Showing posts with label Christian fundamentalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christian fundamentalism. Show all posts

Friday, September 17, 2010

Pope Benedict XVI goes to war with 'atheist extremism'.

It's so unusual to have a German come to Britain to lecture us on the lessons to be learned from the Second World War, but Benedict XVI has wasted no time in getting straight to the point of his visit by condemning "atheist extremism" and "aggressive secularism", and even going as far as to tie atheism to Nazism.

"Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live," he said.
So that's what the Nazis were about. I thought they were for a form of ultra-nationalism, that they suffered from the delusion that they represented the master race, but Benedict seems to take a very different lesson from history.

The atheist tyrannies of the 20th century did kill millions of people, many of them for their Christian beliefs. For Benedict, that is one of the main lessons of modern history. He seems never to have appreciated the horrors of Spanish-speaking and notionally Catholic fascisms in the same visceral way. The restoration of decent government in Germany was accomplished in his lifetime by Christian Democrat politicians; the fall of the Berlin Wall might not have happened so quickly without the pressure exerted by Pope John Paul II.

The slow civilising of the barbarians after the fall of the Roman empire was, he believes, accomplished by the church: "Your forefathers' respect for truth and justice, for mercy and charity, come to you from a faith that remains a mighty force for good in your kingdom, to the great benefit of Christians and non-Christians alike."

For him, a nation that turns away from God entirely has nothing to keep it from treating people as disposable means, rather than ends in themselves. The liberal appeal to reason, to choice, and to human rights doesn't go far enough. He believes in all three, but he thinks they must be derived from something else. That something else was once generally understood to be Christianity. If that is no longer true, Benedict believes we are all shrunken and impoverished: "Let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a 'reductive vision of the person and his destiny'."

Benedict sees secularism itself as the problem, and thinks that history backs his extraordinary reading of events. Unsurprisingly, there has been a backlash.

His pronouncements brought immediate condemnation from humanists and secularists, and some other religious groups. Terry Sanderson, the president of the National Secular Society, said the pope had hardly waited to get off the plane before attacking secularism.

He added: "The British people have embraced a secular identity of their own free will, perhaps as a reaction to the ultra-conservatism of this recent papacy and the extremism that has been manifested by some forms of Islam. The secular identity of the British people is not something to criticise, but to celebrate."

At a time when the United States is enduring a war on terror, there are many ways to define "extremism", but I think most of us would imagine "extremism" is currently a religious phenomenon rather than a plague brought about by secularists. But that's not how Benedict sees it.

70,000 people attended the mass Benedict XVI gave in Glasgow. In the eighties, some 300,000 attended a mass which John Paul II gave at the exact same location.

That hardly suggests that his ultra-conservatism is winning people over to his cause.

Click here for full article.

Friday, September 10, 2010

Bonfire of one man's vanity.



This story gets stranger by the day.

Pastor Terry Jones now states that he will not go ahead with his Burn a Qur'an Day, because he has been promised that the Park 51 mosque will be moved to another location. And then the people at Park 51 state that there has never been any such promise given to Jones and that they have no intention of ever moving the mosque.

So, Jones now says that he has not cancelled his planned Burn a Qur'an Day, but that he has merely suspended it.

Jones also claimed he was planning to fly to New York to discuss the proposed cultural centre's new location with the New York imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.

But the imam, in a statement issued last night, said he had not spoken to Jones.


"I am glad that Pastor Jones has decided not to burn any Qur'ans. However, I have not spoken to Pastor Jones," he said. "I am surprised by their announcement. We are not going to toy with our religion or any other. Nor are we going to barter."


There was a collective sigh of relief worldwide as Jones announced at a press conference that he was dropping his plan to set fire to 20 copies of the Qur'an. The burning had been planned to
coincide with the ninth anniversary tomorrow of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington.
Perhaps Jones is simply looking for a face saving way to back out of this, by claiming to have a deal for the mosque to be moved. For, as I argued yesterday, there is simply no equivalence between the two events.

But we should be thankful that, for whatever reason, this strange little man is not going to go ahead with his act of incitement.

UPDATE:



Here's how Palin and Boehner led him by the hand to make this connection.

Click here for full article.

Wednesday, September 08, 2010

US church defiant despite condemnation of Koran burning.

I have spoken before about Pastor Terry Jones and his plans to celebrate a Burn a Koran Day on the anniversary of 9-11.

Protest at what he is planning to do has reached levels which even this self promoting charlatan could never have foreseen.

The top US commander in Afghanistan warned troops' lives would be in danger if the Dove World Outreach Center in Florida went ahead.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the church's plan was "disrespectful and disgraceful".

Muslim countries and Nato have also hit out at the move.

And the US Attorney General, Eric Holder, called the idea "idiotic and dangerous".

The notion that the US is actually at war with Islam must be music to bin Laden's ears. This is what he has been saying since the war on terror began. And now, he has Pastor Jones and the mobs objecting to the Park 51 mosque all sending that message to the Muslim world, all repeating the very thing which he hopes will aid him in his recruiting drive for al Qaeda.

