Sullivan Returns

He's returned. Kind of.

No explanation about what was going on. I have a feeling we will never know (or it will eventually turn up on the grape vine.)

I will be very curious to see how much longer he stays at the Atlantic.

Let's Make History

Look, there's no real choice in this campaign. We have a brilliant, educated and charismatic man on one hand and we have a pig in lipstick--and like Obama, I mean the McCaign campaign--on the other.

Use the above image as you like. Send it to your friends. I'm sending a copy to the Obama campaign.

Let's make history!

WHERE IN THE HELL IS ANDREW SULLIVAN?

UPDATE 2
This appeared a little while ago on Andrew's blog
Quote For The Day

09 Sep 2008 05:58 pm

""Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein.

Roughly translated it means "What we cannot speak of we must pass over in silence."

Make of it what you will.

UPDATE:

This appeared on The Dish:

Tuesday, September 9, 2008
A Note To My Readers

09 Sep 2008 01:00 pm

Thank you for your many emails of concern. For the record, I'm absolutely fine, nothing has changed with this blog, no one is pressuring me to write or not write anything, and I spent part of the day yesterday with my husband soaking up the last moments of summer together.

In the words of the immortal Terry Pratchett: "Pull the other leg, it's got bells on."

I don't believe this for a second.

----------

His blog, The Dish, has not been updated since yesterday afternoon. Really since Sunday night. I am a complete and total addict even when I think what he's saying is stupid. Like Christopher Hitchens, even the stupid things he says are worth reading.

AND WHY DOES DRUDGE NOT HAVE A BANNER ABOUT THIS?

Ms. Pork in Lipstick

I'm still obsessing about Ms. Porkbarel Palin's speech. I know the MSM has moved on, more or less, and I'll move on too, eventually.

But not yet.

I'm sure Anne Coulter didn't ghost write Palin's speech, but she could have written written it standing on her head. I'm sure Rush Limbaugh didn't coach her on delivery, but she was channeling him effortlessly.

Factcheck.org, one of my favorite websites, is utterly non-partisan. A time or two, Obama himself has stretched the truth to the point that it squeeked.

Factcheck.org vetted Palin's speech (someone ought to vet her!) and found several "pants on fire" moments.

She didn't sell a jet on Ebay. She was a huge fan of earmarks. She opposed a very corrupt corrupt incumbent and then apparently used the power of her office to get revenge on her asshole ex-brother-in-law. She took a debt-free little town and drove it into the ground. They still owe millions of dollars.

Pitbull in lipstick? Wrong mammal.

She's not an elitist, though, no-siree-bob! She didn't earn a scholarship at Harvard, she went to six colleges in five years, graduating with a degree in sports journalism. Not some sleazy elitist degree like constitutional law. She's a woman of the people! When she was mayor she had responsibilities. She shirked them, but she had them.

She's funny, though! She can deliver a line! Yay!

Even if she couldn't run a small town, why couldn't she run the most powerful country in the world? She's cute and funny and has the theologically correct opinion on abortion so all the IMPORTANT bases are covered, right?

Most Peculiar Veep Choice?

Ok, so Ben Stein isn't a complete idiot.

Lipstick

Palin's big line of her debut speech: "You know what they say the difference is between a hockey mom and a pit bull -- lipstick"

Palin proved last night that she's a pit bull in lipstick.

Her lip-curling sneer and sleazy one-liners made the crowd go wild. Her message? Fear and hate. To Republicans and right-wingers those two things are otherwise known as bread and butter.

Fearmongering--counting on the cowardice of their target audience--is what the Republicans do best. The communists are going to get you. The jihadists are going to get you. The blacks are rising up and will get you--oh wait, we aren't racist any more. The elites will rise up and get you. There you go, that's the ticket. A black kid who worked for every penny he owns and went to freekin' Harvard on a scholarship is an "elite." McCain who married wealth isn't an elite. George Bush who inherited wealth isn't an elite. The oil millionaires cheering in the audience aren't elites.

Elites are uppity blacks and journalists who ask too many questions.

Tonight Grandpa will take the stage and drone for 40 minutes about how he was tortured back in the Dark Ages. (Except he won't use the word "torture" because according to Bush he wasn't tortured. He was merely interrogated in an "enhanced" way.) McCain may not read the teleprompter like a freshman acting student. He may not grin like a creepy death's head at random intervals. Heck, he may even get off a joke. The people who wrote Palin's speech will almost certainly have some input into McCain's speech. But "be afraid, be very afraid" will be the message.

Why not? He's afraid and you should be too.

McCain is the bread. Palin is the circus. It's a technique that's worked for thousands of years and Republicans are hoping against hope it will work one more time.

Palin is lipstick, all right. She's the lipstick on the pig of John McCain's campaign.

Sarah Pallin: The Gift that Keeps on Giving

I don't care that her daughter is pregnant. It's a wonderful comment on the power of abstinence-only sex ed but other than that it's none of our business.

I don't care whether she's the mother or grandmother of Trig.

Those issues are meaningless bullshit.

Here is what I care about:
McCain did something so stupid he should be spanked. The conservative pundits don't think it's stupid because it just might get him elected. I don't think they are right, but they could be. The low information voters will love her because she's cute and perky, they don't know or care about anything else. The fundies love her because they don't care about anything but ideology. The ideologues are happy because they have a better chance to continue their rule--they know how to rule, if not how to govern.

The reason it's stupid is because I sorta-kinda believe John McCain loves his country, but he has set up a situation where, if he is elected and then dies, the most powerful nation on earth will be ruled--not governed--by a vindictive, dictatorial harpy who will make George Bush look like Thomas Jefferson.

The reason it's stupid is because she simply doesn't care about how the country runs. She doesn't care about how Alaska runs or even the tiny town of Wasilla.

It's stupid because she wasn't vetted. The National Enquirer knew more about her than John McCain.

It's stupid because she's pig-ignorant about so very, very much.

And that's not even getting started on her hard-core right wing crap.

McCain's Veep Pick

I LOVE McCain's pick for Vice! I love her! She's beautiful!

Sarah Palin is going to help him lose!

At least I hope so. Obviously McCain is hoping to pick up the disaffected Hillary voters. I think disaffected Hillary voters are going to be too smart to fall for such a dumb trick.

For the amusement of liberals (or centrists or former liberals) Palin is in favor of drilling (her husband works part time for BP), not developing alternative energy. She's a creationist of at least the "teach the controversy" stripe and she thinks the government has a right to regulate your uterus.

For the entertainment of the conservatives (and the fundies and bigots, which is what "conservative" has come to mean) she's reported to be gay-friendly (or at least not as hard-core cruel as the fundies would like), smoked pot when young and named two of her daughters "Willow" and "Piper" after two tv witches.

More general:

1. My cat has more qualifications to be president than Sara Palin. McCain is 72 freekin' years old. He could stroke out on January 21, 2009 and we'd have as our first female president someone who isn't even a pale shadow of Hillary. Don't tell me that Obama doesn't have experience. McCain doesn't have any experience being president either. She doesn't have Obama's intelligence or talent. She doesn't even have McCain's intelligence or talent. Palin was the utterly cynical choice of someone desperate to win at any and all costs.

2. I don't care that she's pro-gun. I don't care of anybody is pro-gun. If she shoots someone she should go to prison. Otherwise have at.

3. She didn't abort a Downs baby even though she knew in advance that she was going to have one. Good for her! It's what I would have done. But I don't suppose she wants to think about what it would have been like for the government to force her to have that child if she hadn't wanted to.

4. The conservatives are trying to hang a good face on it, but they are terminally pissed and that always makes for a good day!

An aside:

James (Focus On Your Own Damn Family) Dobson asked his followers to pray for rain to spoil Obama's acceptance speech. I watched that speech. The weather was perfect. However, the Republican convention may have to be postponed because of Hurricane Gustav. Maybe God doesn't like people who ask him to behave like an asshole.

No Way, No How, No McCain!

We don't need 4 more years of the last 8 years!

Ok, I suppose I should stop channeling Hillary Clinton.

I've been pretty pissed off at Hillary since the Bosnian sniper fire bullshit. It made me so mad, I almost couldn't stand to listen to her. Before that I'd been telling people that I was for Obama, but I'd be ok if she won the nomination. After that I knew if she got into office, we'd be screwed. Almost as screwed as if it were McCain. She bought a little of it back last night at the convention.

If you thought I was exaggerating with my "Not because he's black" post below, you should check out this incredibly racist piece of garbage:

Barack Obama, The hip-hop president by Craig R. Smith brought to you by none other than the WorldNutDaily which is so gifted at bringing out the crazies and morons.

The entire article has a quaint other-worldly feel about it. You know, that other world where blacks ride in the back of the bus, drink from separate water fountains and are required to be outside the city limits by sundown or go to jail (or be lynched).

Obama's uppity. Obama thinks he's equal. He thinks he's smart enough and skilled enough to run the most powerful country on earth.

Smith needs to crawl back under the rock with his fellow slugs and slime and stay there. The world has passed him by.

Bush&Co. have put our constitutional democracy in the toilet and McCain has his hand on the flusher. If we don't elect Barack Obama president we are committing cultural suicide.

It's Not Because He's Black

I read this this morning in the Wall Street Journal:
"Add to that the wear and tear of Jeremiah Wright, secret Muslim rumors, media darling and, this week, abortion."

It's a list of reasons people don't want to vote for Obama. Yes, he's brilliant, well educated, tough and smart, but . . . there's that Muslim thing.

It's not because he's black.

His pastor was a creep . . . it's not because he's black.

It's not because he's black, um, I won't vote for him because I heard his middle name is "Hussein."

It's not because he's black. . . his wife once said she wasn't proud of America from the moment of her birth. That means Obama may not be a True American(tm)

It's ok that he's black, he's just not qualified, he doesn't have enough experience to lead.

It's not because he's black, it's because he's a cynical politician.

The black thing is no problem and he gives a good speech. It's just that his speeches are too good. And people in other countries like him--that can't be good. I can't vote for a president that's going to be popular with foreigners. It's not because he's black.

It's not because he's black. He's kind of a nerd. He reads books for cryin' out loud. We can't have the leader of the most powerful country in the world be better educated than we are. The leader of the free world needs to drink Coors and burp with the guys at the trailer park. How can we trust somebody who taught law at Harvard?

It's not because he's black, it's because he's overconfident.

It's not because he's black it's because he's unsure of himself.

It's not because he's black. He likes arugula. What the hell is arugula? Who eats that? He's an elitist. He's out of touch with ordinary people. He's not from a poor family who had to struggle to make a living, who made every dime they own from their own hard work--like George W. Bush and John McCain.

It's not that he's black. Heck, he's not black enough. He's from Hawaii. We can't have a president from Hawaii.

--------------------

Obama is the best thing to come down the pike in more than 40 years. If America doesn't accept this gift, then this country deserves all it is going to get. I know there are some people who really don't care that he's black. They hate him because he's a liberal. They hate him because he IS smarter and better educated than they are. But dammit, I WANT a president who's smarter and better educated than I am. I couldn't run this country. I don't want someone just like me in the White House.

We need someone who will end the Imperial Presidency and restore the constitution. McCain has no plans to do that. He will capitalize on the power-grab of the Bush-Cheney years and our freedoms will continue to evaporate. That's more important than arugula.

And it's a hell of a lot more important than skin color.

The Drug War II

I've been thinking about the drug "war" a lot lately. I have a lot of questions and would be open to suggestions and thoughts. How can we end at least the grossest stupidities of the drug "war" and restore our lost civil liberties?

One of the worst things is the illegal seizure of people's money, euphemistically called "forfeiture." If you are caught with any amount of cash much over $100 the police can seize it without even suspicion of wrongdoing. No warrant necessary. If the money tests positive for drugs--and most American money will--then you can be charged. You'll never see that money again, the police can have it. Most often it goes into the police department bank account, though it varies from place to place. Furthermore they can and will keep it even if you are found innocent.

Check this out. It's the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Politicians are extremely reluctant to restore anyone's rights once they have been removed--especially if the the rights have to do with anything that gives people pleasure (sex, drugs, rock n roll, whatever). Pleasure is something you get from sitting in church listening to someone else read excerpts from Deuteronomy. It's not something you get from stimulating your body in various ways. That's just pure evil and should be illegal in all cases without exception.

Ok, maybe I exaggerate just a tad.

Nevertheless, the illegal seizure laws can be softened through clever political manipulation until someone gets the balls the challenge the forfeiture laws all the way to the Supreme Court where I am 95% certain it will be declared unconstitutional. The reason I'm not 100% certain is because Scalia will probably assert that "seizure" meant something different 200 years ago, and therefore it's constitutional now. He's an originalist, don't you know.

What I am proposing for the time being is a limit on what can be seized. I'm thinking anything under $100,000 in cash is off limits. There are too many stories of someone being suspected of some petty crime who happens to have $500 in cash in their wallet. It gets seized and becomes $500 that poor person will never see again. In fact, if they decide to test it for drugs, that poor person may never see the light of day again.

The forfeiture laws constitute unreasonable seizure and are blatantly unconstitutional. Politicians don't care about that but putting a limit on seizure might be politically viable. Find out who your congress people are and write to them. I am. Meanwhile I'll be extra careful not to have more than $20 cash in my purse at any given time.

That Damn Drug War

I was listening to NPR this morning and the topic happened to be women in prison. One of the little human interest features was about a woman who clearly was stopped Driving While Black and got caught with a couple of baggies of marijuana in her possession. She was arrested and convicted of trafficking (the fact it was individual bags was enough for a charge greater than simple possession). She was pregnant at the time of her arrest and now she and her infant are in prison. Her husband is in prison for marijuana possession. Her two older children are living with relatives.

This is a story of traumatized children and two ruined families all to "protect" us against a harmless drug.

Yes, marijuana is utterly harmless. If you smoke it a lot, you'll have the same hacking cough a cigarette smoker will have. You'll probably gain weight. That's it. There is no known toxic dose.

We already have lots of laws in place to deal with people who abuse alcohol and cause harm to others in the process. There is no reason the same laws and institutions cannot be applied to marijuana and other harmless drugs. If you drive under the influence you should get a DUI. If you commit a crime under the influence you should be charged with a crime and public intoxication.

If a civil liberty is defined as a behavior or action that causes no harm to anyone (including yourself), then criminalizing harmless drugs is a violation of civil liberties.

Here is a list of criminalized drugs and their relative harmfulness. You will notice that there is no known lethal dose for marijuana.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/03/drugs_and_toxic.html

So a woman and her baby--her entire family--have been harmed by the Drug War, not the drugs.

Hillary as Veep

I suppose he's got to offer the vice presidency to her while hoping that she will turn it down. I certainly hope she will turn it down. Someone once said that the sole job of the vice president is to wake up every morning and say "how's the president?" Can you imagine her doing that? Waking up every morning and knowing there is only one skinny black dude between her and a life long dream?

Open warning to Senator Obama:

If she sends you a box of chocolates, wrap it up and forward it to Dick Cheney.

Trust me on this one.

Throwing Obama Under the Bus

Ok, you know all that stuff I said about Wright a couple of posts ago? Just ignore me. The man is not a monster but he is a bastard.

Obama's repudiation of him lacked passion, I thought. But he's just found a knife in his back put there by a friend and father figure of 20 years. It's got to hurt and hurt bad.

Wright's pontificating about how he has to answer to God makes me want to puke. It's a bleeding miracle Wright wasn't struck down when said that. If smiting was ever going to happen, it should have happened then.

I noticed that even Huckabee is saying Obama was betrayed (though he couldn't resist the Repub talking point about how "Obama should have known.")

Listen to this Woman!

She's right. No bullshit, no exaggeration.



"You'd better be president! You've gotta be president!"

The Rehabilitation of Rev. Wright

I don't know if Obama is happy that Wright is talking to the press right now, but I'm glad. I don't know if it will be good for Obama's campaign, but I'm glad it's happening. I want Wright to show his face and show people he's something of a wingnut, but not evil and not demented.

I listened to more than the Fox News clip of Wright's "God Damn America" speech and right up to that line I think he was right. Black people have lived and continue to live in a police state where you can be pulled over for any reason or no reason at all, arrested for no reason or any reason at all and easily gunned down for the crime looking like you might be thinking about having a gun. The reason Fox News doesn't bother to play the whole clip is because too many people are going to listen to it and think "he's not exactly wrong."

That said, he's not exactly right, either. But I understand why he said what he said.

Here's the speech the Karl Rovites don't want you to see:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/the-wright-post.html

The Obama Kool Aid

I'm a hard-bitten cynic who thinks all politians are self-selected jive artists and snake oil salesmen.

But this video made me cry:



Do you know what he's saying here? Learning and education are important. Maybe after he spends 8 years in office "intellectual" will no longer be a grave insult.

Bye-Bye Giuliani

What a relief! Giuliani has taken himself out of the picture. If you think George W. Bush is authoritarian and secretive, Giuliani could teach both topics at the college level.

Islamic Public Relations

In Afghanistan recently Sayed Perwiz Kambakhsh, a reporter for a daily paper and a journalism student, thought he had freedom of speech.

He was wrong.

He downloaded an Iranian article which pointed out that Mohammad had ignored women's fundamental rights. The young man was arrested and charged with blasphemy. It's amazing how blasphemy and the truth are often the same thing. He's been in prison for three months (so far) and was tried without a lawyer. Naturally, he was sentenced to death. He can appeal the decision, of course. He gets three appeals before they stand him against a wall and cut him in half with a Kalashnikov.

Kambakhsh probably won't end up in front the Kalashnikovs. He has a brother who's a reporter and Reporters Without Borders are on the job getting worldwide attention brought to this case.

This case. How many thousands are killed or terrified into silence because they know their brother herds goats and won't be able to get their story on Reuters? The "Qatif Girl" got a reprieve from the Saudi king after being sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in prison for the crime of being raped. Her male protector was not a close relative, that's a crime in Saudi Arabia. But she got off because some watchdog group noticed her case and she was saved. Thousands are not saved.

And here we have a case of a man sentenced to death for the crime of distributing an article which suggested that this bloody minded barbarism might be wrong.

It's Islamic public relations in action. Again.

Bin Loony Speaks

A few days ago Huckabee said this in speech:

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And thats what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than trying to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family."
Watch the video over at Crooks & Liars.

My fellow bloggers are shrieking, wailing and gnashing their teeth over this. Is the Huckster advocating the death penalty for mixed-fiber clothing? No. He's not. He's kissing the ass of the religious right loonies who--for the most part--have acknowledged that the freedom to marry whom you please and the freedom to make decisions about your own body are not technically abridged by the US Constitution and they feel that's scandalous. The only real and permanent way to rob you of your rights is to change the Constitution in regards to gay marriage and abortion. They are authoritarian. Robbing you of your rights is what they are all about. Huckabee may or may not give two farts in the wind for those issues, but there's a certain amount of ass he must kiss to get votes and he knows it.

The speech played well to its audience, though. They hate the US Constitution and would give anything to rewrite a big part of it beginning with the 1st Amendment--that is definitely the first thing to go--and moving right along to the 14th Amendment and Article VI. Freedom of religion? Are you crazy? They know which religion is correct and you don't have a right to be wrong. Free speech? Well, sure. They are perfectly free to speak and you are perfectly free to listen. You are also freely permitted to say things they approve of. Don't abuse that freedom by saying stuff they don't like and everybody gets to stay free! Get it?

Yeah, we get it. And if the American people vote this creep into office they will definitely get it, too.

A Post After My Own Heart

You should check out the message board over at The Straight Dope. There's little post about how we got our current stupid motto--"In God We Trust."

With Jefferson's nefarious plan finally revealed, the government was faced with the challenge of selecting a stupider, less tolerant motto to more accurately embody the national character. A list was compiled of various candidates such as "no loitering," "if you're so smart why ain't you rich?" and "whites only." However, at last "In God we trust," a judiciously recycled version of the Confederate States of America's motto "God will vindicate," was chosen for its historical resonance, potential for divisiveness, and general inappropriateness.

Hat tip to Pharyngula

Musharraf as Banana Republic Dictator

I recently read an interview with "President" Pervez Musharraf. One of the first things that jumped out at me was that he really doesn't give a damn whether you believe a word he says. He doesn't have to. That's what it means to be a dictator.

It has galled me from the beginning that the US is in bed with this pile of smoking shit. I have good memories of the bad old days when the US government propped up banana republic dictators in order to make the world safe for United Fruit Company. Most of the opposition to those guys were some flavor of socialist or communist. It was a cold war thing. We couldn't have a communist ruling a nearby country. It was much better to have a cold blooded mass murder in charge. At least he would be a capitalist and that's all that's important. He wouldn't be doing any evil atheist stuff like asking for fair wages for fruit pickers.

So here we are 40, 50 years later and we are sucking up to a new dictator. It bugs me.

I think one of the things that bugs me the most is that I understand it. Musharraf took over an elected government by way of a coup, that is true. But the elected government was so corrupt and inefficient that military dictatorship was a step up. Except for the fact that he immediately began granting rights instead of protecting them. Anything you are granted can be denied tomorrow. Tomorrow has come and he is cracking down. In true good news/bad news fasion, he is holding the line against Afghan Islamists. If Pakistan elected a government right now it would be Taliban-like and very hostile to the US--and they will have nukes.

Here is a map of the middle east including Pakistan:



Notice how Pakistan snuggles up against Afghanistan. It even shares some of its border with Iran. The ugly truth is, we need to land our planes in Pakistan. Most of Afghanistan is as welcoming and friendly as the face of the moon. So we suck up to a creep like Musharraf. It's a stone cold reality that the safety and interests of the US are more important than the freedom of Pakistan. I think the middle east is a dangerous place. It's not dangerous to us personally at the moment (other than BushCo sending our best and brightest to be killed there), but this isn't the only moment there is.

With the Russians and their nukes we could sort of count on them not wanting mutually assured destruction. With Islamic fanatics, we can't be sure of that. I hate the idea of kissing the ass of a brutal dictator. But this time there's a bit more at stake than a few cheap bananas.

How Do We Know They Are Terrorists?

The answer is, we don't. Nobody does.

You see, that's what habeas corpus is for. You can't drag someone off the street proclaim them to be a Bad Person and then take them away and lock them up for ever. We've been assured that Guantanamo is reserved for the "worst of the worst." The question is, how do we know they are the worst?

We don't.

Without lawyers, a trial, evidence, a judge and a jury, there's no way to figure it out. Yeah, it's true that sometimes bad guys go free and it's true that sometimes innocent people go to jail. But the thing is, it works most of the time and we haven't been able to figure out how to make it better.

Suspension of habeus corpus is the most terrifying thing BushCo. has done with our rights and freedoms. And if you think they are only doing it to foreign nationals, guess again.

I suggest you read this post:

New Evidence on Innocent Men at Gitmo
Over on Dispatches from the Culture Wars

Andrew Freekin' Sullivan Likes Obama!

Sullivan is hardly a wild-eyed liberal!

Hillery vs Obama

I have been sitting on the fence about Hillery and Obama. I'd like a woman in the White House but . . . I don't like Hillery and I think she can lose against a jingoistic hack like Huckabee. People who have enjoyed watching Bush use the constitution for toilet paper and who lust to do likewise find in Huckabee a soul mate.

I think Hillery is Bush in a dress but without all that transparent honesty to worry about. Fortunately I think she's lying about being religious so the right wing loonies won't be getting any favors from her, but that's not enough. If it's all I could get I would take it. A crack whore with her face in the toilet would be a wiser choice than Huckabee and Hillery is a few steps better than that. She might not insult our intelligence by trying to convince us that waterboarding isn't torture. No, she'll permit waterboarding and simply refuse to discuss it in any way. I'm afraid she'll abuse power as much as or worse than Bush but unlike Bush, she's smart. Bush is arrogant and stupid which is why he is adored by right-wingers. Hillary is smart and arrogant. Is that better? I don't know.

Obama . . . is very religious. We will have had 8 years of the Pastor-in-Chief and I don't want any more of that. I don't think Obama's lying about his religiosity, which is a pity. His religion doesn't seem to be the debased and depraved version of James Dobson or Huckabee. The bloodthirsty monster they worship doesn't seem to be Obama's cup of tea--a point in his favor.

And of course, it's impossible to tell, but Obama appears to not be an open and blatant crook. I could be wrong. They might find a half million in his freezer a month after he takes office, but he SEEMS honest at this point. I listened to one of his speeches on YouTube and he said everything I want to hear. He blatantly and openly mentioned national health care. We MUST do that. Hillery will not get us national health care, something will come up and she won't be able to. She'll fail in such a way that she can blame the evil right wing conspiracy. Obama may not get us health care either, but somehow I think he will actually make a serious effort.

A compassionate conservative is someone who will not kick you before they step over your body. A compassionate liberal is someone who will call 911 and stay with you in the emergency room--and then insist the government pay the bill. Obama seems like the latter--at least he says stuff to make you think so. Hillery will talk a good emergency room but somehow your body will still be in the street at the end of the day.

The one thing I'm going to be listening for is fearmongering. It's time for American citizens to buck up and stop acting like a bunch of cowards. Frightened people don't mind pitching their civil liberties out the window in order to feel a little safer. It will not increase their safety--in fact it will leave us in a much more dangerous situation than a bunch of jihadies ever could. Whoever is president of the United States has more power at his or her disposal than any other person in the world. It's ben Laden's wet dream. A jerk with a bomb strapped to his chest can kill a thousand people if he's standing in the right place. The US president can wipe out the planet, every man, woman and child. Al Qaeda would love to turn the US into a police state. It's never going to happen. But the president of the US can do it with a few strokes of a pen. It's what Bush has been doing bit by bit.

You want to know why Bush & Co. likes to talk about waterboarding? Because it makes you afraid. He's never going to waterboard you, but he might. He certainly could. All that's required is for someone to declare you an enemy combatant. No need to prove it or even define what that means. Off you go. Being so afraid of your government you will do whatever they say is the beginning of a police state. It's not something that's going to happen. It's something that's happened already.

I don't think Hillery will reverse that. Oh, she may not use it but my feeling is that she will tuck it away for hard times. I think Obama will reverse all that. I think he'll get rid of it and try to make it impossible for any future president to ignore the laws of this country like Bush has done. There's no way to know for sure. He may finish selling us down the river but I don't think so.

If anybody has a working crystal ball, feel free to let us know.

What Reconstructionists Really Want

This is from Dispatches from the Culture Wars. I felt it is such an important post It should be repeated in its entirety.

Reconstructionists in Michigan

Category:
Posted on: October 16, 2007 9:30 AM, by Ed Brayton

I was having a discussion with the pastor of a relatively liberal (in both the theological and political sense) Christian church in Lansing recently and I asked him if he was familiar with the Okemos Christian Center. He replied that he was not. I was a bit surprised that he was unaware of this fast growing congregation, also known as the Living Water Church of God, that had made the local newspapers as a result of its lawsuit against Meridian Township for denying a permit to build a new 35,000 square foot facility that would house a Christian school for nearly 300 students. I was not surprised, however, at his reaction when I mentioned that I had brought them up because they are a reconstructionist church; his eyes got big and he was clearly a bit taken aback by this news as he simply muttered, "Wow...."

In order to understand the pastor's reaction, we must first ask the obvious question: what is reconstructionism? This term is often used interchangeably with other terms like dominionism, theonomy and theocracy. Let me offer two definitions at two different levels of analysis.

Longer, more detailed definition: Reconstructionism is a particular type of reformed, or Calvinistic, theology that is based primarily on the work or RJ Rushdoony, who drew on the work of Cornelius Van Til. Theologically, it is defined as presuppositionalist (meaning they argue from the position that no argument can be coherent without being based in Christian epistemology), post-millenialist (meaning they believe that Christ will only return after the establishment of genuinely Christian societies on Earth through massive conversion of the population, and theonomist, meaning that they believe in establishing God's rule as a matter of law.

Shorter, simpler definition: Reconstructionism is the belief that the Bible should determine the civil and criminal law of the nation.

It's also important, I think, to spell out what reconstructionsts are not, or perhaps more accurately, to distinguish between what we might call the mainstream religious right and the Christian reconstructionists. Your average religious right follower of, say, Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson, are likely not reconstructionists. They may refer to the Bible in order to support their political views on gay rights, for example, but that alone does not make them reconstructionists for two reasons.

First, because most of the religious right is premillenialist, not postmillenialist; that is, they believe that Christians will be raptured (taken up to heaven) before the terrible end time events happen; reconstructionists, as mentioned above, are postmillenialist and believe that they must work to establish Christian rule on Earth before the end times can begin. Second, because even most of the rank and file followers of religious right ministers like Falwell and Robertson would not accept the establishment of the entire Mosaic law in this country. They may look to the Bible to support their views on some legal issues, but they won't go as far as to institute the death penalty for the vast array of things the Old Testament commands.

It should also be noted that reconstructionists do not advocate any sort of coup or violent overthrow of society. They take a very long term view of how society is to be reconstructed and they view evangelization as the primary means of achieving their goals. Their goal is to convince enough people to believe as they do that they will eventually be in the majority and in a position to pass laws that will create a Biblical theocracy in the United States. As the Okemos Christian Center website says:

The Christian believes the earth and all its fullness is the Lord's-that every area dominated by sin must be "reconstructed" in terms of the Bible. This includes, first, the individual; second, the family; third, the church; and fourth, the wider society, including the state. We therefore believe fervently in Christian civilization. We firmly believe in the separation of church and state, but not the separation of the state-or anything else-from God. We are not revolutionary; We do not believe in the militant, forced overthrow of human government. We have infinitely more powerful weapons than guns and bombs-We have the invincible spirit of God, the infallible word of God, and the incomparable gospel of God, none of which can fail.

Let us not, however, make too much of this. That is simply a matter of means, not ends; and it is the ends they seek that should be feared by anyone who values freedom. Theocracy is the polar opposite of a liberal democratic society that values individual rights and the reconstructionists don't hide their intention to use the means of democracy to acheive their goal of destroying the very idea of a pluralistic and free society. Gary North, one of the most influential Christian reconstructionist leaders, minced no words in a 1982 article:

So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.