I'm sure that's not what they have in mind with their protests, but when General Petraeus warns that you are risking causing problems, "not just in Kabul, but everywhere in the world", one would hope that Jones and others would listen and, perhaps, desist from such an act of utter lunacy.

"It is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems," he said in a statement.

The Vatican, the Obama administration and Nato have also expressed concern over the plan.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said on Tuesday that "any type of activity like that that puts our troops in harm's way would be a concern".

Now, obviously Jones is in a different league from the people protesting the Park 51 mosque, but they are both sending the same dangerous message.

They are both implying that the war on terror is no longer simply a war against al Qaeda, it is now a war against Islam.

An interfaith group of evangelical, Roman Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim leaders meeting in Washington on Tuesday condemned the proposals as a violation of American values and the Bible.

"I have heard many Muslim Americans say they have never felt this anxious or this insecure in America since directly after 11 September," said Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America.

The vilification of one group of people based simply on their faith already has horrendous historical precedents, which only makes what Pastor Jones and his church are planning to do all the more disgusting.

But he is only the most extreme face of this Muslim bashing trend currently sweeping the United States. Palin and Gingrich, by calling on "Peace-seeking Muslims" to prove that they are "Peace seeking" by giving up their First Amendment rights, are on a very similar path.

Jones is simply sending the very same message in a much more obvious way. Islam is the enemy and the rules which apply to all Americans must be suspended when it comes to Muslims. Or rather, they should voluntarily give up their rights in order to show that they are not extremist.

It's shameful.

UPDATE:



Howard Dean on why Palin, Gingrich etc., aren't backing Petraeus's call for this obscene act to be cancelled.
"We thought that Fox worked for the Republican Party, now we know that Fox really runs the Republican Party"
Click here for full article.

Thursday, August 12, 2010

NYT On The So-Called Ground Zero Mosque.

This New York Times piece on the protests regarding the Ground Zero mosque is simply remarkable.

Adam Serwer skilfully takes it apart:

The Times report, however, descends into a kind of "liberal" media known-nothingism when it comes to how this became a controversy, suggesting that " a combination of arguable naïveté, public-relations missteps and a national political climate in which perhaps no preparation could have headed off controversy." This is a remarkable formula that manages to place the blame everywhere except where it belongs -- on a right-wing smear machine that went into overdrive in an effort to portray Rauf and Khan as terrorist sympathizers, an experience no one outside of contemporary partisan politics could have possibly been prepared for. The conservative media lied about the location of the project, they lied about Rauf's background, they lied about the project's funding, they lied about when the project would be built, and they lied about Rauf's political beliefs. And it would have been one thing if it had just been a small group of people lying, but they had an entire cable news station to lie for them, and politicians who were willing to amplify their smears. This controversy isn't about the "political climate." It's the fruit of a conscious, deliberate, and sustained effort.

I'm sure that the intensity of emotion shared by some of the projects' opponents are sincere. But where they hold Muslims collectively responsible for the actions of a few extremists, they are mistaken, and where their feelings are the result of falsehoods spread by the conservative media, they are misguided, and where they believe the First Amendment does not extend to American Muslims, they are simply wrong.

Why do so called "liberal" newspapers embrace so much right wing bullshit and feel the need to lay out their case as if it has validity? Why was it the responsibility of the people proposing building the mosque - not to build bridges with Christian and Jewish groups, which they did - but to negotiate what they were proposing with "likely opponents"?

Does the New York Times seriously believe that one can ever find common ground with the Palin's and the other right wing loons noisily arguing that religious freedoms should not extend to the Islamic community?

Their position is an extremist one. The notion that the builders of the mosque should have consulted them is simply preposterous.

Although the Times do leave themselves a get out clause by stating "perhaps no preparation could have headed off controversy", nevertheless the article does indulge in what Serwer rightly sees as '"liberal" media known-nothingism", which seeks to avoid attaching the blame where it rightly belongs.

It's the exact same thing which their article on Abbas does.

Click here for full article.

Monday, August 09, 2010

Faith and Foolishness: When Religious Beliefs Become Dangerous.

Every two years the National Science Foundation produces a report, Science and Engineering Indicators, designed to probe the public’s understanding of science concepts.

And what we find is that Americans who are religious are less willing to accept evolution and the big bang as factual than adults in other industrial countries.

When presented with the statement “human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals,” just 45 percent of respondents indicated “true.” Compare this figure with the affirmative percentages in Japan (78), Europe (70), China (69) and South Korea (64). Only 33 percent of Americans agreed that “the universe began with a big explosion.”

Consider the results of a 2009 Pew Survey: 31 percent of U.S. adults believe “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.” (So much for dogs, horses or H1N1 flu.) The survey’s most enlightening aspect was its categorization of responses by levels of religious activity, which suggests that the most devout are on average least willing to accept the evidence of reality. White evangelical Protestants have the highest denial rate (55 percent), closely followed by the group across all religions who attend services on average at least once a week (49 percent).
It used to be that religions tried to interpret new scientific findings as somehow showing evidence of the work of God, but we are now finding that science itself - facts - are simply being disregarded and ignored if they do not fit in with a persons belief system.

That can't be healthy. How can there be a reasonable debate on any subject if a proportion of the public decide that the facts will be what they believe them to be rather than what they are?

Click here for full article.

Thursday, July 08, 2010

Head Of ‘World’s Largest Interactive Christian Website’ Calls Out Beck’s ‘Deception’ About His Mormonism.

I find it amusing when religious groups call each other "cults", but here Glenn Beck is being reprimanded for pretending that he is a Christian when, in actual fact, he is a Mormon.

Keller states, “Beck likes to call out people for their lies and deception, yet he portrays himself daily as a Christian. The fact is, the beliefs of the satanic Mormon cult are totally inconsistent with Biblical Christianity. He uses the words “god” and “jesus,” yet the god and jesus of the Mormon cult are NOT the God and Jesus of the Bible!” [...]

Keller concludes, “I could care less what Beck chooses to believe, but I do care that he lies to people by stating he is a Christian when a person who believes in the lies of the Mormon cult is no more a Christian than a Muslim is.
I suppose this matters a great deal to these people, it certainly matters enough to Beck that he seeks to obscure his actual religion and talk about God only in the broadest terms.

Nor is this the first time that Beck's religion has caused controversy amongst religious conservatives. Many objected when Beck was invited to give the commencement at the Baptist-run Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va.
Yet if conservative Christians share Beck's political and social views, many of them also remain extremely suspicious of Beck's Mormon faith. Beck became a Mormon as an adult and credits his faith with turning his life around. But evangelicals generally consider Mormonism a "cult" and not Christian.

As a result, Beck's appearance at Liberty has generated an unusual amount of public infighting among evangelicals -- and creating the kind of controversy that is often associated with Catholic colleges, such as Notre Dame experienced last year when President Obama was invited to be the commencement speaker.


Ryan Begue, a Florida pastor who is in this year's graduating class from Liberty's theological seminary, said he was "shocked and disappointed" at Falwell's invitation to Beck.


"It seems that the leadership's decision in this matter gives the impression that it is more committed to conservatism than the Gospel," Begue wrote in the
Florida Baptist Witness. "I have no beef with Glenn Beck as a person, but I certainly do with his religious beliefs. Why does Liberty not invite a Christian?"
Where Begue gets it spot on is when he states that Liberty are "more committed to conservatism than the Gospel". That's certainly the impression that I would take from Beck's invitation.

And, if Beck will mislead people on the subject of his religion, is there anything he won't be misleading about?

Click here for full article.

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Cameron And The American Right.



Chris Matthews finds Rush Limbaugh hysterically funny whilst Andrew Sullivan's readers think David Cameron is showing the Republicans the way forward.

I think it's going to be really fascinating to see how Southern Conservatives respond to David Cameron. Southern Conservatives worship C.S. Lewis and Winston Churchill (I can say this because growing up in the South you have no idea how many conservative boomer age men I have heard quoting Lewis and Churchill to me). So how are they going to respond now when you have this conservative British Prime Minister who talks about fighting a war on poverty, who talks about his faith in God as going "in and out," who is comfortable with gay people, who is comfortable with evolution?

The American Right has to know that Cameron's way is the future of conservatism.
This cocoon they have constructed for themselves against the modern world cannot survive much longer. When we have Republican politicians in the South quoting David Cameron instead of Churchill, that is when we are going to have achieved real progress in this country.
I have long argued that there is almost no comparison between British Conservatives and American Republicans.

Cameron is arguing for liberal Conservatism because the Tory message preached by previous Conservative governments is now considered toxic over here. He certainly would never get away with putting forward the kind of nonsense regularly served up by Republicans:
There simply is no British equivalent to the Republican party, unless one reaches towards the BNP and other extremists. The Tories might sound like them on matters like tax cuts and deregulation, but when it comes to social policy they simply wouldn't dare make the arguments that are regularly made by the American right wing.

Any British politician who proposed
teaching creationism in schools would instantly be regarded as on the outer fringes of intelligent debate, but Bush argued for that very thing and was seen as playing to the base, rather than as someone who had blatantly lost his mind.

The notion that David Cameron could hope to get elected by opposing abortion is silly on it's face, and yet the Republicans put forward Sarah Palin as a candidate for Vice President precisely because
she held such views.
The main difference between both of our cultures is that religion isn't really involved in British politics, which was made clear by the fact that Tony Blair had to play down his religious beliefs, as shown when Alastair Campbell famously remarked, "We don't do God."

The Republicans on the other hand play shamelessly into the hands of Christian fundamentalists.