The notion that there is no neutrality, no pluralism, is a key idea in reconstructionism. From their perspective, a society is either Godly or anti-God, period. If a nation does not follow the Biblical law, they are condemned by God. Imagine for a moment the sort of society we would become should they succeed. Homosexuals would be stoned to death (Leviticus 18:22). So would women who are not virgins on their wedding day, blasphemers, heretics, witches and a whole host of others.

Indeed, stoning is advocated with disturbing glee by North, who wrote an article listing enough reasons why we should start stoning criminals again to make the Taliban beam with pride. First, he noted, "the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost." Well that's fiscally conservative, I suppose, but more importantly he liked how it brought communities together, noting that "executions are community projects--not with spectators who watch a professional executioner do `his' duty, but rather with actual participants." But he's just warming up. Finally, he says, "by far the most important reason is that stoning is literally a means of crushing the murderer's head by means of a rock, which is symbolic of God. This is analogous to the crushing of the head of the serpent in Genesis 3:15. This symbolism testifies to the final victory of God over all the hosts of Satan."

The Okemos Christian Center has close ties to North and to Rushdoony, the founder of the reconstructionist movement. Pastor Craig Dumont has written articles for the Chalcedon Foundation, the most influential reconstructionist organization in the country. He was a senior fellow with the Center for Cultural Leadership, run by reconstructionist pastor Andrew Sandlin. The Center frequently brings in reconstructionists, including Gary DeMar, Sandlin and many others, to speak.

Perhaps most disturbing is that Rep. Mike Rogers sent a letter last year (see it reproduced here) praising the Okemos Christian Center on its 15th anniversary. In that letter he praised them as a "bright light of hope and faith" and a "shining example of caring for others." He further praised them for their "fiften years of ministry and promoting God's word and for being "an example to people everywhere that that a commitment to God and ministry can overcome the perils of the world."

Pastor Craig DuMont of the Okemos Christian Center was invited several times to respond to questions and to state his beliefs in his own words. He agreed to an email interview and was sent a list of questions. Three times over the course of several weeks he promised to answer them, but apparently decided not to do so. Calls to Rep. Rogers' office went unreturned as well.

What people get wrong about Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

http://www.slate.com/id/2161171/fr/rss/

What people get wrong about Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, March 5, 2007, at 1:35 PM ET

W.H. Auden, whose centenary fell late last month, had an extraordinary capacity to summon despair—but in such a way as to simultaneously inspire resistance to fatalism. His most beloved poem is probably September 1, 1939, in which he sees Europe toppling into a chasm of darkness. Reflecting on how this catastrophe for civilization had come about, he wrote:

Exiled Thucydides knew
All that a speech can say
About Democracy,
And what dictators do,
The elderly rubbish they talk
To an apathetic grave;
Analyzed all in his book,
The enlightenment driven away,
The habit-forming pain,
Mismanagement and grief:
We must suffer them all again.

"The enlightenment driven away … " This very strong and bitter line came back to me when I saw the hostile, sneaky reviews that have been dogging the success of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's best seller Infidel, which describes the escape of a young Somali woman from sexual chattelhood to a new life in Holland and then (after the slaying of her friend Theo van Gogh) to a fresh exile in the United States. Two of our leading intellectual commentators, Timothy Garton Ash (in the New York Review of Books) and Ian Buruma, described Hirsi Ali, or those who defend her, as "Enlightenment fundamentalist[s]." In Sunday's New York Times Book Review, Buruma made a further borrowing from the language of tyranny and intolerance and described her view as an "absolutist" one.

Now, I know both Garton Ash and Buruma, and I remember what fun they used to have, in the days of the Cold War, with people who proposed a spurious "moral equivalence" between the Soviet and American sides. Much of this critique involved attention to language. Buruma was very mordant about those German leftists who referred to the "consumer terrorism" of the federal republic. You can fill in your own preferred example here; the most egregious were (and, come to think of it, still are) those who would survey the U.S. prison system and compare it to the Gulag.

In her book, Ayaan Hirsi Ali says the following: "I left the world of faith, of genital cutting and forced marriage for the world of reason and sexual emancipation. After making this voyage I know that one of these two worlds is simply better than the other. Not for its gaudy gadgetry, but for its fundamental values." This is a fairly representative quotation. She has her criticisms of the West, but she prefers it to a society where women are subordinate, censorship is pervasive, and violence is officially preached against unbelievers. As an African victim of, and escapee from, this system, she feels she has acquired the right to say so. What is "fundamentalist" about that?

The Feb. 26 edition of Newsweek takes up where Garton Ash and Buruma leave off and says, in an article by Lorraine Ali, that, "It's ironic that this would-be 'infidel' often sounds as single-minded and reactionary as the zealots she's worked so hard to oppose." I would challenge the author to give her definition of irony and also to produce a single statement from Hirsi Ali that would come close to materializing that claim. Accompanying the article is a typically superficial Newsweek Q&A sidebar, which is almost unbelievably headed: "A Bombthrower's Life." The subject of this absurd headline is a woman who has been threatened with horrific violence, by Muslims varying from moderate to extreme, ever since she was a little girl. She has more recently had to see a Dutch friend butchered in the street, been told that she is next, and now has to live with bodyguards in Washington, D.C. She has never used or advocated violence. Yet to whom does Newsweek refer as the "Bombthrower"? It's always the same with these bogus equivalences: They start by pretending loftily to find no difference between aggressor and victim, and they end up by saying that it's the victim of violence who is "really" inciting it.

Garton Ash and Buruma would once have made short work of any apologist who accused the critics of the U.S.S.R. or the People's Republic of China of "heating up the Cold War" if they made any points about human rights. Why, then, do they grant an exception to Islam, which is simultaneously the ideology of insurgent violence and of certain inflexible dictatorships? Is it because Islam is a "faith"? Or is it because it is the faith—in Europe at least—of some ethnic minorities? In neither case would any special protection from criticism be justified. Faith makes huge claims, including huge claims to temporal authority over the citizen, which therefore cannot be exempt from scrutiny. And within these "minorities," there are other minorities who want to escape from the control of their ghetto leaders. (This was also the position of the Dutch Jews in the time of Spinoza.) This is a very complex question, which will require a lot of ingenuity in its handling. The pathetic oversimplification, which describes skepticism, agnosticism, and atheism as equally "fundamentalist," is of no help here. And notice what happens when Newsweek takes up the cry: The enemy of fundamentalism is defined as someone on the fringe while, before you have had time to notice the sleight of hand, the aggrieved, self-pitying Muslim has become the uncontested tenant of the middle ground.

Let me give another example of linguistic slippage. In ACLU circles, we often refer to ourselves as "First Amendment absolutists." By this we mean, ironically enough, that we prefer to interpret the words of the Founders, if you insist, literally. The literal meaning in this case seems (to us) to be that Congress cannot inhibit any speech or establish any state religion. This means that we defend all expressions of opinion including those that revolt us, and that we say that nobody can be forced to practice, or forced to foreswear, any faith. I suppose I would say that this is an inflexible principle, or even a dogma, with me. But who dares to say that's the same as the belief that criticism of religion should be censored or the belief that faith should be imposed? To flirt with this equivalence is to give in to the demagogues and to hear, underneath their yells of triumph, the dismal moan of the trahison des clercs and "the enlightenment driven away." Perhaps, though, if I said that my principles were a matter of unalterable divine revelation and that I was prepared to use random violence in order to get "respect" for them, I could hope for a more sympathetic audience from some of our intellectuals.


Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His most recent book is Thomas Jefferson: Author of America.

From the Man Himself

James Madison is the man who actually wrote the 1st Amendment. If you want to know what he thought about church/state separation, there's no better thing to read than Memorial and Remonstrance

-----------------

Memorial and Remonstrance

June 20, 1785

To the Honorable the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia

A Memorial and Remonstrance

We the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,

Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

read all of it here

God in the Constitution

by Robert G. Ingersoll
"All governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed."

In this country it is admitted that the power to govern resides in the people themselves; that they are the only rightful source of authority. For many centuries before the formation of our Government, before the promulgation of the Declaration of Independence, the people had but little voice in the affairs of nations. The source of authority was not in this world; kings were not crowned by their subjects, and the sceptre was not held by the consent of the governed. The king sat on his throne by the will of God, and for that reason was not accountable to the people for the exercise of his power. He commanded, and the people obeyed. He was lord of their bodies, and his partner, the priest, was lord of their souls. The government of earth was patterned after the kingdom on high. God was a supreme autocrat in heaven, whose will was law, and the king was a supreme autocrat on earth whose will was law. The God in heaven had inferior beings to do his will, and the king on earth had certain favorites and officers to do his. These officers were accountable to him, and he was responsible to God.

The Feudal system was supposed to be in accordance with the divine plan. The people were not governed by intelligence, but by threats and promises, by rewards and punishments. No effort was made to enlighten the common people; no one thought of educating a peasant -- of developing the mind of a laborer. The people were created to support thrones and altars. Their destiny was to toil and obey -- to work and want. They were to be satisfied with huts and hovels, with ignorance and rags, and their children must expect no more. In the presence of the king they fell upon their knees, and before the priest they groveled in the very dust. The poor peasant divided his earnings with the state, because he imagined it protected his body; he divided his crust with the church, believing that it protected his soul. He was the prey of Throne and Altar -- one deformed his body, the other his mind -- and these two vultures fed upon his toil. He was taught by the king to hate the people of other nations, and by the priest to despise the believers in all other religions. He was made the enemy of all people except his own. He had no sympathy with the peasants of other lands, enslaved and plundered like himself. He was kept in ignorance, because education is the enemy of superstition, and because education is the foe of that egotism often mistaken for patriotism.

The intelligent and good man holds in his affections the good and true of every land -- the boundaries of countries are not the limitations of his sympathies. Caring nothing for race, or color, he loves those who speak other languages and worship other gods. Between him and those who suffer, there is no impassable gulf. He salutes the world, and extends the hand of friendship to the human race. He does not bow before a provincial and patriotic god -- one who protects his tribe or nation, and abhors the rest of mankind.

Through all the ages of superstition, each nation has insisted that it was the peculiar care of the true God, and that it alone had the true religion -- that the gods of other nations were false and fraudulent, and that other religions were wicked, ignorant and absurd. In this way the seeds of hatred had been sown, and in this way have been kindled the flames of war. Men have had no sympathy with those of a different complexion, with those who knelt at other altars and expressed their thoughts in other words -- and even a difference in garments placed them beyond the sympathy of others. Every peculiarity was the food of prejudice and the excuse for hatred.

The boundaries of nations were at last crossed by commerce. People became somewhat acquainted, and they found that the virtues and vices were quite evenly distributed. At last, subjects became somewhat acquainted with kings -- peasants had the pleasure of gazing at princes, and it was dimly perceived that the differences were mostly in rags and names.

In 1776 our fathers endeavored to retire the gods from politics. They declared that "all governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." This was a contradiction of the then political ideas of the world; it was, as many believed, an act of pure blasphemy -- a renunciation of the Deity. It was in fact a declaration of the independence of the earth. It was a notice to all churches and priests that thereafter mankind would govern and protect themselves. Politically it tore down every altar and denied the authority of every "sacred book," and appealed from the Providence of God to the Providence of Man. Those who promulgated the Declaration adopted a Constitution for the great Republic.

What was the office or purpose of that Constitution? Admitting that all power came from the people, it was necessary, first, that certain means be adopted for the purpose of ascertaining the will of the people, and second, it was proper and convenient to designate certain departments that should exercise certain powers of the Government. There must be the legislative, the judicial and the executive departments. Those who make laws should not execute them. Those who execute laws should not have the power of absolutely determining their meaning or their constitutionality. For these reasons, among others, a Constitution was adopted.

This Constitution also contained a declaration of rights. It marked out the limitations of discretion, so that in the excitement of passion, men shall not go beyond the point designated in the calm moment of reason. When man is unprejudiced, and his passions subject to reason, it is well he should define the limits of power, so that the waves driven by the storm of passion shall not overbear the shore.

A constitution is for the government of man in this world. It is the chain the people put upon their servants, as well as upon themselves. It defines the limit of power and the limit of obedience. It follows, then, that nothing should be in a constitution that cannot be enforced by the power of the state -- that is, by the army and navy. Behind every provision of the Constitution should stand the force of the nation. Every sword, every bayonet, every cannon should be there.

Suppose, then, that we amend the Constitution and acknowledge the existence and supremacy of God -- what becomes of the supremacy of the people, and how is this amendment to be enforced? A constitution does not enforce itself. It must be carried out by appropriate legislation.

Will it be a crime to deny the existence of this constitutional God? Can the offender be proceeded against in the criminal courts? Can his lips be closed by the power of the state? Would not this be the inauguration of religious persecution?

And if there is to be an acknowledgment of God in the Constitution, the question naturally arises as to which God is to have this honor. Shall we select the God of the Catholics -- he who has established an infallible church presided over by an infallible pope, and who is delighted with certain ceremonies and placated by prayers uttered in exceedingly common Latin? Is it the God of the Presbyterian with the Five Points of Calvinism, who is ingenious enough to harmonize necessity and responsibility, and who in some way justifies himself for damning most of his own children? Is it the God of the Puritan, the enemy of joy -- of the Baptist, who is great enough to govern the universe, and small enough to allow the destiny of a soul to depend on whether the body it inhabited was immersed or sprinkled? What God is it proposed to put in the Constitution? Is it the God of the Old Testament, who was a believer in slavery and who justified polygamy? If slavery was right then, it is right now; and if Jehovah was right then, the Mormons are right now. Are we to have the God who issued a commandment against all art -- who was the enemy of investigation and of free speech? Is it the God who commanded the husband to stone his wife to death because she differed with him on the subject of religion? Are we to have a God who will re-enact the Mosaic code and punish hundreds of offences with death? What court, what tribunal of last resort, is to define this God, and who is to make known his will? In his presence, laws passed by men will be of no value. The decisions of courts will be as nothing. But who is to make known the will of this supreme God? Will there be a supreme tribunal composed of priests?

Of course all persons elected to office will either swear or affirm to support the Constitution. Men who do not believe in this God, cannot so swear or affirm. Such men will not be allowed to hold any office of trust or honor. A God in the Constitution will not interfere with the oaths or affirmations of hypocrites. Such a provision will only exclude honest and conscientious unbelievers. Intelligent people know that no one knows whether there is a God or not. The existence of such a Being is merely a matter of opinion.

Men who believe in the liberty of man, who are willing to die for the honor of their country, will be excluded from taking any part in the administration of its affairs. Such a provision would place the country under the feet of priests. To recognize a Deity in the organic law of our country would be the destruction of religious liberty. The God in the Constitution would have to be protected. There would be laws against blasphemy, laws against the publication of honest thoughts, laws against carrying books and papers in the mails in which this constitutional God should be attacked. Our land would be filled with theological spies, with religious eavesdroppers, and all the snakes and reptiles of the lowest natures, in this sunshine of religious authority, would uncoil and crawl.

It is proposed to acknowledge a God who is the lawful and rightful Governor of nations; the one who ordained the powers that be. If this God is really the Governor of nations, it is not necessary to acknowledge him in the Constitution. This would not add to his power. If he governs all nations now, he has always controlled the affairs of men.