Cameron does not have to do this, which is why I think any lessons the Republicans might learn from Cameron would involve first having to divorce themselves from their strongest supporters.

And I don't see that happening any time soon.

Sunday, October 11, 2009

Obama Says He Will End 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Policy.

Barack Obama has promised to end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy instituted by Bill Clinton in which gay people are allowed to serve in the military as long as they are circumspect about their sexuality.

It was always a ludicrous halfway house and Obama, without giving any specific timetable, has promised that the practice will end.

He acknowledged to a cheering crowd that some policy changes he promised on the campaign trail are not coming as quickly as they expected.

"I will end 'don't ask-don't tell,'" Obama said to a standing ovation from the crowd of about 3,000 at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay civil rights advocacy group.

The law was passed by Congress in 1993 and signed by President Bill Clinton, who also promised to repeal the ban on homosexuals in the military but was blunted by opposition in the military and Congress. Obama said he's working with Pentagon and congressional leaders on ending the policy.

"We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve the country," Obama said. "We should be celebrating their willingness to step forward and show such courage ... especially when we are fighting two wars."

Obama said it was no secret "our progress may be taking longer than we like." He followed this by asking supporters to trust his administration's course.

"I appreciate that many of you don't believe progress has come fast enough," Obama said. "Do not doubt the direction we are heading and the destination we will reach."

Even before Obama stood up to make this speech Bill Maher had recommended that Obama rescind "don't ask, don't tell" and he laid out his reasons:
One, because it's the right thing to do and two, because it will throw the conservative base into such a frenzied, pants-shitting panic that they'll drop all that BS about death panels and socialism and let us all get some actual work done.
Do it because it'll make Rush Limbaugh explode like a bag full of meat dropped from a helicopter. Do it because it'll make Sarah Palin go rogue in her pants.
So why does Bill think that rescinding "don't ask, don't tell" will end the right wing bases current obsession with socialism?
Because here's the thing about today's conservatives: they're not bright. They can't keep a lot of ideas in their head at once. And by "a lot" I mean "two." If we can get them all worked up about fighting the gay menace, it will siphon away all that crazy, right wing, town-hall energy from all the other big issues they've been fighting. The tea-baggers don't know what the word "socialism" means. But they do know what the word "gay" means, because their hairdresser explained it to them once, and they don't like it. They will be drawn to it like a moth to a flamer. Bush was practically re-elected on a promise to keep boys from kissing. Which is ridiculous, because if you want to stop gays from having sex, wouldn't you let them get married?
If we thought that they went mental when the subject was "socialism", watch as they practically spontaneously combust when the subject changes to gays serving in the military.

The great thing about the American right wing is that guys like Maher can send them up, and yet nothing which he says will not come to pass.

They will become seriously deranged over this.

But that's all part of Maher's master plan:
But while Glenn is busy explaining to his viewers that when he cries it's a butch thing, Obama and the Democrats can sweep in under the gaydar and pass real health care and real climate change bills. This is how we fight fire with Fire Island.
Maher makes me laugh because he understands the American right wing so well. He knows just how loopy they are. As I say, he's being very, very funny, but things will play out roughly as he is stating.

The loons on the right really are that predictable.

Click title for full article.

Wednesday, October 07, 2009

And Jesus said "Love thy neighbor, unless your neighbor is black, or gay, or a Democrat": Conservapedia works on ConservaBible.

This defies belief. Some right wingers want to produce a new version of the bible which scrubs it of it's "liberal bias".
How will these boneheads re-write these statements (courtesy of Jesus is a Liberal)?:
  • Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. [Matthew 5:9]
  • Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. [Matthew 5:39]
  • I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despite-fully use you, and persecute you; [Matthew 5:44]
  • If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to cast a stone at her. [John 8:7]
  • Do not judge, lest you too be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. [Matthew 7:1 & 2.]
  • Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy [Matthew 5:7]
  • But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. [Matthew 6:15]
  • Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions. [Luke 12.15.] Truly, I say unto you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. [Matthew 19:23]
  • You cannot serve both God and Money. [Matthew 6:24.]
  • Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. [Matthew 22:21]
  • Love your neighbor as yourself. .[Matthew 22:39]
  • So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you. [Matthew 7:12.]
  • If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. [Matthew 19:21]
  • But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just. [Luke 14:13&14.]
These morons love the bible, their only problem is with all that "liberal" rubbish which Jesus came out with.

Monday, October 05, 2009

Rachel Maddow: The Right Needs to Answer for What's Happened to Conservatism.



It's simply hysterical to listen to Mike Murphy deride criticism of the fact that Palin has chosen a white supremacist to co-author her book as "guilt by association".

Em, Reverend Wright? Bill Ayers? I mean, is this guy for real?

And Murphy's notion, that the insane wing of the Republican party don't carry the sway which the media assumes, is simply deceitful, as Maddow points out:

MURPHY: Yeah. No, no, look, she has a constituency. She'll never be the nominee, I totally agree with David. I agree with Steve Schmidt, it would be actually a disaster if she was the nominee. I do wish my friend Steve felt that a year ago when a lot of people were asking John McCain to put her on the ticket. But the truth is--and I'm going to agree with David here, too--the noisiest parts of kind of the conservative media machine have far less influence than the mainstream media machine that covers the Republican world thinks they do. These radio guys can't deliver a pizza, let alone a nomination.
What planet is Murphy on? Sarah Palin was made the Republican party Vice Presidential nominee precisely to assuage the nutter wing of that party. How can he seriously claim that they have no sway when McCain was forced to put her a 72 year old heartbeat away from the nuclear codes because he was not considered right wing enough by that very section of the party?

As Maddow rightly points out here, Sarah Palin didn't achieve her current position in the Republican hierarchy on her own: she was appointed by McCain. And he did so to bring on board the very wing of the Republican movement which Murphy is arguing have less power than we all assume.

Hat tip to Crooks and Liars.

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Crazy Conservatives At Take Back America Conference.



Cenk looks at the latest Take Back America conference, which managed it's best ever attendance - a whopping 600 people - who embraced the conference message that Obama is both a fascist and a Marxist. Obviously we are in the Glenn Beck school of political affiliation here, where such terms become interchangeable.

What's scary here is how many Republicans attended this tiny, unhinged convention: Huckabee, Bachmann, Trent Franks. The panel discussing Obama's Marxism, for example, was led by former Lt. Gen William G. Boykin, the man whose religious fervour became legendary:

  • June, 2003: "I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol."[1]
  • Well, is he [bin Laden] the enemy? Next slide. Or is this man [Saddam] the enemy? The enemy is none of these people I have showed you here. The enemy is a spiritual enemy. He’s called the principality of darkness. The enemy is a guy called Satan.”
  • They’re after us because we’re a Christian nation.
  • Why is this man in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him. Why is he there? And I tell you this morning that he’s in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this.
And how did this former General suggest that the US could best protect itself from further terrorist attack? Believe it or not, his suggestion was "prayer". That's right, not weapons, not intelligence, but "prayer" is what Boykin told these nutters is the best way to keep the US safe.

At this same conference we had Huckabee telling everyone that the US had to leave the UN. Others told of how the Sodomites were taking over the country and of Obama's hatred of white people.

This group is almost a textbook definition of the lunatic fringe. And yet so many Republicans flocked to this tiny gathering of crazy folk to assure them that they speak their language. As Cenk says, this is simply embarrassing. These insane people are who the Republicans feel are now their base.

UPDATE:



Trent Franks, at the same convention, says that Obama is "an enemy of humanity".

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Huckabee in St. Louis: Get America Out of the U.N.



Mike Huckabee has told a crowd at the “How To Take Back America” conference, that:

“It’s time to get a jackhammer and to simply chip off that part of New York City,” said Huckabee, “and let it float into the East River, never to be seen again!” That remark got him a standing ovation, and Huckabee went on to suggest de-funding the U.N. entirely.

“It’s time to say enough of the American taxpayer’s dollar being spent on something that may have been a noble idea, but has become a disgrace!” said Huckabee. “It has become the international equivalent of ACORN and it’s time to say enough!”
He talked of the ridiculous speeches made by many of the speakers, although I am sure he would have loved the speech which I regarded as the most hyperbolic of any given.

The truth, of course, is that Huckabee loathes the UN because he fears - apart from the fact that such an organisation runs contrary to his belief in American exceptionalism - that the UN would love to impose a two state solution on the Israel/Palestine dispute, when Huckabee has explicitly come out against a two state solution.

This is because Huckabee is a believer in the end times, when the world will come to an end and God will reappear. This fantastical situation can only come into being as long as the Palestinians are made to disappear from what Huckabee and others regard as Eretz Israel. To that end, he has already called for the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.

All of this should be borne in mind when one listens to Huckabee denouncing the UN.

He's waiting for the second coming and he's worried that the UN might get in the way of it....

Friday, September 18, 2009

Frank Schaeffer: The GOP's Evangelical Subculture is a Fifth Column of Insanity.



Frank Schaeffer sums up the current madness which afflicts the Republican party better than anyone else on Earth, partly because he was one of the people behind the movement which formed it, before he saw the light. And, like all converts, he speaks with a clarity that other people shy away from when describing them as they actually are.

Maddow: I do not know what possessed this polling firm to ask whether or not that people think the President is the anti-Christ, but they did. Does the response rate among conservatives surprise you? More than one in three saying yes or they don’t know.

Schaeffer: Well I was a child when President Kennedy was assassinated and my mother thought that because he died of a head wound foretold in scriptures of the anti-Christ he would be resurrected as the anti-Christ. She thought this might be a possibility. So those of us who come from the evangelical subculture have been weaned with our mother’s milk on a changing case list of villains. It might be Kennedy to one generation, Obama to the next.