Having this control, why did he not see to it that he was recognized in the Constitution of the United States? If he had the supreme authority and neglected to put himself in the Constitution, is not this, at least, prima facie evidence that he did not desire to be there? For one, I am not in favor of the God who has "ordained the powers that be." What have we to say of Russia -- of Siberia? What can we say of the persecuted and enslaved? What of the kings and nobles who live on the stolen labor of others? What of the priest and cardinal and pope who wrest, even from the hand of poverty, the single coin thrice earned? Is it possible to flatter the Infinite with a constitutional amendment? The Confederate States acknowledged God in their constitution, and yet they were overwhelmed by a people in whose organic law no reference to God is made. All the kings of the earth acknowledge the existence of God, and God is their ally; and this belief in God is used as a means to enslave and rob, to govern and degrade the people whom they call their subjects.

The Government of the United States is secular. It derives its power from the consent of man. It is a Government with which God has nothing whatever to do -- and all forms and customs, inconsistent with the fundamental fact that the people are the source of authority, should be abandoned. In this country there should be no oaths -- no man should be sworn to tell the truth, and in no court should there be any appeal to any supreme being. A rascal by taking the oath appears to go in partnership with God, and ignorant jurors credit the firm instead of the man. A witness should tell his story, and if he speaks falsely should be considered as guilty of perjury. Governors and Presidents should not issue religious proclamations. They should not call upon the people to thank God. It is no part of their official duty. It is outside of and beyond the horizon of their authority. There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States to justify this religious impertinence.

For many years priests have attempted to give to our Government a religious form. Zealots have succeeded in putting the legend upon our money: "In God We Trust;" and we have chaplains in the army and navy, and legislative proceedings are usually opened with prayer. All this is contrary to the genius of the Republic, contrary to the Declaration of Independence, and contrary really to the Constitution of the United States. We have taken the ground that the people can govern themselves without the assistance of any supernatural power. We have taken the position that the people are the real and only rightful source of authority. We have solemnly declared that the people must determine what is politically right and what is wrong, and that their legally expressed will is the supreme law. This leaves no room for national superstition -- no room for patriotic gods or supernatural beings -- and this does away with the necessity for political prayers.

The government of God has been tried. It was tried in Palestine several thousand years ago, and the God of the Jews was a monster of cruelty and ignorance, and the people governed by this God lost their nationality. Theocracy was tried through the Middle Ages. God was the Governor -- the pope was his agent, and every priest and bishop and cardinal was armed with credentials from the Most High -- and the result was that the noblest and best were in prisons, the greatest and grandest perished at the stake. The result was that vices were crowned with honor, and virtues whipped naked through the streets. The result was that hypocrisy swayed the sceptre of authority, while honesty languished in the dungeons of the Inquisition.

The government of God was tried in Geneva when John Calvin was his representative; and under this government of God the flames climbed around the limbs and blinded the eyes of Michael Servetus, because he dared to express an honest thought. This government of God was tried in Scotland, and the seeds of theological hatred were sown, that bore, through hundreds of years, the fruit of massacre and assassination. This government of God was established in New England, and the result was that Quakers were hanged or burned -- the laws of Moses re-enacted and the "witch was not suffered to live."

The result was that investigation was a crime, and the expression of an honest thought a capital offence. This government of God was established in Spain, and the Jews were expelled, the Moors were driven out, Moriscoes were exterminated, and nothing left but the ignorant and bankrupt worshipers of this monster. This government of God was tried in the United States when slavery was regarded as a divine institution, when men and women were regarded as criminals because they sought for liberty by flight, and when others were regarded as criminals because they gave them food and shelter. The pulpit of that day defended the buying and selling of women and babes, and the mouths of slave-traders were filled with passages of Scripture, defending and upholding the traffic in human flesh.

We have entered upon a new epoch. This is the century of man. Every effort to really better the condition of mankind has been opposed by the worshipers of some God. The church in all ages and among all peoples has been the consistent enemy of the human race. Everywhere and at all times, it has opposed the liberty of thought and expression. It has been the sworn enemy of investigation and of intellectual development. It has denied the existence of facts, the tendency of which was to undermine its power. It has always been carrying fagots to the feet of Philosophy. It has erected the gallows for Genius. It has built the dungeon for Thinkers. And to-day the orthodox church is as much opposed as it ever was to the mental freedom of the human race. Of course, there is a distinction made between churches and individual members. There have been millions of Christians who have been believers in liberty and in the freedom of expression -- millions who have fought for the rights of man -- but churches as organizations, have been on the other side. It is true that churches have fought churches -- that Protestants battled with the Catholics for what they were pleased to call the freedom of conscience; and it is also true that the moment these Protestants obtained the civil power, they denied this freedom of conscience to others.

Let me show you the difference between the theological and the secular spirit. Nearly three hundred years ago, one of the noblest of the human race, Giordano Bruno, was burned at Rome by the Catholic Church -- that is to say, by the "Triumphant Beast." This man had committed certain crimes --he had publicly stated that there were other worlds than this -- other constellations than ours. He had ventured the supposition that other planets might be peopled. More than this, and worse than this, he had asserted the heliocentric theory -- that the earth made its annual journey about the sun. He had also given it as his opinion that matter is eternal. For these crimes he was found unworthy to live, and about his body were piled the fagots of the Catholic Church. This man, this genius, this pioneer of the science of the nineteenth century, perished as serenely as the sun sets. The Infidels of to-day find excuses for his murderers. They take into consideration the ignorance and brutality of the times. They remember that the world was governed by a God who was then the source of all authority. This is the charity of Infidelity, -- of philosophy. But the church of to-day is so heartless, is still so cold and cruel, that it can find no excuse for the murdered.

This is the difference between Theocracy and Democracy - - between God and man.

If God is allowed in the Constitution, man must abdicate. There is no room for both. If the people of the great Republic become superstitious enough and ignorant enough to put God in the Constitution of the United States, the experiment of self-government will have failed, and the great and splendid declaration that "all governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed" will have been denied, and in its place will be found this: All power comes from God; priests are his agents, the people are their slaves.

Religion is an individual matter, and each soul should be left entirely free to form its own opinions and to judge of its accountability to a supposed supreme being. With religion, government has nothing whatever to do. Government is founded upon force, and force should never interfere with the religious opinions of men. Laws should define the rights of men and their duties toward each other, and these laws should be for the benefit of man in this world.

A nation can neither be Christian nor Infidel -- a nation is incapable of having opinions upon these subjects. If a nation is Christian, will all the citizens go to heaven? If it is not, will they all be damned? Of course it is admitted that the majority of citizens composing a nation may believe or disbelieve, and they may call the nation what they please. A nation is a corporation. To repeat a familiar saying, "it has no soul." There can be no such thing as a Christian corporation. Several Christians may form a corporation, but it can hardly be said that the corporation thus formed was included in the atonement. For instance: Seven Christians form a corporation -- that is to say, there are seven natural persons and one artificial -- can it be said that there are eight souls to be saved?

No human being has brain enough, or knowledge enough, or experience enough, to say whether there is, or is not, a God. Into this darkness Science has not yet carried its torch. No human being has gone beyond the horizon of the natural. As to the existence of the supernatural, one man knows precisely as much, and exactly as little as another. Upon this question, chimpanzees and cardinals, apes and popes, are upon exact equality. The smallest insect discernible only by the most powerful microscope, is as familiar with this subject, as the greatest genius that has been produced by the human race. Governments and laws are for the preservation of rights and the regulation of conduct. One man should not be allowed to interfere with the liberty of another. In the metaphysical world there should be no interference whatever. The same is true in the world of art. Laws cannot regulate what is or is not music, what is or what is not beautiful -- and constitutions cannot definitely settle and determine the perfection of statues, the value of paintings, or the glory and subtlety of thought. In spite of laws and constitutions the brain will think. In every direction consistent with the well-being and peace of society, there should be freedom. No man should be compelled to adopt the theology of another; neither should a minority, however small, be forced to acquiesce in the opinions of a majority, however large.

If there be an infinite Being, he does not need our help -- we need not waste our energies in his defence. It is enough for us to give to every other human being the liberty we claim for ourselves. There may or may not be a Supreme Ruler of the universe -- but we are certain that man exists, and we believe that freedom is the condition of progress; that it is the sunshine of the mental and moral world, and that without it man will go back to the den of savagery, and will become the fit associate of wild and ferocious beasts.

We have tried the government of priests, and we know that such governments are without mercy. In the administration of theocracy, all the instruments of torture have been invented. If any man wishes to have God recognized in the Constitution of our country, let him read the history of the Inquisition, and let him remember that hundreds of millions of men, women and children have been sacrificed to placate the wrath, or win the approbation of this God.

There has been in our country a divorce of church and state. This follows as a natural sequence of the declaration that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." The priest was no longer a necessity. His presence was a contradiction of the principle on which the Republic was founded. He represented, not the authority of the people, but of some "Power from on High," and to recognize this other Power was inconsistent with free government. The founders of the Republic at that time parted company with the priests, and said to them: "You may turn your attention to the other world -- we will attend to the affairs of this." Equal liberty was given to all. But the ultra theologian is not satisfied with this -- he wishes to destroy the liberty of the people -- he wishes a recognition of his God as the source of authority, to the end that the church may become the supreme power. But the sun will not be turned backward. The people of the United States are intelligent. They no longer believe implicitly in supernatural religion. They are losing confidence in the miracles and marvels of the Dark Ages. They know the value of the free school. They appreciate the benefits of science. They are believers in education, in the free play of thought, and there is a suspicion that the priest, the theologian, is destined to take his place with the necromancer, the astrologer, the worker of magic, and the professor of the black art.

We have already compared the benefits of theology and science. When the theologian governed the world, it was covered with huts and hovels for the many, palaces and cathedrals for the few. To nearly all the children of men, reading and writing were unknown arts. The poor were clad in rags and skins -- they devoured crusts, and gnawed bones. The day of Science dawned, and the luxuries of a century ago are the necessities of to-day. Men in the middle ranks of life have more of the conveniences and elegancies than the princes and kings of the theological times. But above and over all this, is the development of mind. There is more of value in the brain of an average man of to-day -- of a master-mechanic, of a chemist, of a naturalist, of an inventor, than there was in the brain of the world four hundred years ago.

These blessings did not fall from the skies. These benefits did not drop from the outstretched hands of priests. They were not found in cathedrals or behind altars -- neither were they searched for with holy candles. They were not discovered by the closed eyes of prayer, nor did they come in answer to superstitious supplication. They are the children of freedom, the gifts of reason, observation and experience - - and for them all, man is indebted to man.

Let us hold fast to the sublime declaration of Lincoln. Let us insist that this, the Republic, is "A government of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Memorial Service by HL Mencken

I no longer have time for this blog, but from time to time I will post things I think my readers might enjoy. Comments are always welcome.

==========================================

Memorial Service

Where is the grave-yard of dead gods? What lingering mourner waters their mounds? There was a day when Jupiter was the king of the gods, and any man who doubted his puissance was ipso facto a barbarian and an ignoramus. But where in all the world is there a man who worships Jupiter to-day? And what of Huitzilopochtli? In one year-and it is no more than five hundred years ago-50,000 youths and maidens were slain in sacrifice to him. Today, if he is remembered at all, it is only by some vagrant savage in the depths of the Mexican forest. Huitzilopochtli, like many other gods, had no human father; his mother was a virtuous widow; he was born of an apparently innocent flirtation that she carried on with the sun. When he frowned, his father, the sun, stood still. When he roared with rage, earthquakes engulfed whole cities. When he thirsted he was watered with 10,000 gallons of human blood. But today [in 1921] Huitzilopochtli is as magnificently forgotten as Allen G. Thurman. Once the peer of Allah, Buddha, and Wotan, he is now the peer of General Coxey, Richmond P. Hobson, Nan Petterson, Alton B. Parker, Adelina Patti, General Weyler, and Tom Sharkey.

Speaking of Huitzilopochtli recalls his brother, Tezcatilpoca. Tezcatilpoca was almost as powerful: He consumed 25,000 virgins a year. Lead me to his tomb: I would weep, and hang a couronne des perles. But who knows where it is? Or where the grave of Quitzalcontl is? Or Tialoc? Or Chalchihuitlicue? Or Xiehtecutli? Or Centeotl, that sweet one? Or Tlazolteotl, the goddess of love? Or Mictlan? Or Ixtlilton? Or Omacatl? Or Yacatecutli? Or Mixcoatl? Or Xipe? Or all the host of Tzitzimitles? Where are their bones? Where is the willow on which they hung their harps? In what forlorn and unheard of hell do they await the resurrection morn? Who enjoys their residuary estates? Or that of Dis, whom Caesar found to be the chief god of the Celts? Or that of Tarves, the bull? Or that of Moccos, the pig? Or that of Epona, the mare? Or that of Mullo, the celestial jack-ass? There was a time when the Irish revered all these gods as violently as they now hate the English. But today even the drunkest Irishman laughs at them.

But they have company in oblivion: The hell of dead gods is as crowded as the Presbyterian hell for babies. Damona is there, and Esus, and Drunemeton, and Silvana, and Dervones, and Adsalluta, and Deva, and Belisama, and Axona, and Vintios, and Taranuous, and Sulis, and Cocidius, and Adsmerius, and Dumiatis, and Caletos, and Moccus, and Ollovidius, and Albiorix, and Leucitius, and Vitucadrus, and Ogmios, and Uxellimus, and Borvo, and Grannos, and Mogons. All mighty gods in their day, worshiped by millions, full of demands and impositions, able to bind and loose-all gods of the first class, not dilettanti. Men labored for generations to build vast temples to them-temples with stones as large as hay-wagons. The business of interpreting their whims occupied thousands of priests, wizards, archdeacons, evangelists, haruspices, bishops, archbishops. To doubt them was to die, usually at the stake. Armies took to the field to defend them against infidels: Villages were burned, women and children were butchered, cattle were driven off. Yet in the end they all withered and died, and today there is none so poor to do them reverence. Worse, the very tombs in which they lie are lost, and so even a respectful stranger is debarred from paying them the slightest and politest homage.

What has become of Sutekh, once the high god of the whole Nile Valley? What has become of:

Resheph
Anath
Ashtoreth
El
Nergal
Nebo
Ninib
Melek

Ahijah
Isis
Ptah
Anubis
Baal
Astarte
Hadad
Addu

Shalem
Dagon
Sharrab
Yau
Amon-Re
Osiris
Sebek
Molech?