But the larger point this brings up is that the mainstream - not just media - but culture, doesn’t sufficiently take stock of the fact that within our culture we have a subculture which is literally a fifth column of insanity that is bred from birth, through home school, Christian school, evangelical college, whatever to reject facts as a matter of faith.


And so this substitute for authentic historic Christianity, and I may add as a little caveat here, I’m a church-going Christian, really brings up the question. Can Christianity be rescued from Christians? And that’s an open question. And when you see a bunch of people going around thinking that our President if the anti-Christ you have to draw one of two conclusions.


Either these are racists looking for any excuse to level the next accusation or they’re beyond crazy. And I think beyond crazy is a better explanation and that evangelical subculture has rotted the brain of the United States of America. We have a big slice of our population waiting for Jesus to come back. They look forward to Armageddon. Good news is bad news to them. We talk about the Left Behind series of books that I talk about in my book Crazy for God.


What we’re really talking about is a group of people are resentful because they know they’ve been left behind by modernity, by science, by education, by art, by literature—the rest of us are getting on with our lives. These people are standing on a hill top waiting for the end and this is a dangerous group of people to have as neighbors. And they’re our national neighbors. And this is the source of all these insanities that we see leveled at the President. One way or the other they go back to this little evangelical subculture. It’s a disaster.

Put simply, the Republicans have tied their fortunes to a bunch of crazies. For a while, during the administrations of Nixon and Reagan, this helped them electorally, but, during the administration of Bush it all started to unravel.

The problem being that one of their own was actually in the White House, starting wars because God told him to and actually asking other world leaders to help him fight Gog and Magog.

As Schaeffer rightly points out, the rest of us simply don't understand just how much these people have been raised to reject facts as a matter of faith. And yet, the Republican party have tied themselves to the views of the village idiot.
The Republican party is totally enthralled to this subculture. To the extent that there is no Republican party. There is a fundamentalist subculture which has become a cult. It's fed red meat by buffoons like Rush Limbaugh , Glenn Beck and other people who are just not terribly bright themselves and they are talking to even stupider people. That's where we are at. That's where all this is coming from and it's becoming circular, it's becoming a joke. Unfortunately, a dangerous joke because every once in a while one of these loony tunes brings guns to public meetings; who knows what they do next?
Obama and the Democrats need to stop trying to appease these people. Simply ignore them and move on as one can't appease people who think the way they do. There is no way to rationalise with someone who is waiting for the end times.

The Republican party deserve to be eaten alive by the insane tiger which they have spent the last thirty years riding.

For example, Alexander Zaitchik has just published a devastating account of the man who helped to form Glenn Beck's mindset. I would challenge anyone to read it and come to the conclusion that anyone coming from such a mindset would ever respond to reasonable arguments.

They're fruitcakes. And Schaeffer has done well to say so loudly.

Hat tip to Crooks and Liars.

Monday, September 14, 2009

Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

There is a film which has been distributed all across the world and yet the American market remains closed to it, because it's subject matter is deemed "too controversial". And the shockingly controversial subject matter: Charles Darwin.

Apparently even showing the film is the US would be too much for the religious rights sensibilities.

The film was chosen to open the Toronto Film Festival and has its British premiere on Sunday. It has been sold in almost every territory around the world, from Australia to Scandinavia.

However, US distributors have resolutely passed on a film which will prove hugely divisive in a country where, according to a Gallup poll conducted in February, only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.

Movieguide.org, an influential site which reviews films from a Christian perspective, described Darwin as the father of eugenics and denounced him as "a racist, a bigot and an 1800s naturalist whose legacy is mass murder". His "half-baked theory" directly influenced Adolf Hitler and led to "atrocities, crimes against humanity, cloning and genetic engineering", the site stated.

The film has sparked fierce debate on US Christian websites, with a typical comment dismissing evolution as "a silly theory with a serious lack of evidence to support it despite over a century of trying".
Only 39% of Americans believe in the theory of evolution? I do sometimes wonder how the US - populated in a large part by people who appear mentally unhinged - ever got to it's present position as world leader.

Jeremy Thomas, the Oscar-winning producer of Creation, said he was astonished that such attitudes exist 150 years after On The Origin of Species was published.

"That's what we're up against. In 2009. It's amazing," he said.

"The film has no distributor in America. It has got a deal everywhere else in the world but in the US, and it's because of what the film is about. People have been saying this is the best film they've seen all year, yet nobody in the US has picked it up.

"It is unbelievable to us that this is still a really hot potato in America. There's still a great belief that He made the world in six days. It's quite difficult for we in the UK to imagine religion in America. We live in a country which is no longer so religious. But in the US, outside of New York and LA, religion rules.

There are times when I look at the US and I simply don't get it. This is one of those times. They do say you should never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

This is the proof of that aphorism.

Thursday, August 06, 2009

Agog at Gog and Magog.