All these were once gods of the highest eminence. Many of them are mentioned with fear and trembling in the Old Testament. They ranked, five or six thousand years ago, with Jahveh himself; the worst of them stood far higher than Thor. Yet they have all gone down the chute, and with them the following:

Bilé
Ler
Arianrod
Morrigu
Govannon
Gunfled
Sokk-mimi
Memetona
Dagda
Robigus
Pluto
Ops
Meditrina
Vesta
Tilmun
Ogyrvan
Dea Dia
Ceros
Vaticanus
Edulia
Adeona
Iuno Lucina
Saturn
Furrina
Vediovis
Consus
Cronos
Enki
Engurra
Belus
Dimmer
Mu-ul-lil
Ubargisi
Ubilulu
Gasan lil
U-dimmer-an-kia
Enurestu
U-sab-sib

Kerridwen
Pwyll
Tammuz
Venus
Bau
Mulu-hursang
Anu
Beltis
Nusku
U-Mersi
Beltu
Dumu-zi-abzu
Kuski-banda
Sin
Abil Addu
Apsu
Dagan
Elali
Isum
Mami
Nin-man
Zaraqu
Suqamunu
Zagaga
Gwydion
Manawyddan
Nuada Argetlam
Tagd
Goibniu
Odin
Llaw Gyffes
Lleu
Ogma
Mider
Rigantona
Marzin
Mars
Kaawanu

Ni-zu
Sahi
Aa
Allatu
Jupiter
Cunina
Potina
Statilinus
Diana of Ephesus
Nin-azu
Lugal-Amarada
Zer-panitu
Merodach
U-ki
Dauke
Gasan-abzu
Elum
U-Tin-dir-ki
Marduk
Nin-lil-la
Nin
Persephone
Istar
Lagas
U-urugal
Sirtumu
Ea
Nirig
Nebo
Samas
Ma-banba-anna
En-Mersi
Amurru
Assur
Aku
Qarradu
Ura-gala
Ueras

You may think I spoof. That I invent the names. I do not. Ask the rector to lend you any good treatise on comparative religion: You will find them all listed. They were gods of the highest standing and dignity-gods of civilized peoples-worshiped and believed in by millions. All were theoretically omnipotent, omniscient, and immortal. And all are dead.

Amnesty International Loses its Mind

"However, the right to freedom of expression is not absolute -- neither for the creators of material nor their critics. It carries responsibilities and it may, therefore, be subject to restrictions in the name of safeguarding the rights of others. In particular, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence cannot be considered legitimate exercise of freedom of expression. Under international standards, such "hate speech" should be prohibited by law."
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGPOL300072006?open&of=ENG-315

So calling someone a murderer who then murders someone in retaliation is hurting the murder's feelings? What? Those were not pictures of Mohammed. Those were pictures of Islam. As the incident played out it proved that those pictures were utterly ACCURATE pictures of Islam. There are few Islamic countries which are not oppressive dictatorships. Calling murderers and oppressive dictators what they are is not "hate speech." All of those cartoonists are now in fear for their lives.

We are supposed to enact laws to protect would-be murderers?

No.

Amnesty International has lost its moral compass and they should disband. They have received their last dime from me. Oppression must be exposed no matter who is doing the oppressing. We will not enact laws to give some oppressors a free ride for fear of "hurting their feelings."

Islam treats women like cattle. Even moderate Muslims do not consider civil rights for women to be the least important. Murdering gay people is a national pastime. Rape is virtually not illegal under Islamic law. Freedom of speech and religion are unknown. Personal liberty is despised.

If Amesty International doesn't stand opposed to all that human suffering, then they do not stand with me.

When Fascism Comes to America

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

A Feast of Violence

The Republic of T. has more questions than answers, but some of the answers are in the questions. The recent rash of violence against gay people is fueled by the rabidly strident Christianists trying to drum up political support by bashing gays at every opportunity. It used to work well when they would advocate racism to get support from bigots. The bigot vote has always been one of their mainstays.

here is a sample of some of the questions:

• What if, as dysfunctionalgadfly points out in surveying the Christian Coalitions checklist for Georgia judges, their supposedly faith-based political positions appear to have little in common with the professed faith?
...
• For that matter, what do you call a Georgia Attorney General candidate who suggests gay/straight student clubs are “Future Pedophiles of America” clubs?
• What do you call a conservative organizer who claims that gays have sex with infants?
...
• How do you respond to people like the one’s sick of it all mentioned, who honestly believe that gay people are the real bigots for seeking marriage equality.

And Republic of T also points out some reasons for hope, including this one:
Maybe there’s hope in a mainstream christian denomination, as Firebird notes, narrowly rejects a measure that could have blocked gay ordinations. Even a narrow victory shouldn’t be discounted, particularly given mostly positive reception Firebird reports getting as an out gay member of the denomination.

Maybe there is hope that the human race will regain its sanity.

Christianism Amok

The 12-year-old son of J.R. and Robin Knight died and in his memory they hung a rainbow flag out in front of their bed and breakfast in the hope that they will see him again "over the rainbow." This is Kansas, after all. It's sweet and touching.

And then the Christianists got going on it. After all, the rainbow is symbolic of homosexual equality. Can't have that. Their business has been destroyed. Of course they have been threatened and villified. The flag has been cut down by an anonymous vandal. The Knights have have replaced it.

The Phryngula blog has a letter from the Knights about the situation. It's enough to make you cry. Christianist cruelty apparently has no bounds.

God Wants You to Force People to Pray

The New York Times [unfortunately not a permalink] has a nice article about the Dobrich family and goes into some more detail about what they have endured. Of course their lives have been threatened.

A homemaker active in her children’s schools, Mrs. Dobrich said she had asked the board to develop policies that would leave no one feeling excluded because of faith. People booed and rattled signs that read “Jesus Saves,” she recalled. Her son had written a short statement, but he felt so intimidated that his sister read it for him. In his statement, Alex, who was 11 then, said: “I feel bad when kids in my class call me ‘Jew boy.’ I do not want to move away from the house I have lived in forever.”

Later, another speaker turned to Mrs. Dobrich and said, according to several witnesses, “If you want people to stop calling him ‘Jew boy,’ you tell him to give his heart to Jesus.”

Immediately afterward, the Dobriches got threatening phone calls.

God wants that, you know. He wants you to threaten women and children. Especially Jews. It's in the Bible. You have a right to force people to be Christians. Doesn't it say that? I don't remember it in any of my copies of the Bible, but surely it's in there.

The Dobrich and Doe legal complaint portrays a district in which children were given special privileges for being in Bible club, Bibles were distributed in 2003 at an elementary school, Christian prayer was routine at school functions and teachers evangelized.

And you know they knew it was illegal. Mrs. Dobrich suggested they use generic prayers rather than specifically Christian ones. She would have been satisfied with that. That would have been illegal also, but it would have been less mean and arrogant. No dice. Mean and arrogant or nothing.

A homemaker active in her children’s schools, Mrs. Dobrich said she had asked the board to develop policies that would leave no one feeling excluded because of faith. People booed and rattled signs that read “Jesus Saves,” she recalled. Her son had written a short statement, but he felt so intimidated that his sister read it for him. In his statement, Alex, who was 11 then, said: “I feel bad when kids in my class call me ‘Jew boy.’ I do not want to move away from the house I have lived in forever.”

Later, another speaker turned to Mrs. Dobrich and said, according to several witnesses, “If you want people to stop calling him ‘Jew boy,’ you tell him to give his heart to Jesus.”

Mean arrogant and cruel. It has become the face of Christianity in this country. It's not the Christianity I am familiar with. It is Christianism. It is no different at all from Islamism. In fact, it is worse because so many Islamic countries are totalitarian dictatorships and the citizens have no choice. This is America where the constitution guarantees freedom of religion. If you have a free religion, why do you need cruelty, arrogance and bigotry?

Why do they need to use the power of government to force their religion on innocent children? Their churches are inviolate. The government can't go there, can't regulate or tell them what to believe or what prayers to pray. Why do they need to force people to conform to their religious views? What is the point? I don't understand it, but I am bitterly opposed to it. As you can see by the threats and the horrendous behavior of the Christianists, this need to force religious conformity has corrupted the Christian message into something Jesus of Nazareth would find horrifying.

via Pharyngula

Thou Shalt Not Piss Off Your Insurance Company

Previously I reported about a school district that used its governmental power to prosletize Christianity to school children. When a family of Jews objected they were harrassed, intimidated and eventually forced to leave the district. They sued. The board agreed to a settlement.

And then the board changed their collective minds. Or lost them.

The board's insurance company is refusing to pay any more legal defense for them. The insurance company wants to be reimbursed for all the legal defense they've paid so far. They know the board cannot win at court and this is all money down a rat hole. Insurance companies are not too exited about pouring money down rat holes. It's against their nature.

Christianists LOVE to pour money down rat holes--especially tax dollars. Their arrogance gets them every the time. They just know this time, somehow the 1st Amendment will mean they can use government force to make people pray. After all, God is on their side. All they have to do is pray and they can violate the constitution. God wants them to violate the constitution and therefore they not only can, they are required to do it. God always agrees with everything they want to do.

But not the insurance company.

If it's Good for Marriage, It's Good for Marriage

For more than 40 years, the homosexual activist movement has sought to implement a master plan that has had as its centerpiece the utter destruction of the family." - Dr. James Dobson of Focus on The Family, in a July 2004 letter to supporters

James Dobson never gets it right.

Bruce Wilson over on talk2action has a nice analysis of marriage in Massechusetts, the only state in the Union where gay marriage is legal.

Divorce rates are commonly used as a key measure of marital and family health. US states, including Massachusetts, submit monthly summaries of vital statistics on births, deaths, marriages, and divorces to the US Center For Disease Control's National Center For Health Statistics ( NCHS ). The NCHS then compiles publicly available monthly and yearly reports of this data. The following statistics are based on that NCHS material.

Divorce rates in the US have been declining steadily since the the early 1980's. Massachusetts has shared in the trend and traditionally has had a divorce rate considerably lower than the national average. In fact. for several years now the Commonwealth has had the lowest divorce rate of any state in the union.

You want to know who has the HIGHEST divorce rate? You guessed it, the states that are the most strongly opposed to gay marriage.

Among those US states that have no laws on the books specifically prohibiting same sex marriage or civil unions -- WY, NM, NY, MA, RI, CT, NJ, MD, VT -- the average divorce rate drop ( unadjusted for population changes ) was -8.74%. No states in this group had divorce rate increases in 2004 and 2005.

Among those US states that are most opposed to same sex marriage which have also provided divorce data for the time period -- ( alaska ? ) AR, KS, KY, MI, MS, MO, NE, NV, ND, OH, OK, OR, UT, TX -- the average divorce rate ( unadjusted for population changes ) for 2004 and the first 11 months of 2005 increased 1.75%. This group contains 4 of the 5 states with the highest divorce rate increases in the US during 2004 and the first 11 months of 2005.

So marriage is good for marriage. What a surprise! (Not really) Marriage is good for everybody. I am in a very happy marriage. Naturally I want the same happiness for everyone else. Who would not? Who would be so cruel to deny this kind of happiness to their fellow man? Christianists.

Christianism in the Courtroom

The Washington Post has an article called Bringing the church to the courtroom that details the work of Alliance Defense Fund, a Christianist organization that characterizes itself as a sort of "anti-ACLU." From the sound of their agenda they are hoping they can destroy civil liberties by using the court system.

The group has been battling embryonic stem cell research in Missouri and won a Supreme Court stay preventing the removal of California's 29-foot Mount Soledad cross. In Florida, where saving the life of brain-damaged Terri Schiavo became a crusade, the group supported efforts to nourish her.

"What we are really trying to protect are the things this country was founded on," said D. James Kennedy, leader of Florida's Coral Ridge Ministries and one of the prominent Christian conservatives who fashioned the alliance in 1993 as a sharp stick in the national culture debate.

That is not how opponents see the organization. While crediting the ADF with training troops for battles once fought by a haphazard assortment of government lawyers and often ill-prepared volunteers, critics question the alliance's commitment to tolerance and the Constitution.

D. James Kennedy is an open reconstructionist. That is, he is hostile to democracy and individual liberty. He will destroy the Constitution if he can. His endorsement of the ADA exposes their agenda rather nicely.

Rottweiler Nation

This is from The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler Blog, filed under "Religion of Pus, Useless Swine." It's an Interesting take on the Supreme Court's decision that maybe we can't torch the Geneva Convention after all. The Iraqi insurgents are the most inhumane, subhuman enemy we've ever faced and this guy is pissed that we aren't just like them.

So keep that in mind. Should we ever make the mistake of capturing any of the perpetrators of the war crime against PFCs Menchaca and Tucker alive, we can forget about interrogating them in order to catch the rest, according to the Supreme Whores. Well, unless they’re willing to give up information if we ask “pretty please?”, since anything other than that has been deemed illegal by those blackrobed tyrants. Are we exaggerating? Try doing anything to those mutilating darlings of the Supremes in order to extract life-saving intel from them, and then wait for the Supreme Whores to decide that you were “humiliating” them in doing so.

Five ropes, five robes, five trees.

Some assembly required.

Until then, here’s the message to our troops overseas: Shoot to kill, don’t bother taking prisoners. The Supreme Court has decided that they’re actively on the other side, so the only thing we’re likely to get from NOT shooting the koranimal swine is a bill for hosting their stay in Gitmo. Until the Supreme Whores decide that that’s against some penumbra of an emanation of Miss Cleo’s crystal ball as well, that is, at which point they’ll probably decide that we owe the hadjis a few million bucks in compensation as well.

Let me make a few things clear here:

We’re at war. We’re at war with the most inhumane, subhuman enemy we’ve ever faced.

We have two sets of enemies.

We have the ones without, the koranimal butchers that will not hesitate to do to each and every one of us, ourselves, our wives, our husbands, our children, and every single one of our friends what they did to PFCs Menchaca and Tucker and, on top of that, celebrate and ululate about it.

Now, go here and look at the shields in the banner at the top of the blog. This creep almost certainly imagines himself to be Christian.

This guy says "We’re at war with the most inhumane, subhuman enemy we’ve ever faced." That is, of course, what was said about the Kaiser, Hitler, and the North Vietnamese along with every other country we have been at war with.

Bad Religion

Mark Isaak has written an interesting essay over at the Panda's Thumb called "The Larger Issue of Bad Religion."

What is “bad religion”? Everyone has different ideas about what is good in a religion, so it might seem that defining bad religion would be impossibly contentious. But there is one simple criterion which gets to the heart of most religion-related problems and which must be embraced by anyone who accepts the Golden Rule: A person is practicing bad religion if he or she, uninvited, attempts to impose any of their religious beliefs on another. A bad religion is any religion which condones such behavior. Other bad practices and beliefs can appear in religion, but by sticking to that one criterion, we can keep this simple and hopefully less controversial.

On this board, we see bad religion mainly in the form of attempts to ban the teaching of evolution and/or to force the teaching of miraculous creation (aka “intelligent design”). But, as anyone who pays any attention to the news in the United States knows, the battle is far more wide-ranging, covering issues such as putting graven images of the Ten Commandments in courtrooms, prohibiting certain love-based marriage, and allowing pharmacists to impose their religious practices on their patients. In other parts of the world, bad religion imposes strictures on every aspect of life and kills people for noncompliance. The problem of bad religion is already widespread, and it appears to be spreading. It must be fought.

Say Hallelujah!

A lot of Christianists who have been kind enough to give feed back to the Sword of Freedom have characterized this blog as anti-Christian or anti-religion. After all, I occasionally quote atheists! The truth is, I have no problem with people who practice their own spiritual path but do not try to make other people do it. The idea of MAKING someone be spiritual is incomprehensible. It's as incomprehensible as making someone pray. If a prayer does not come from the heart, it can't be anything but empty words.

Isaak points out that Christianists (he doesn't call them that) think their religious opinions are the laws of the universe. A little humility would fix that, but I know that's a lot to ask for.

Benjamin Franklin, A Smart Man

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."--Benjamin Franklin

Amen.

Life under Christianist Dominion III

The (mostly) science blog Pharyngula has been following the Hardesty, Oklahoma case and posted this piece which was written by the defendant. It's long, but well worth the read. Here's a snippet:

Well, that was then but now the court was about to hear the verdict. There was a feeding frenzy about to begin with the dirty little atheist and his family put in their place with him in jail and the family run out of town. Like the teacher told my daughter "This is a Christian country and if you don't like it get out!"

I could hear my heart beat in my ears and I dreaded the cheers from the righteous mob that were about to begin. The pain of having my family being in the front row to witness this swirling cesspool of hatred come to its inevitable end with my head on a pike, sucked the air right out of my lungs.

Life under Christianst Domionion II

This is someone who posted a comment in a blog called "I'm From Missouri" about HR 2679.

DaveScot said...

I hope someone keeps track of the 11 parents and their children. Everyone in Dover knows damn well that no children were forced to listen to the 60 second announcement regarding evolution and intelligent design. So what you have is 11 parents whose religious hostility extended to such a trivial matter they were willing to make the tiny school district pay a million dollars.

I grew up in a small town and when a few people pull crap like that that hurts everyone there will be payback. I won't be at all surprised if the children of these parents are so badly ostracized and abused by other students that they're forced to find another school and the parents will be snubbed and insulted and their cars keyed and their coworkers and supervisors making their lives miserable that they'll all end up moving away.

I hope that's all tracked so that the next group of parents that gets their panties in a bunch and volunteers to the be the designated shitheads know what it's going to cost them.

Sound familiar? It's life under Christianist dominion. Obviously DaveScot is just dreaming of the day.

Life under Christianist Dominion

I have had several of these stories forwarded to me lately and I think it's important to report them. I think it's important to never purchase a pig in a poke. If American wants the Christianists to run the country instead of a secular government, it's good to see what life would be like after the change-over.

This case involves the Smalkowski family who live in Hardesty, Oklahoma

The Smalkowski case attracted national attention after Nicole Smalkowski was kicked off of the girls' basketball team after refusing to stand in a circle with her teammates on the gymnasium floor of the Hardesty public High School and recite the "Lord's Prayer." After school officials learned that she and her family were Atheists, lies were created about her as grounds to take her off of the team.

When her father Chuck discovered conclusively that public school and law enforcement officials had lied to him about his 15 year old daughter, he and Nicole and her mother Nadia went to the home of principal Lloyd Buckley to attempt to discuss the matter with him. Outside of his front fence, the principal struck Chuck, who blocked the blow. Both men fell to the ground and Buckley sustained minor injuries, the provable origins of which were strikingly contrary to his under oath trial testimony. Buckley then took out misdemeanor criminal assault charges against Chuck. After Smalkowski rejected the offer to drop the charges if he and his Atheist family left the state, the charges were raised to a felony. Chuck called American Atheists for help.

On June 22, 2006, after only a little over two and a half hours of deliberation, a span of time that included dinner, the jury found Chuck "Not Guilty" of the felony charge of assault and of two lesser included misdemeanor assault charges.

One of the main problems with any totliatarian state is the need for radical conformity. Any difference is not tolerated. In fact any difference from the main group can get you killed, jailed, persecuted. It is perceived as a threat to the power of the state.

The "good" folks of Hardesty knew they vastly outnumbered the Smalkowskis. They knew they were not in any physical danger from them. They knew their churches, homes and religion were under no threat from these atheists. The threat was to their power. The power to make you pray their prayers to their God at a time and place of their choosing.

If you are a Christian, Jew, Atheist, Buddhist, Muslim, Baha'i, or any kind of American you must stand with the Smalkowskis. You must stand with them if you would like to make those prayer decisions yourself and not have them imposed on you.

There's no particular reason to believe that God wants to hear the prayers of people who were forced to pray. It is the powerful Christianists who are pleased by those prayers, not God.

Lying for the Lord

As I have reported before, the Christianists are pushing the Public Expression of Religion Act, H.R. 2679 which would not allow plaintiffs who won a case in court on a first amendment issue to collect costs and attorney's fees from the government.

Stop-the-ACLU has a report of this bill on their website. Naturally--and stupidly--they are in favor of it. They would damage their own civl rights in order to hurt a privately funded organization they hate.

They quote Steve Crampton, an attorney with the American Family Association, who testified in favor of the bill:

“”It was really just the ACLU and its like organizations on the left that ever benefited from this provision.”

This was the reply I left there. I don't have much hope that they will leave it there. They often delete responses they don't like:
This is, of course, a bald-faced lie. All the Christian groups who have successfully sued the government for violating the constitution have received reimbursement for costs as well. If you have a strong case, why do you have to lie to support it?

In fact, if this bill is successful, it will hamper the efforts of Christians and other religious groups from preventing the government from violating their 1st Amendment rights. Duh. Do you really think it will be focused only on an organization you hate?

Another Look at Life Under Christianist Domination

In 1980 JoAnn Bell noticed blatant violations of the law in her local school in Oklahoma. The reaction of the Christianists was very typical. I've heard several stories like this. She filed a law suit and the school was ordered to cease the illegal activity. They refused and the violence kept escalating.


One day JoAnn went to the school to pick up her children. She was attacked by a woman and suffered a concussion and a dislocated shoulder. The attack only stopped after the principal, who had been watching the entire time, finally said “ok, she’s had enough.” JoAnn pressed charges for the assault. The school held a fundraiser to pay her medical bills and also paid the fine for the woman who made the attack.

JoAnn was assigned an FBI agent.

JoAnn's son was the school president and a member of the football team. He received honors in math, science and history. The awards ceremony was cancelled because the principal didn’t want to give JoAnn’s son his awards. When he received his awards, they were thrown at him. Her son went to high school the next year and played on the football team. The family was at an out-of-town football game when two police officers walked up to JoAnn and said “go home, your house is on fire.” They could smell the fire over five miles away. The volunteer fire department was made up of people who did not like JoAnn. The fire department eventually arrived but didn’t bring any water. People came to watch the fire and laugh. The family did not have fire insurance.

The next day JoAnn made a large sign and put it on her lawn. It read “QUIT LAUGHING, WE AIN’T MOVING.”

It was later determined by the fire marshal that the fire was an arson caused by a Molotov cocktail. A witness at the scene identified the perpetrator’s vehicle as that of a member of the school board. JoAnn’s family moved in with her parents who lived nearby. They would not bow to the pressure of making them move out of the school district and therefore lose standing in the lawsuit.

JoAnn's youngest son was five years old at the time. He was a small, quiet boy who was easy to pick on. Three months after the fire he was playing on the school playground during recess. The superintendent called the teacher inside and then (allegedly) pushed JoAnn’s five year old son off the swing. His arm was broken and his bone was sticking out yet the child was kept at school all day and his parents were never called.

and on and on.

She is now director of the Oklahoma ACLU and was was honored for her courage by the ACLU of Oklahoma in 1983 with their highest honor, the Angie Debo Civil Libertarian of the Year Award.

read more here: http://www.inquiringminds.org/newsletter/0503/hypatia.html

Desecration

The Sword of Freedom generally does not advocate actual violence, but I really hope someone dynamites this desecration of Lady Liberty.



It does illustrate very nicely what Christianists think of personal liberty. They hate it and will destroy it if they can.

Cleaning Out the Jew Problem in Delaware

This is sick and disgusting and I'm glad I can direct you to a satire site to read the details. Apparently the Indian River School district decided to clean out the Jews who had infiltrated their Christian schools. No, I don't mean private Christian schools. I mean government-funded schools hijacked by Christianists.

What's even worse is apparently Stop-the-ACLU.org published their names, address and phone number on their website to make it easier for the bigots to attack and harrass them. When Jesus's General sent STACLU a letter congratulating them on their help with the progrom, they totally didn't get that it was a joke and answered seriously as if they had been given a compliment.

This is their reply:

Pogrom? I'm not sure I want to call it that. That is not an appropriate term, however, I am pleased that we had an effect in this case. We have others we want to put up on the site to shame them but have not gotten around to it. And I'm not so sure I can take credit for it. However, if an ACLU speaker was booed, that's music to my ears.

I would appreciate it if you would sign your actual name rather than JC Christian.

Regards,

Nedd Kareiva
Director

Christianists must be stopped. They are destroying our culture and Christianity right along with it.

Note: I fixed the link above so that it goes to stop-the-aclu.org instead of stop-the-aclu.com. Apparently staclu.com had a little hissy-fit because someone confused these two entirely separate organizations with nearly identical names! I could apologize. But I won't.

Protecting His Cozy Little Christianist Fiefdom

The Commercial Appeal reports:

A nontenured Munford High teacher who was the faculty adviser for the newly formed ACLU campus chapter has lost her teaching job.

This was the same school where the kids made the Christianists all excited and happy because they recited the Lord's Prayer at the graduation ceremony as a protest. It was rude and bullying of them to do it but it was well within their Constitutional rights.

Apparently that wasn't enough, though.

While Kilzer said she heard a rumor on May 11 about her contract not being renewed, school officials met with her May 12. "That's when they told me."

She said she didn't realize that was the same day as when the ACLU letter was faxed to Munford High Principal Darry Marshall.

The most interesting part of this is this little paragraph near the end:

Before the school prayer issue, Kilzer said her students [the ACLU club] had asked Marshall not to use the school's broadcasting system to talk about Jesus and religion.

The principal has been using his power as a government official to preach to the students--not just rude and bullying, but also unconstitutional.

With Kilzer's departure the ACLU club will cease to exist because it must have a sponsor. Considering what happened to the last sponsor, what do you think the odds are of finding another one? None? or zero?

Government Funding of Religion

Social Justice Surprise by Stephen Monsma talks in glowing terms of how government money is being used to prosletyze.

What percentage of evangelical programs receive government funding?
One of the surprises was that more evangelical programs were receiving government funding—51 percent, versus 40 percent of the mainline programs.

This carried through also when you looked at the amount of funding: 38 percent of the evangelical programs reported receiving more than half of their funding from the government, compared to 31 percent for mainline programs.

To me this looks like government favoritism twoard evangelical churches. But I could just be paranoid.


What do you say to critics who see incorporating evangelism and religious values as a violation of church-state separation?
Many evangelical programs, when they have Bible studies or devotional activities, make them voluntary. Many of these efforts to encourage clients to make religious commitments are done with private money at a time separate from the other services. That's a partial answer.

But even more fundamentally, we know that government funding cannot be used for sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytizing. Yet those words are not self-defining. If welfare-to-work staff reassure recipients that Jesus loves them, that work is a way to honor God, and that we all have a calling to fulfill in life—is that sectarian instruction? I think not.

Now the ACLU might disagree with me on that. But to me, this is using broad Christian values to help people overcome tremendous obstacles in becoming economically self-sufficient. I attended similar classes at secular nonprofit organizations. They also used values—non-religious values. They would talk about earning the respect of your family by going out to work or feeling better about yourself. But both evangelical and secular programs use values to motivate and improve the self-esteem of their clients.

Talking about Jesus to the your more or less captive audience isn't religious at all. Right? You aren't kidding the ACLU might disagree! So would all the Christians--probably those mainline Christians--who thought Jesus was a religious figure!

In order to enrich themselves with government money and use that government money to spread their religion, they are forced to deny the divinity of Jesus. They are lying, of course, but Peter was lying when he denied his association with Jesus. Do I hear a cock's crow?

thanks to Red State Rabble for this tip.

Put Homosexuals To The Sword

In the article "Put Homosexuals To The Sword" by By Jim Rudd we are treated to a rant saturated in breath-taking arrogance and urged by a "loving" Christian to commit mass murder.

Back in 2003, when the Supreme Court issued an opinion against Texas sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas, Republicans started pushing the idea of a "Marriage Protection Amendment" as a solution to the "gay problem." As we now know the amendment idea is not a solution but a red herring used by crafty politicians to distract Christians away from obedience to the commandments of God concerning homosexuality. It is a political trick used to lure the Church into a humiliating situation of begging the State to "defend marriage," while allowing civil officials to circumvent their God ordained duty to administer Justice upon sodomites!

When the Supreme Court rendered its Lawrence opinion, every U.S. Congressmen from the state of Texas should have issued an Indictment of Impeachment to have the Supreme Court Justices, responsible for such an abomination, to be kicked off the bench for sexual deviant behavior under Article III Section. I of the Constitution. Across the nation reprobate federal judges sit on the bench at the behest of our U.S. Congressmen and U.S. Senators.

America is a cursed nation (John.7:49) and "defending marriage" does nothing to cut off the curse. The marriage amendment does nothing to protect the people of the United States from the wrath to come-because of homosexuality. The word of God commands that sodomites are to be executed, and God gives our civil officials the sword to do the job. Until our civil officials turn from their wicked way by administering Justice, we can only be judged with the most depraved pagan nations in history:

"Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire" (Jude 1:7).

If you hate your children's guts, then do not teach them how to administer Justice in the land (Eph.6:4). Just sit back and let the lawless be damned (Matt.7:21-23).

Naturally Mr. Rudd is furious that the US Government will not carry out his murderous and sadistic impulses for him. The Old Testament is soaked with blood. You are ordered to murder unruly, disobedient children. You must murder adulterers--females only, of course. You are required to murder anyone who leaves your religion to go to another one, even murdering anyone who tries to persuade you to do so. You are ordered lop off body parts for an incredible array of trivial offenses.

Modern people ignore all that. Those things are just vestiges of a barbaric past. Modern Christians know that God is a benevolent father who only wants the best for us. God is a God of love, not of blood, curses and vengeance.

Right?

More on the "Public Expression of Religion Act"

The latest Christianist attempt to establish their theocracy has been nicely exposed over at "Dispatches from the Culture Wars." Ed Brayton layes out the issue in wonderful detail. I recommend reading it.

On the Christianist wish list

On the Christianist wish list is a law which will not allow plaintifs in a establishment clause law suit to be able to collect damages and lawyer's fees if they win. I got my little email newsletter from "Stop ACLU" asking me to lobby in favor of this astonishing piece of legislature. The bill in question is HB 2679. A bill like this would not be complete without a dishonest and misleading title. This one is called "Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005." The bill was introduced a year ago and currently does not have a sponsor and doesn't have a prayer of being passed. It is languishing in committee.

You can read the bill here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.+2679:

Of course every American has a right to express their religion in public. Children can form Bible study classes and prayer clubs in public schools. Street preachers can do their thing in parks and on street corners. Families can pray over their meal in restaurants. Clubs and organizations can pray before their meetings. You don't have to sneak into churches. You can have group prayers in church parking lots.

So what's the problem? The answer is embedded in the word "public." They don't mean "in public." They mean government venues. They are not fighting for the right to pray in the church parking lot or in restaurants. They already have that right. All Americans do. They are fighting for the right to make you pray by using the government to force you.

They keep trying to do that in spite of the law and the Constitution and they keep getting sued by The Dreaded ACLU. Of course, when they inevitably lose, they must pay attorney's fees in addition to any damages requested and granted. So this bill, if passed, would allow them to break the law, violate the rights of their fellow Americans and not have to suffer any consequences.

Cool trick. Maybe next they will try to decriminalize bank robbery.