I suppose, once Bush left office it was bound to happen. Former foreign leaders feel free to talk far more candidly than they ever could whilst Bush was still in office. But, even so, this is jaw dropping:

President George W. Bush told French President Jacques Chirac in early 2003 that Iraq must be invaded to thwart Gog and Magog, the Bible’s satanic agents of the Apocalypse.

Now out of office, Chirac recounts that the American leader appealed to their “common faith” (Christianity) and told him: “Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East…. The biblical prophecies are being fulfilled…. This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins.”
And I swear I am not making any of this up.

What kind of mindset would one need to have to be able to ever seriously say that to another world leader? How deluded must he actually have been?
Chirac says he was boggled by Bush’s call and “wondered how someone could be so superficial and fanatical in their beliefs.”
This insane person was in charge of the free world. And this is how he chose to speak to other world leaders. He wasn't even embarrassed by this crap, he actually bloody meant it.

After the 2003 call, the puzzled French leader didn’t comply with Bush’s request. Instead, his staff asked Thomas Romer, a theologian at the University of Lausanne, to analyze the weird appeal. Dr. Romer explained that the Old Testament book of Ezekiel contains two chapters (38 and 39) in which God rages against Gog and Magog, sinister and mysterious forces menacing Israel. Jehovah vows to smite them savagely, to “turn thee back, and put hooks into thy jaws,” and slaughter them ruthlessly. In the New Testament, the mystical book of Revelation envisions Gog and Magog gathering nations for battle, “and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.”

In 2007, Dr. Romer recounted Bush’s strange behavior in Lausanne University’s review, Allez Savoir. A French-language Swiss newspaper, Le Matin Dimanche, printed a sarcastic account titled: “When President George W. Bush Saw the Prophesies of the Bible Coming to Pass.” France’s La Liberte likewise spoofed it under the headline “A Small Scoop on Bush, Chirac, God, Gog and Magog.” But other news media missed the amazing report.

They missed it my ass. Around about the time of the Iraq war the press in the US were terrified of being called unpatriotic by the loons of the right and the last thing they would have reported on was the fact that the man in the Oval Office was a religious zealot who believed that God was, literally, sending him on a mission to defeat Gog and Magog.

Subsequently, ex-President Chirac confirmed the nutty event in a long interview with French journalist Jean-Claude Maurice, who tells the tale in his new book, Si Vous le Répétez, Je Démentirai (If You Repeat it, I Will Deny), released in March by the publisher Plon.

Oddly, mainstream media are ignoring this alarming revelation that Bush may have been half-cracked when he started his Iraq war.
There's nothing odd about it. That's what the MSM do. That's why The New York Times can still only use the word torture when talking about other countries and speaks of "enhanced interrogation techniques which some allege amounts to torture" when talking of the actions which Bush gave permission for.
It’s awkward to say openly, but now-departed President Bush is a religious crackpot, an ex-drunk of small intellect who “got saved.” He never should have been entrusted with the power to start wars.
He never should have been president in the first place. Exactly as we saw with Sarah Palin; the lessons to be learned here are that the Republicans will name any nutcase as their leader if they think they can fool enough people into voting for them.

He had the name Bush and she was nutty enough to please the Christian Fundamentalists that the Republicans have come to increasingly rely upon to get power. And they hoped that, once they got elected, that they would be malleable enough to be persuaded to follow the neo-con agenda.

Indeed, their ignorance is what makes them appealing This is Richard Perle talking about the first time he met George W. Bush:
"The first time I met Bush 43 … two things became clear. One, he didn't know very much. The other was that he had the confidence to ask questions that revealed he didn't know very much."
In other words, he was an empty vessel; a blank canvass on which the neo-cons could paint. Exactly as they attempted to do with Sarah Palin as Bush was leaving office.

Which suddenly explains this creepiness:
Recently, GQ magazine revealed that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld attached warlike Bible verses and Iraq battle photos to war reports he hand-delivered to Bush. One declared: “Put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground.”
He was probably too dumb to even realise that he was being shamelessly manipulated. And, anyway, he had unfinished business with Gog and Magog to think about.

It really is terrifying to think that such a "superficial and fanatical" zealot ever had his hand on the nuclear button.

Hat tip to The Booman Tribune.

Click title for full article.

Monday, August 03, 2009

DID JESUS GIVE US THE NAME OF THE ANTICHRIST?



The way the right have reacted to the election of Obama has been jaw dropping. The refusal of some of them, even some in the mainstream US media, to believe that he is even an American has been amusing and shocking in almost equal measure.

But their nuttiness is now scaling new heights. Here we are asked to consider whether or not Jesus named the anti-Christ.

Hint: He did. The name he gave - after much textual contortion - was Baraq Bamah.

Every day these nutters reveal themselves to be more unhinged than the day before.

Of course, Obama is not the first person that they have identified in such a way. It seems every Democratic president carries the characteristics of Satan.

It really is the proof that one can cherry pick that book to say anything that you want.