Editing the 10 Commandments

The Louisianna legislature has been trying to edit the 10 Commandments so they cover all three religions that subscribe to that part of the Bible. They failed.

"Plan sidesteps biblical dispute" by Marsha Shuler reports:
The Legislature bowed out of the debate over what version of the Ten Commandments should be used in displays at government buildings.

Instead, the proposed law sent to Gov. Kathleen Blanco on Monday removed the specific commandants from the bill and referred instead to the wording “as extracted from the Bible.”

The House and Senate gave Senate Bill 476 final legislative approval Friday.

The American Civil Liberties Union objected because the measure by Sen. James David Cain, R-Dry Creek, used a Protestant version. Catholics and Jews use different renderings of the Ten Commandments.

The problem underscores the reason why the SB476 shouldn’t be approved, ACLU state executive director Joe Cook said Monday. It violates constitutional provisions aimed at keeping religion out of government.

There were two other things in this report that The Sword of Freedom found especially annoying. One was this:

“It was clearly the intent of the Legislature to introduce religion into public places,” said Cook. And that would put it at odds with U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

by "public places" he means places owned by the public, i.e. government buildings. But by using the word "public" he has set himself up to be dishonestly quoted by the Christianists who love the equivocation fallacy. That is, they will say he doesn't want them to practice their religion in public, such as preaching on street corners or saying grace over dinner in a restaurant. The ACLU, of course, frequently defends the right of Christians to practice their religion in those kinds of "public" places.

The other bit that annoyed me was this:
The version that went to the governor’s desk also altered the reference to the Ten Commandments as “a foundation of our legal system.” It became “one of the foundations of our legal system,” in the House version.

Either wording is a lie. Seven of the 10 commandments, if codified into law, would be unconstitutional. The legislators, being mostly lawyers, almost certainly know that and therefore their lie is obvious and cynical.

"Corrupt politician" is almost an oxymoron. It's a given. The corruption of religion should not be a given, but it's happening in front of our eyes.

thanks for the heads up goes to Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

The Corruption of Christianity

In Memorial and Remonstrance James Madison--the man who actually wrote the First Amendment to the Constitution--points out that mixing government and religion corrupts both. After nearly a decade of political power evangelical Christianity is so deeply corrupt that they endorse torture, oppose vaccines that would prevent cancer and are taking a wrecking ball to public education. They are deep in the pocket of big business and run their churches like big businesses. All of the folks who have been indicted for corruption in congress have claimed to be evangelical Christians.

Today on Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish I discovered that I'm certainly not alone in my assessment of what evangelical Christianity has become. Sullivan quotes Randall Balmer a committed evangelical.
. . . It begins with an acknowledgement that religion in America has always functioned best from the margins, outside of the circles of power, and that any grasping for religious hegemony ultimately trivializes and diminishes the faith. . .

Balmer's article is called Jesus is Not a Republican. It's worth reading. My last post talked about hope. This post also contains a grain of hope. Perhaps there are some evangelicals who would like to retrieve their religion from the pits of depravity.

Know Hope

"Know Hope" is a grafitti that is popping up in the Middle East and elsewhere. It's a simple and beautiful thing driven by ordinary people.

This week the Southern Baptist Convention elected a moderate (or at least not a Christianist lunatic) as their president. Now let's be rational here, Rev. Frank Page is not Bishop Spong. He's right wing as opposed to ultra-right wing.

E. J. Dionne Jr. discusses it thoughtfully in A Shift Among the Evangelicals on the Washington Post website:

The mellowing of evangelical Christianity may well be the big American religious story of this decade. The evolution of the evangelical movement should not be confused with the rise of a religious left. Although the margin of the Republican Party's advantage among white evangelicals is likely to decline from its exceptionally high level in the 2004 election, a substantial majority of white evangelicals will probably remain conservative and continue to vote Republican.

But the evangelical political agenda is broadening as new voices insist on the urgency of issues such as Third World poverty and the fights against AIDS and human trafficking. Among the most prominent advocates for a wider view of Christian obligation is Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., and author of "The Purpose Driven Life."

In the meantime, Rich Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs at the National Association of Evangelicals (and a self-described "Ronald Reagan movement conservative"), has been a leader in urging evangelicals to make environmental stewardship a central element of their political mission. This has earned him attacks from such prominent leaders on the Christian right as James Dobson.

So it's not much, but it's something.

Know Hope.

Killing for the Kingdom: Update

Not being a shy little flower, The Sword of Freedom commented on the article written by Paul Proctor, referring to the Left Behind game as morally vile. A Christian gamer responded to my post with this:

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/left-behind-eternal-forces/700684p1.html "It's this wrestling back and forth for the souls of the people that makes the gameplay dynamic so interesting. Players aren't competing to kill the enemy army -- rather, they're trying to save them, and each person killed represents a failure rather than a success." "Certain events -- being asked to perform immoral actions (such as killing civilians), being seduced by the enemy, witnessing good or evil miracles -- lead to adjustments in units' Spirit ratings." The only non-belivers that can be killed are those in the opposing army, which, since this is a war game, is somewhat expected, since this is a war game. The object is NOT to kill everyone who isn't a believer, the main intent of the player is supposed to be to convert the opposing army's members. As the review says, if you kill civilians as the good side, your people lose morale, and may defect.

Today there was another essay about the Left Behind game, Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition by Jan Markell

apparently even extreme conservative Christians aren't too pleased with it. In Markell's essay I found this paragraph:

Soldiers lose some of their spirituality every time they kill someone from Antichrist's side but they are then bolstered with prayer to make sure they then don't become vulnerable to Antichrist's forces.

So in other words, the Christian gamer and the game reviewer are playing a little loose with the truth. Yes, you *do* kill people who aren't Christian. Oh, you are supposed to try to convert them first, but then--BLAM! You lose points, but you can pray them back.

"Morally vile" probably wasn't a strong enough description, but this game beggars the imagination.

Suffocating Spiritual Freedom

On the Americans United Website there's an interesting article about Christianism called The Religious Right And American Freedom

The religious right is against it. Freedom, that is.

From the article:
Religious Right leaders frequently speak of their mandate to take “dominion” over American society or impose a “biblical worldview.” An entire Religious Right organization, Worldview Weekend, exists to train activists in ways to impose their version of faith on all aspects of society, including government.

As TV preacher D. James Kennedy put it in his 1997 book Character & Destiny, “This is our land. This is our world. This is our heritage, and with God’s help, we shall reclaim this nation for Jesus Christ. And no power on earth can stop us.”

To the Religious Right, the Bible mandates that fundamentalist Christians assert control over society at all levels. This viewpoint leads some extremists to embrace what can only be called spiritual totalitarianism.

A document issued by the Coalition on Revival, a group aligned with Christian Reconstructionism, stated bluntly, “We deny that anyone, Jew or Gentile, believer or unbeliever, private person or public official, is exempt from the moral and juridical obligation before God to submit to Christ’s Lordship over every aspect of his life in thought, word and deed.”

No one is exempt. No one. They do not believe that you have a right to make up your own mind about who, when or where you worship. It is their decision and theirs alone.

The article is long and pretty frightening. If you can't stand to read all of it, I recommend you skip down to the section called "What They Want." If you believe that I am an alarmist lunatic (and setting aside the fact that you may be right) and that they are a bunch of marginal loonies, that list might change your mind. Everything they want is in the news all the time. It's in the legislatures. It's on NPR, MSNBC, CNN and, of course, Fox News.

Here's a sample of the list:

• Controlling Americans’ Decisions about Reproduction, Sex and Death

• Passing Anti-Gay Laws

• Controlling Education in America (and it won't stop with evolution)

• Stripping Federal Courts of Their Power to Hear Certain Types of Cases

• Securing Control of Social Services

• Instilling Censorship (the fines for "indecency" on the airwaves have just been increased 10-fold)

• Infusing Partisan Politics with Religion

In order to preserve freedom in this country--including spiritual freedom--the religious right must be opposed at every turn. Moderate religious groups and secular organizations must form a coalition to stop them. Such a coalition is vital if this country is to remain free.

Killing for the Kingdom III: Hunting Liberals

Orcinus Blog posted this photo a year ago. I'd never seen or heard about it.

It fits with other signs of Christianist violence that have been brewing for a while and which I have reported here as I come across them. Christianists like to cover their violent nature by talking about the "War on Christians." It's a lie, of course, as this "hunting license" indicates. But it will be a useful lie if the need to rationalize violence as "self defense" ever becomes necessary.

The true war is on any reasonable person, anyone who disagrees with the extreme agenda. Anyone who thinks maybe torture isn't a good thing is a "liberal." Anybody who thinks government should be secular and fair to all religions is a "liberal." Anybody who thinks all Americans should have civil liberties is a "liberal." And liberals are "treasonous," "pro-death" and "anti-God." That makes them fair game. You can even hunt them with dogs.

Can you IMAGINE what would happen if liberals circulated a hunting license for Christians?

Killing for the Kingdom II

I've been hearing rumors of this and kind of ignoring it because it's too frightning and, well, you hear wild rumors on the internet all the time. A Carnival of Theocrats by WorldCantWait is a first person report of a weekend rally/convention aimed at teenagers.

But BattleCry Philadelphia was more than just a vulgar carnival designed to suck donations into the coffers of Ron Luce's corporation "Teen Mania". Indeed, it had a point, to recruit the future elite "warriors" in the coming battle against the separation of church and state. It turned dark and frightening on Saturday afternoon. After Franklin "Islam is a Wicked Religion" Graham came out to thunder against the evils of homosexuality and the Iraqi people (whom he considers to be exactly the same people as the ancient Babylonians who enslaved the tribes of Israel and deserving, one would assume, the exact same fate) we heard an explosion. Flames shot out on stage and a team of Navy Seals was shown on the big TV monitors in full camouflage creeping forward down the hallway from the locker room with their M16s. They were hunting us, the future Christian leaders of America. Two teenage girls next to me burst into tears and even I, a jaded middle-aged male, almost jumped out of my skin. I imagined for that moment what it must have felt like to have been a teacher at Columbine high school. 10 seconds later they rushed out onstage and pointed their guns in our direction firing blanks spitting flames. About 1000 shots and bang, we were all dead.

I then followed the select group of Christian youth out into the corridor into the tent where we were told about Teen Mania's "Honor Academy", some type of Christian fundamentalist boot camp designed to replace the first year of college for 600 dollars a month. This is about the same price that I paid to go to Rutgers way back in the 1980s, but considerably less than it would cost to a decent private university today. I'm assuming this is half the point, that the kids who wind up attending the "honor academy" will be evaluated according how useful they'll be to the Christian right. The select will be given some type of financial help going to college. The financially well off will be fine in any case and the rest will be funneled into the military, Walmart, and various places where they can thump the Bible and act as the foot soldiers in the army for the coming Christian revolution.

The author thinks it will end in sectarian violence here in the US. I hope he is wrong. We all had better hope he is wrong.

Killing for the Kingdom

I found this interesting piece over at Christian Worldview Network. Usually that website is a swamp of Christianist jingoism and bigotry but occasionally there's a gem like this one.

The article is about a new Christianist video game put out by the same people who do the "Left Behind" series. You get to fight the minions of the antiChrist with a machine gun--if they don't accept Christ as their Lord and Savior, of course. I've read reviews of it. It's larded with Biblical symbolism and Bible verses. Paul Proctor is a Christian who is not amused. You should read the entire article. This is an excerpt.

"Killing For The Kingdom -- Just Fun & Games" by Paul Proctor

Its part of a celebrated strategy reinvented reverends embraced sometime ago called "being relevant to the culture." The message doesn't change, they insist, just the methods. Oh yeah -- nothing new here. Sounds JUST LIKE the Gospel of Christ, doesn't it? Seems though I recall Jesus telling his disciples, before sending them out to "heal" and "preach the Kingdom," (that's "heal and preach," not kill and conquer) to not even carry with them a second coat, much less an assault rifle.

But then nobody's actually getting killed here, are they? It's just make-believe murder and mayhem -- you know, simulated sin. Harmless, right? How come the church doesn't apply that same Laodicean logic to say, pornography? No worries mate! Judging from the downward spiral of today's mega church morality, I'm sure it will, soon enough.

My second reaction to this egregious tool of amusement was to not even waste time writing about it since the fellow who did, sufficiently covered the Purpose Driven connections and details. After all, biblically speaking, the ungodly premise of the game is frankly a no-brainer. I mean if Christians who read or hear about this disgraceful invention donít see anything wrong with the church promoting a video game about killing reprobates for Christ or, if you like, killing Christians for the antichrist, (your choice) thereís really nothing I can add, except maybe a stern rebuke.

It does, however, give the rest of us a little peek at the delusional dreams of Dominionists -- some of whom proudly proclaim that they are going to take back this country and world FOR Jesus, as if He needed their arrogant agenda and unchecked adrenaline to do so, in spite of what the scriptures say about the last days, the apostasy and this world "passing away."

Same Sex, Same Race Marriage

President Bush came out strongly in favor of bigotry yesterday. If he'd done it today we could draw some conclusions that he might be the Anti-Christ since today is 06-06-06. But he's not the Anti-Christ. He's merely the Anti-Christ's toady.

I doubt Bush actually objects to same-sex marriage, but he has to lie about it in order to get some votes for the bigots who face re-election in the fall. Therefore he has to energize the Bigot Vote. When inter-racial marriage was going around as an idea the GOP did exactly the same thing. The Democrats were becoming the party of tolerance and inclusiveness, leaving the bigots out in the cold with nobody to vote for. So the GOP started supporting racist agendas and laws in order to energize the Bigot Vote and gather in those unhappy Democrats. And here they are forty years later trotting out that same winning strategy.

Dispatches from the Culture Wars points out:
. . . the reaction from the right was identical to their reaction today and virtually every argument they use today against gay marriage was also used against interracial marriage, including, believe it or not, the claim that they can't have children. A Missouri judge in 1883 issued a ruling that said:

"It is stated as a well authenticated fact that if the [children] of a black man and white woman, and a white man and a black woman intermarry, they cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites."

Though it gets repeated over and over that gay marriage will "destroy" hetero marriage, nobody has ever whispered a shred of evidence as to how that would be accomplished. They haven't pointed to Massachusetts or Denmark and shown how heterosexual marriage has been damaged. They haven't quoted a single person who said "When they passed that law that gays could marry I decided to get a divorce." or "Since that gay couple moved in down the street my marriage to John has gone to hell."

I'm afraid there are really only two arguments against gay marriage that make any sense. The secular argument only consists of a noise: "eeeew!" The Christianist version is a bit more articulate: "I hate those people! They can't be allowed to be happy!"

Well, for what it's worth--and we are well aware that it's worth very little--The Sword of Freedom wants EVERYONE to be happy.

Above the Law

Judge Roy Moore fought the law and the law won. Now he's trying to start an entire movement dedicated to ignoring federal judges when he disagrees with their decisions.

Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom parker wrote an editorial in the Birmingham News that bordered on sedition:

"Conservative judges today are on the front lines of the war against political correctness and judicial tyranny," he wrote. "State Supreme Court judges should not follow obviously wrong decisions simply because they are precedent."--Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker--You can read the whole story here

That a sitting judge could write such a thing is, in my not so humble opinion, grounds for impeachment. He is essentially saying the laws of the land do not apply to him.  After all, God tells him what to do. Fortunately God's opinions are always identical to his. God never disagrees with him even when the law does.