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Teen pregnancy and disease rates rose sharply during Bush years, agency finds.

Sarah Palin's family alone are a testament to the fact that "abstinence only" plans simply don't work. Now it appears that the entire Bush presidency has delivered the exact same message.

In a report that will surprise few of Bush's critics on the issue, the Centres for Disease Control says years of falling rates of teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease infections under previous administrations were reversed or stalled in the Bush years. According to the CDC, birth rates among teenagers aged 15 or older had been in decline since 1991 but are up sharply in more than half of American states since 2005. The study also revealed that the number of teenage females with syphilis has risen by nearly half after a significant decrease while a two-decade fall in the gonorrhea infection rate is being reversed. The number of Aids cases in adolescent boys has nearly doubled.

The CDC says that southern states, where there is often the greatest emphasis on abstinence and religion, tend to have the highest rates of teenage pregnancy and STDs.

I don't expect facts to have any effect on the Christian fundamentalist view of this subject, which is why they can propose using Bristol Palin as an Ambassador for Abstinence. These people simply insist that their way is the best even when there is mountainous evidence to the contrary.

But facts are stubborn things. And the truth is that when it came to preventing teenage pregnancies and sexual diseases amongst adolescents, the Bush regime was an unmitigated failure.

Click title for full article.

Wednesday, May 06, 2009

Chris Matthews: "This Is Why People Don't Trust Republicans!"



Mike Pence starts out quite reasonably, making the case that Republicans should re-embrace fiscal conservatism, but when the subject widens to global warming and science Pence reveals that he is either (a) unwilling to state that he does not believe in creationism for fear of offending the Republican base or (b) that he is one of those nutters who completely dismisses the scientific method. Either way, as Matthews points out, it's hard to take these guys seriously on subjects like global warming whilst they appear to view science with such suspicion.

I imagine - and I'm guessing based simply on the way Pence came across here - that he knows fine well that creationism is a load of old baloney, but that the GOP has tied itself so firmly to the side of the Evangelicals that they simply cannot risk telling the truth.

So, otherwise intelligent people like Pence are forced to sit on national television and talk nonsense. It really does make you wonder how this party can ever hope to be re-elected.

Sunday, May 03, 2009

Why Are Frequent Churchgoers More Likely To Support Torture?



This finding only underlines my belief that Christians appear to be the people who most reject the teachings of Christ.

After all, He was all for "turning the other cheek" and many of the things which many Christians appear to fundamentally reject. They appear to take most of their beliefs from the Old Testament, rather than from the teachings of Christ.

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Obama Rejects Bush's War on Science.

I have already applauded Obama's decision to overturn Bush's ban on stem cell research; but yesterday, as he formally announced his decision in front of a group of eminent scientists, he took the matter even further and appeared, to me at least, to be finally driving his stake through the heart of Bush's war against science.

The president, speaking to an exuberant crowd gathered in the East Room of the White House, cast the decision as a clear departure from the Bush administration, often accused of using selective scientific findings to support its ideological views on climate change, health-care decisions, and other issues. Obama said that "promoting science isn't just about providing resources -- it's also about protecting free and open inquiry."

"It's about letting scientists like those who are here today do their jobs free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient -- especially when it's inconvenient," Obama said to applause.


It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."
And that, for me, is the heart of the matter. We do not decide what is true in advance and then try to prove it, we simply ask what the facts are and then attempt to draw a conclusion.

That is the major difference between the Bush regime and the regime of Barack Obama. Bush appeared, for purely ideological reasons, to have decided that certain things were true. And some of the things which he believed - like creationism or his belief that climate change was a myth - did not appear to be backed by any scientific facts.

Bush took part in an unprecedented politicization of science. And he did so, shamefully, to please his religious base.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) actually issued a report into the extent to which the Bush administration was manipulating and distorting the work of scientists.

"The Administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions," the scientist's letter warned, "placing people who are professionally unqualified in official posts; disbanding existing advisory committees; censoring and suppressing reports by the government's own scientists; and by simply not seeking independent scientific advice."

The UCS's report rigorously documents the equivalent of Bush's little shop of anti-enlightenment policy horrors, demonstrating how Bush has twisted facts and suppressed research to enact retrograde policies on such issues as climate change, mercury emissions and emergency contraception. An example: When the EPA discovered that Bush's Clear Skies Act would be "less effective" than a "bipartisan Senate clean air proposal" in guarding the air we breathe, the Administration simply suppressed the EPA study.

It's simply astonishing to me that, as we begin the 21st century, the US could have had a president who was manipulating science and distorting it's message so that it confirmed with his own narrow set of beliefs. Anywhere else in the western world his actions would have been the subject of derision and shame. But in the US, where the religious right are given an especial voice in determining the political landscape, he was seen as fighting a cause rather than engaging in flat Earth obstructionism.

I am delighted that Obama has announced an end to this idiocy, and am especially pleased that he has done so whilst so clearly pointing out the faults of his predecessor.