If Parker, Moore et al. are successful in their campaign to ignore the law, the law will cease to exist in this country. God never disagrees with Roy Moore either so what ever Roy wants, Roy would get. Roy Moore and his supporters are trying to oust judges less extreme than themselves, judges who think the law and the constitution are important enough to uphold. We can only hope the Alabama voters don't fall for it.

A Match Made Where?

My idea of "big government" is probably bigger than Andrew Sullivan's. Politically, I'm somewhere to the left of him. But he understands what happens when religion and government mix and it isn't pretty:

It's a match made in heaven. There is, however, a serious point here. America's long experience of religion as essentially suspicious of government power is an anomaly in the Western world. For much of European history, religion and government have always been interwoven. And as European governments have grown, European faith has withered. As a Catholic growing up in a country where the state church was Protestant, and where I attended Anglican services and listened to the Book of Common Prayer as an integral part of receiving a government-financed education, I saw this first hand. And, as an immigrant, I found America's religious life a contrasting marvel. In America, faith seemed unconstrained by the compromises of government power and enmeshment, more alive because it was less enfeebled by the temptations of Caesar. 

It makes me shudder to think of a Catholic boy being forced by the government to say protestant prayers. It violates all that is holy, but then I'm an American. We are famous for thinking that--or we once were.

Pleasing God with Forced Prayer

DaveScot over at the UncomonDesign blog recently embarrassed himself by posting an internet hoax as if it were true. Since it smeared the ACLU, I'm sure Dave didn't see any value in checking the post for accuracy. RedSonja2000 enjoys the creation/evolution debate but that isn't the focus of this blog. What I found interesting is DaveScot's reply to one commentor who had remarked (in part):

I can never quite understand why forced prayer is so desirable. Certainly it pleases the person doing the forcing, but I can't imagine that it would please God.

DaveScot replied: The problem is that a student can't lead a voluntary prayer at a football game or graduation ceremony because just hearing it might offend some poor sensitive thing that has to endure the horror of listening to it. I say it's too bad. Hearing isn't saying. They can cover their ears, not bow their heads, keep their mouths shut, or whatever. The real crime is denying the students who DO want to participate in the prayer. Evidently they don't have any rights. The constitution guarantees freedom of religion not freedom from religion. I suggest you read it if you don't believe me.

DaveScot apparently would be quite pleased with forced prayer if the mean ole ACLU didn't prevent it. It's astonishing that he thinks God would be pleased with it. The fact that he immediately shut down debate right after he made his comment, though, seems to indicate a guilty conscience (and prevented RedSonja2000 from throwing her sword in the mix!)

Telling Lies for God

Over at Pharyngula PZ Meyers is reporting that Christianists are sending their book America, Return to God using his name. He says "Someone is apparently putting my name and email address in the order form as the friendly donor . . ."

America, Return to God  details the depraved and immoral nature of our society. Yet telling lies while disseminating this book seems to not be immoral at all. "Telling Lies for God" generally is applied to creationists but the Christianists apparently also think God won't mind if they lie as long as God benefits. Once you have become one of the Godly you can eliminate any of the 10 Commandments that you find inconvenient. Makes you wonder if "thou shalt not bear fallse witness" is one of those laws of "mere men" that got slipped into the original 9 later on. Maybe Satan wrote that commandment and it's only meant to ensnare us.

Maybe we should read the book and find out what the Theology of Lies is all about.

A Look at Life under Christianist Domination

If you are the slightest bit curious what life might be like if radical Right Wing gets a hold of the government, then this article will give you a window into their world:

Debating The Fundamentals

Patrick Henry University, which in spite of its small size, supplies the largest numbers of interns to the White House, has just lost 5 professors. One was fired and the rest resigned due to the suffocating restrictions placed on their academic freedom. These guys are not raving Marxist liberals. They are deeply conservative Christians. But they were too liberal for the Christianists. This school focuses its mission on grooming people for government service.

The student code of conduct includes punishable behaviors such as holding hands, drinking when not under the supervision of their parents, restrictions on movie viewing and strict curfews. They even keep an eye on which church you go to on Sunday. Not whether, which. 

The article includes this astounding quote from Michael Ferris, the college president
It is a challenge to stand for both Christ and for liberty [but] you can be robustly for Christ and for liberty.

The statement drips with irony. The school, as described in the article is so suffocating and the strictures on conformity so rigidly enforced it makes sharia law sound like a free ride.

The idea of personal liberty is just new age, postmodern claptrap. Freedom is slavery.

Thanks to Andrew Sullivan at the Daily Dish for the tip.

Let's post the Golden Rule

Judge Moore & Co. are hot to post the 10 Commandments in government venues in order to perpetuate the falsehood that they have the force of law. I have yet to hear of a Christianist who wants to post the Sermon on the Mount. Certainly I have never heard of a movement to post The Golden Rule.

This article is a breath of Fresh Air:
Let's post the Golden Rule

Before you go embracing my idea, understand: The Golden Rule is contrary to most teachings in most Christian churches and certainly in politics and business.

. . .

The Golden Rule is so simple that it can be learned in less than a minute. The major problem is that, like the Ten Commandments, it is not practiced in real life by the vast majority of people.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you? What kind of Commie nonsense is that?

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

Respect and Tolerance Defeated

This is from a little email newsletter that I get: WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 12 May 06 Washington, DC

1. PRAY FOR CONGRESS: IN EVERY WAR, BOTH SIDES PRAY FOR VICTORY.
Yesterday, the House passed a $513B defense authorization bill.
The bill included language allowing military chaplains to pray
"according to the dictates of the chaplain's own conscience."
Current rules call for nonsectarian prayers, or a moment of
silence, at mandatory public gatherings. Focus on the Family,
The Christian Coalition, and other evangelical Christian groups
had urged the President to issue an executive order guaranteeing
the right of chaplains to pray in the name of Jesus. When Bush
failed to act, Republicans on Armed Services added the provision
to the defense authorization bill. An amendment offered in
committee by Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY), calling on chaplains to
show "sensitivity, respect and tolerance for all faiths," was
defeated on a party-line vote. Rules did not allow floor debate.

So much for respecting the religious sensibilities of our troops.

Christian Terrorists

I found this over at the Daily Kos.

It seems that a young woman by the name of Ava Lowery, a 15-year-old from Alabama has been getting death threats for a powerful video she produced called "WWJD" (What Would Jesus Do), a powerful animation that features a soundtrack of a child singing "Jesus loves me, this I know" while one picture after another of a wounded, bloody, or screaming Iraqi child fills the screen. The video ends with quotations from Beatitudes, including, "Blessed are they who mourn" and "Blessed are the meek" and "Blessed are the merciful" and "Blessed are the peacemakers."

Lowery began producing her own videos for her web site in July of 2005 and has thus far made 70 of them. Not everyone agrees with her, as you might figure, especially the terrorist wing of the Republican party. You see, Ava has been receiving vile death threats.
more...

Don't click on the link unless you have a strong stomach for bad language. It's not just the extreme violence against a 15 year old girl that is so vile. It's the sick, twisted sexual threats that are so appalling.

The Christianist rationalization is that "real Christians wouldn't behave like that." They seem to believe that you aren't a Christian while you do bad things and then become a Christian again when you stop. It's like being a vegetarian except at meal time.

I've never been able to find out if right wingers get these kinds of ugly threats from left-wingers. The fact that I've had such difficulty finding it out probably means the answer is "no."

Christianism

Andrew Sullivan over at the Daily Dish has been fielding feedback on his recent essay "The Problem with Christianism" which I heartily recommend.

In one of his feedback letters I found this paragraph which I could have written myself:

Moreover, the Christianists keep moving the goalposts so far to the right that the distinction between Christians and Christianists is far more persuasive now than in even the recent past. Leading theocon Robert P. George, for example, believes not just that all abortion, including that caused by rape and incest, should be illegal; he believes that a microscopic zygote is morally indistinguishable from a fully-grown adult. Many Christianists therefore now believe that many forms of contraception are the moral equivalent of abortion; and many leading Christianists are moving fast toward banning contraception altogether. (For an important glimpse into the growing radicalism of Christianism on the question of contraception, check out this essay in the New York Times Magazine). Rick Santorum supports laws that would allow the cops to enter a gay couple's bedroom and arrest them for private, adult, consensual sex; Robert George has no problem in theory with making non-procreative sex illegal (his sole problem is that it would be hard to police such a law). Other Christianists are opposing an HPV vaccine that could prevent 90 percent of cervical cancer in women, because it might lower the risks of extra-marital sex. They seek not merely to oppose marriage rights for gay couples - but to strip gay couples of all rights in the federal constitution. In Virginia, Christianists have made even private legal contracts between two members of the same gender illegal. They support keeping people in persistent vegetative states alive indefinitely through feeding tubes - for decades, if necessary - even if the individual herself has a living will begging to be allowed to die in peace. They have contempt for federalism, believing that the federal government should over-ride state laws and even families in enforcing religious dogma. Remember Terri Schiavo?

Christianists find the concept of personal liberty to be blasphemy. Not just wrong, but a sin against God.

There is a Christianist teaching that all human beings are evil and can only be saved by God. If all human beings are evil then they can safely be treated as if they were evil. If YOU are saved by God already, that makes any kind of oppression you can think of just an act of service to God. Neat, huh? If you are one of God's saved people then you are without limits.

Few people want to do bad things. They want to get along and have everyone like them. That makes them careful with the feelings of others and they are happy to extend rights to others because that means they have those rights themselves. It's a better deal than being bad to other people.

But some people still want to do bad things to others. They are addicted to power and control. The Christianist construct is perfectly tailor-made for such people and naturally they gravitate to it. A Christian who merely wants to live a Christ-like life will be attracted to the Presbyterian church or United Church of Christ. Someone who lusts for power over others will gravitate to Coral Ridge or Focus on the Family.

Frankly, the concept of personal liberty is absent from the Bible. But people who consider it to be important, have no problem deriving it from Christianity. It gets filed under Matthew 7:12.

It's All About Control

Andrew Sullivan over at the Daily Dish reports on new statistics regarding unintended pregnancy.

So the Catholic church's ban on all contraception (even if it would prevent AIDS) and the now-fashionable emphasis on abstinence in sex education may have contributed to more abortions in this country than would otherwise be the case. Once again, as in their opposition to an HPV vaccine, the pro-life movement turns out to risk being pro-death in practice. A comprehensive strategy to reduce abortions would not be obsessively focused on criminalizing it altogether, as the theocons want. It would center on a massive effort to get contraception out to sexually active women, especially the poor and black who may not be able to force their sexual partners to use condoms. It would provide Plan B over the counter, no questions asked. Then you need a much more ambitious adoption program, that includes all potential adopters, i.e. gay and lesbian parents as well. Many on the religious right would rather see abortion rates rise or stay stable than concede on these issues. Which reveals what really motivates them: a hostility to sexual freedom as much as a desire to protect life.

Trust me, the Christian Right has no desire at all to protect life. It is all about control. It doesn't matter what lies are told. It doesn't matter who is hurt or who dies. The ideology is paramount above everything else. They would cheerfully perform abortions themselves if it meant the promotion of their ideology. Their opposition to abortion is just eyewash intended to fool the gullible who can be persuaded to forgo personal liberty if they are shown a few crocodile tears. Weep for the "preborn" and let and let the Christianists run your life.

It's Not Going to Stop with Evolution

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/sunpub/bbrook/news/6_1_NA21_203_S1.htm

A right wing religionist objects to some textbooks adopted by a Chicago school district.

One parent who reads the textbooks and provides the board with input is also a board member: Jim Caulfield. In September, he took issue with a biology textbook that he said presented an agenda of contraception, promoted embryonic stem cell research and showed disdain for evolution non-adherents.

The board approved the book against Caulfield's recommendation. But officials did approve a policy he proposed that now puts any teaching materials containing content covered in the sex education component of health classes under greater scrutiny.

But on April 17, Caulfield disapproved of the district's choice of textbooks for an Advanced Placement world history course because it cast Christians in a bad light in some instances.

He also voiced concerns about Advanced Placement environmental science textbooks that present opposing views of controversial environmental issues.

Fortunately this guy doesn't have any power in the situation and textbooks are getting approved even if they do show accurate information about evolution, sex education and history. But this little incident provides a very nice example of the right wing religious agenda. They routinely try to suppress or ban literature reading lists for various blue-nosed and political reasons. Biology, in their book, is right out of the question. It's not going to stop with evolution and the works of Tony Morrison and Maya Angelou. They dream of the day public schools will be required to teach creationist history, creationist sociology, creationist geology and creationist physics along with creationist biology and creationist reading lists in public schools.

Who are the Dominionists?

Ed Brayton over atDispatches from the Culture Wars has a thoughtful article about theocracy. He writes in response to a Joe Carter essay: http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/002939.html

Here's an excerpt. It's well worth reading the whole thing.

So who are the theocrats? They are people who hold to a position called, variously, Christian reconstructionism, dominionism (aka dominion theology), or theonomy. Generally speaking, they are post-millenial in their eschatology, though not always. They divide the Old Testament law into two types, moral and ceremonial. Ceremonial law, they argue, was made obsolete by Christ's coming to earth, but moral law they view as applicable in all times and all places. Thus, they would institute the Mosaic moral law as the civil and criminal law in the US and around the world, unless such law was explicitly overturned in the New Testament.

The leaders of this movement include: Greg Bahnsen (though he is now dead, he remains enormously influential in Calvinist circles in particular); Andrew Sandlin, head of the National Reform Association; Gary North of the Institute for Christian Economics; Gary DeMar, head of American Vision; RJ Rushdoony of the Chalcedon Foundation (in many ways, the founding father of reconstructionism); John Lofton, Howard Phillips and the Constitution Party leadership; and Howard Ahmanson, a billionaire philanthropist whose money funds a wide range of religious right organizations. As we will see, these are not obscure men; they are deeply involved in religious right groups across the nation and prominent in politics as well.

One of the primary religious right groups that few have heard of is the Council for National Policy. The CNP acts as a sort of central steering committee for other religious right organizations. Founded by Tim LaHaye, who also co-founded the Moral Majority with Jerry Falwell and Paul Weyrich, the CNP's behind-the-scenes influence among the religious right can hardly be overstated. To give you an example of how this all integrates with politics, consider that Weyrich is also the co-founder of the Heritage Foundation and the Free Congress Foundation.

The list of members of the CNP reads like a Who's Who of conservatives, especially religious conservatives, from Jesse Helms to Jack Abramoff to Ollie North to Pat Robertson. But it also includes a large number of reconstructionists. The CNP Board of Governors and executive committes have included Howard Ahmanson (also a major funder of the Discovery Institute), Howard Phillips, Weyrich and many others with close ties to theocracy movements.

Some of these men are also high officials in the Republican Party itself. David Barton, who has very close ties to reconstructionism, is the vice chair of the Texas Republican Party and was a key advisor to the 2004 Bush campaign. Many others, including DeMar, are regular guests on conservative talk shows like Hannity and Colmes, or write columns for influential conservative outlets. So while it may be unfair to consider most religious right folks as theocrats, they at least make common cause with them often.